Ubiquitous annotation user experience

1,002 views

Published on

Research Seminar at the University of Portsmouth 13 February 2013

Ubiquitous annotation involves attaching digital information to physical objects and places. As applications of ubiquitous annotation rapidly evolve from static content delivery to dynamic, social, user-generated content, the user experience of discovering and accessing ubiquitous annotation services through static touchpoints needs to be reviewed. This talk will look at the impact of different technologies on the user experience of ubiquitous annotation and identify common usability issues with static service touchpoints. It will map out on-going research into dynamic touchpoints that combine service triggers with digital signage to enhance the user experience of ubiquitous annotation and describe a scenario of use in the cultural heritage domain.

Published in: Education
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,002
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
151
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Hello - My talk today will be about the user experience of ubiquitous annotation.
  • The talk is structured into four parts: - First, I’ll expand a bit on ubiquitous annotation: what it is, how it is being used and how the use context impacts on our user experience- Next, we’ll look at user experience issues in more detail, focusing mainly on 2D barcodes and RFID tags as service avatars After that I’ll talk about how I try to address these user experience issues in my research Finally we’ll look at a few use case scenarios and application areasThere also will be an opportunity at the end of the session to try out a prototype
  • So, what is Ubiquitous Annotation?Broadly speaking, ubiquitous annotation involves attaching digital information to physical objects and places. Hansen (2006) proposes a taxonomy for ubiquitous annotation based on the context in which annotations are experienced (on /off location) and the spatial relationship between object and annotation (attached / detached).
  • Attaching information to an object increases it's spatial deixis, i.e. it eliminates the need to describe the object itself and gives the information a context specific meaning (Hansen, 2006). This talk is in first place concerned with in-situ annotation attached to objects. However, unlike Hansen's binary distinction between attached and detached, I assume a continuum between these two conditions and focus on annotations that are either attached or close enough to the physical object to leverage the advantages of spatial deixis.
  • One fundamental challenge in ubiquitous annotation is anchoring information, which requires the unique identification of objects and places.Here are some common and less common identification techniques, ranging from barcodes and GPS to ultrasonic positioning and IR beacons.
  • I am going to focus only on the most common identification technologies here and briefly show how they have shaped user perspectives of ubiquitous annotation.In chronological order (of their mass-market adoption) these include barcodes, GPS, 2D barcodes and most recently NFC
  • Barcodes were introduced more widely as a product identification method on the 1970s. Suddenly every product had a barcode.The public experienced this mainly as spectators without any active involvement – and as a consequence there was a huge public backlash.Here’s a cover of MAD magazine hoping that “this issue jams every computer in the country”, and there were many conspiracy theories in circulation that saw barcodes as “the mark of the beast” with references to the old testament.
  • This backlash still holds today. The common barcode has – at least in some quarters - become a sign for all that is wrong with our rampant consumerism and free market society. This picture is from 2012 – 34 years after the MAD cover in the previous slide.
  • Next came GPS which allows us to pinpoint our location and identify places through GPS coordinates.While initially the highest quality GPS signal was reserved for military use, Bill Clinton opened the system up in 2000 which improved the precision of civilian GPS from 100 to 20 meters.Around the same time the market in car navigation systems exploded and suddenly everyone had access to this amazing technology.Unlike the product barcode, this was a technology that directly benefitted people in a very obvious way, and as a consequence GPS became very popular.
  • In fact is became so popular that today there is a huge market in secondary devices using the technology not only for car navigation but also for all kinds of outdoor sports.
  • Let’s move on now to 2D barcodes. There are a number of these around, the most common being QR codes and Semacodes.QR codes had been used in Japan for some years, but they became popular in Europe only a few years ago. Today, we see QR codes everywhere, on posters, in magazines, in shop windows. Many of these uses are not ubiquitous annotation but simply shortcuts to web links that can be easily scanned with smartphones.
  • Here’s a ubiquitous annotation example from the Powerhouse Museum in Sydney. Other examples include the Ashdown Forest trail or the Sussex Downs trail, where QR codes are used to provide extra information related to specific locations and buildings.So why are QR codes so well accepted when the common barcode was so demonised?I think the difference is empowerment. Denso Wave, a subsidiary of Toyota, developed the QR code in 1994 but chose not to exercise its patent rights with a view to popularising the format. There are open-source implementations of QR code generators and readers, and as a consequence countless websites have sprung up where people can create their own QR codes and countless free QR code readers are available on app stores. When people have the option of using the technology for their own purposes, they are far less likely to demonise it (unless it does not work!)
  • Another technology, RFID, has been around for some time but is now being pushed massively under the name of NFC into the consumer market. NFC is being promoted mainly for mobile payment, but it’s also very popular for on-the-fly data exchange between mobile phones as seen for example in the Galaxy SIII adverts.Here’s an image of how RFID is used in the Chopin Museum in Warsaw, where visitors can swipe their visitor pass to play a piece of music.Note here that the card is passive while the reader and display are installed on the wall.
  • The other way around possible, too, especially in a BYOD context where systems rely on people using their own mobile phone rather than handing out devices for loan. Here’s a picture from the Ambrosiana Gallery in Milano where users swipe their mobile phone over an NFC tag to get more information about art pieces.
  • Looking back at all these examples it becomes clear that all of them are based on a downstream model where content is distributed from an organisation to its customers or visitors:We’ve seen - GPS devices delivering maps and annotations to drivers. QR codes as shortcuts to advertisement and other web-based content RFID and NFC as a mechanism to deliver curated contentAll this is reminiscent of the Web 1.0 model where largely static content was delivered in a downstream one-to-many modelBut there are new applications on the way that mirror the Web 2.0 model with users as active contributors instead of consumers, and as a consequent more dynamic content from many for many.
  • Here are some examples of this new breed of applications: Foursquare and Google, where one checks into a location or recommends local businesses NFC touchpoints and QR codes to like something on Facebook Manual input (web address) to tell a story When we look at these examples, isn’t there something missing?
  • How about indications of how many comments or likes there currently are - and thereby, how hot something is?We are used to these on the web, but physical touchpoints look rather bleak by comparison.
  • Or how about state information?Broken links are annoying enough on the web, but if I get out my mobile phone just to scan a QR code and then find out that the code actually is old and the website disappeared, or that this is a blind spot without network connection then this is really annoying.
  • And finally, how about interaction feedback?Of course one gets feedback on the mobile phone when liking or submitting something, but the actual touchpoint looks as impassive as ever after the interaction. There is no sign that something happened.
  • While applications for ubiquitous annotation have evolved and become more dynamic, the situated user interfaces for these services, what Kuniavsky (2010) calls ‘service avatars’, have essentially stayed the same.
  • The research literature describes many interaction problems for QR codes and RFID tags (I focus on these because they are the most popular):Research by marketing agencies, investigating why QR codes have such low conversion rates, found that the main reasons for not engaging are uncertainty and low expectations of potential rewards for scanning QR codes. The key aspect here is that users make a value judgement before they engage but that static QR codes give no indication if it is worth to scan them.Others found trust and control issues and security concerns as users have little experience with RFID touchpoints and weak mental models of how they work. If touchpoints had a way to indicate their state and give interaction feedback that might help to address these issues.
  • Many of these problems can be related to the simple fact that static touchpoints cannot display dynamic content, and only provide up-to-date information (on the mobile device) *after* interaction took place.While this may be fine for pulling static content, it’s not enough for dynamic user-generated content where meta data such as recency and number of comments play a crucial role in assessing how interesting they are.
  • How about combining touchpoints with dynamic displays?Dynamic touchpoints would be able to display state information, aggregate data and interaction feedback.
  • There are a number of research fields that research into dynamic touchpoints can draw on:Ambient displays: peripheral attention, providing information without distracting from the main task Pervasive / Public displays & Digital signage: positioning of displays, calls-to-action, engagement modelsPhysical Mobile Interaction (PMI): technologies and related interaction modelsUbiquitous Annotation: technologies and service architectures Object-centred sociality: motivations for contributing, types of content and participationDomain-specific requirements and practices: Cultural Heritage – visitor engagement, social interpretation Retail & Marketing – social recommendation, localised market research Local government – community engagement,public consultation
  • Here is a basic mock-up of a touchpoint that can display small amounts of dynamic information..It can show aggregate or meta data ...
  • ... state information ...
  • ... and interaction feedback.Obviously, these are just initial ideas of what such a dynamic touchpoint could look like and what kind of information it should display.
  • When designing these dynamic touchpoints we need to look at how users perceive and interact with them how they should integrate with the mobile annotation app how they integrate with the environment and use contextWith respect to external validity it is also clear that at some point we need to study dynamic touchpoints in real world contexts.
  • As a research vehicle I am developing a generic, lightweight, ubiquitous annotation service that provides a context for the design of dynamic touchpoints and the related mobile application.The system consists of the dynamic touchpoints and a related cross-platform app for browsing and creating annotations.For host organisations, there is a mobile app to register touchpoints with objects or places and to configure and style them.There also is an analytics backend to analyse content and activity, and possibly to exercise editorial control.
  • There are a number of potential application domains for such a system. The following slides will look at a cultural heritage scenario.
  • Here’s a quote from Nina Simon’s book Participatory Museum. In chapter 4 she writes “Imagine looking at an object not for its artistic or historical significance but for its ability to spark conversation.”This chimes beautifully with the concept of object-centred sociality and in fact Nina Simon refers back to JyriEngeström’s ideas in this chapter.
  • Here’s a good example of a social object in a museums context.It’s a piece called Oak Tree by Michael Craig-Martin, which is on display in the Tate Britain.[http://www.tate.org.uk/art/artworks/craig-martin-an-oak-tree-l02262 ]To most visitors, however, it’s a glass of water on a common bathroom shelf, and it generates a lot of discussion. Every time I see it, there are people standing in front of it, taking pictures and talking about it.How can we collect some of these opinions and make them available to others looking at the piece?
  • Current systems have many advantages over digital solutions, especially with regard to accessibility, reliability and costs, however, they also have some disadvantages:What happens to these comments? Are they thrown away after the exhibition? Kept in a drawer? Can they be looked at 5 years down the line? How can they be re-mediated, e.g. shown on a website? Is there someone digitising these comments?From a visitor perspective when posting a comment: Does my comment count? Who looks at it? Who decides what is displayed?Finally, due to space constraints it is often impractical to show comments next to specific artworks.
  • Here’s a mockup of how artwork could be annotated by visitors without these problems.There is a clear separation between curated content and visitor-generated content, eliminating many of the IPR and Authenticity related problems.The system can be easily attached and registered to any artwork, and it can be customised to fit the environment.The display indicates that the system is live and that there are visitor comments available, enabling visitors to make a value judgement whether it is worth engaging or not.
  • For curators, there is a Web-based dashboard to browse visitor-generated content and keep editorial control. For example, there could be functionality to delete or hide offensive content, or a floor plan visualisation that may help to optimise exhibition layout.
  • Some more use case scenarios in other domains...
  • The system can be used in Retail and Marketing to engage customers and collect hyper-local feedback on product launches or promotions...
  • Or, it can be used by supermarkets for in-store product ratings...
  • Here’s an example of public consultation – in this case on the planned development of the i360 Brighton Tower...
  • Another use would be memorials – like this one to the victims of Hiroshima where people regularly leave origami cranes and paper cards that blown about and washed out by the rain...
  • And finally in tourism, like here at the airport Berlin Schönefeld where visitors are encouraged to share their stories of Berlin.
  • Recap: Ubiquitous Annotation we identified anchoring / identification as a key issue in ubiquitous annotation and looked at how different technologies shaped user perceptionswe found that the majority of applications today involve the delivery of static content analogue to the Web 1.0 model, but that more dynamic applications involving user-generated content are emerging.
  • Recap: User Experience Issues we heard from market research companies investigating of low conversion rates for QR code campaigns that the main reasons for NOT engaging are uncertainty and low expectations of potential rewards we heard from other researchers (mainly in the context of RFID ) of users’ weak mental models of tags and tag interaction we also heard of trust and control issues and security concerns when interacting with tags (QR + RFID) I connected these problems with the fact that static touchpoints cannot show dynamic information, and that they violate basic usability heuristics - visibility of system status - interaction feedback
  • Recap: Dynamic Touchpoints I talked about my research developing dynamic touchpoints that combine service triggers with small dynamic displayI related this to several research fields, including mobile physical interaction, ambient displays, pervasive displays and digital signageI presented a lightweight, generic ubiquitous annotation system that serves me as a research vehicle
  • Recap: Applications I narrowed down the intended use context for the system to object-centred sociality and identified cultural heritage, retail & marketing and public consultation as potential application domainsI finally sketched out a use case scenario in a cultural heritage context involving social interpretation of artwork
  • Many thanks for listening. Any questions?
  • Ubiquitous annotation user experience

    1. 1. University of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013Ubiquitous AnnotationUser ExperienceMarcus WinterUniversity of Brighton
    2. 2. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Overview Overview Ubiquitous Annotation Anchoring / Identification User perceptions shaped by available technologies: UPC / GPS / QR / RFID Move from static to dynamic user-generated content UX issues Visibility of system status, interaction feedback, meta data Research: low conversion numbers, lack of mental models, security concerns Research and context Vision: Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Background: Ambient displays, Public displays, Mobile Physical Interaction Research vehicle: generic, light-weight annotation service Applications Cultural Heritage: social interpretation, comment book, related research, delineation Marketing: social recommendation, localised market research, related research, delineation Community engagement: public consultation, related research, delineation Summary and ConclusionsUniversity of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    3. 3. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Ubiquitous Annotation Hansen’s (2006) taxonomy of ubiquitous annotation: Attached Detached On Location Annotation presented Annotation presented in (user and object are directly on the object conjunction with the object co-located) (e.g. AR) (e.g. display) Off Location Annotation presented on a Annotation presented with (user and object in representation of the object reference to the object separate locations) (e.g. VR) (e.g. Web page)University of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    4. 4. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Ubiquitous Annotation spatial deixis “In the Bridget Riley picture shown in the first room of the Op-Art exhibition at Tate Modern...” Source: http://www.op-art.co.uk/bridget-riley/ “In this picture...” Detached AttachedUniversity of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    5. 5. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Ubiquitous Annotation anchoring information requires unique identification of objects and placesUniversity of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    6. 6. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Ubiquitous Annotation user perspectives of ubiquitous annotation have been shaped by the availability of suitable identification technologiesUniversity of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    7. 7. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Ubiquitous Annotation Source: MAD Magazine, DC Comics (Time Warner)University of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    8. 8. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Ubiquitous Annotation Brighton, North Street, 10 July 2012University of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    9. 9. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Ubiquitous Annotation Source: http://www.tapmag.co.uk/review/439044354/garmin-uk-irelandUniversity of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    10. 10. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Ubiquitous Annotation Source: GarminUniversity of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    11. 11. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Ubiquitous Annotation Mirage, Barcelona Source: airBaltic in-flight magazine (2012) Source: http://katemeasures.co.ukUniversity of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    12. 12. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Ubiquitous AnnotationPowerhouse Museum. Source: http://www.themobilists.com/2011/08/30/qr-codes-in-museums/ University of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    13. 13. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Ubiquitous AnnotationChopin Museum. Source: http://www.centrescreen.co.uk/c/u/projects/Chopin_ChopinMuseum_465_x_3002-465x300.jpg University of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    14. 14. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Ubiquitous AnnotationAmbrosiana Art Gallery. Source: RFID Journal, http://www.rfidjournal.com/article/articleview/10177 University of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    15. 15. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Ubiquitous Annotation ubiquitous annotation applications users as consumers users as contributors static content dynamic content ≈ Web 1.0 ≈ Web 2.0University of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    16. 16. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Ubiquitous Annotation Coca-Cola Village, Israel Source: http:// oneworldchronicle.com/?attachment_id=504 Airport Berlin Schönefeld, Germany Source: http://www.hotelmarketingstrategies.com/ tailor-made-hotel-qr-facebook/University of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    17. 17. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience User Experience no meta data / aggregatesUniversity of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    18. 18. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience User Experience no state informationUniversity of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    19. 19. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience User Experience no interaction feedbackUniversity of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    20. 20. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience User Experience Situated user interfaces for ubiquitous annotation have not kept up with the shift to more dynamic applicationsUniversity of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    21. 21. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience User ExperienceUniversity of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    22. 22. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience User Experience Static tags cannot display dynamic content and only provide up-to-date information (on the mobile device) after interaction took placeUniversity of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    23. 23. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Dynamic Touchpoints How about combining touchpoints with dynamic displays?University of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    24. 24. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Dynamic Touchpoints Cultural Heritage Ubiquitous Ambient Displays Annotation Retail & Marketing Pervasive Displays Physical Mobile Object-centred Public Displays Interaction (PMI) Sociality Digital Signage Local GovernmentUniversity of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    25. 25. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Dynamic Touchpoints 237 Comments aggregate data | state information | interaction feedbackUniversity of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    26. 26. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Dynamic Touchpoints - Offline - aggregate data | state information | interaction feedbackUniversity of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    27. 27. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Dynamic Touchpoints Thank You ! aggregate data | state information | interaction feedbackUniversity of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    28. 28. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Dynamic Touchpoints ContextUniversity of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    29. 29. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Dynamic Touchpoints Dynamic Touchpoints Annotation Registration / Analytics Backend ConfigurationUniversity of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    30. 30. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Dynamic Touchpoints Cultural Heritage Ubiquitous Ambient Displays Annotation Retail & Marketing Pervasive Displays Physical Mobile Object-centred Public Displays Interaction (PMI) Sociality Digital Signage Local GovernmentUniversity of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    31. 31. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Applications Cultural Heritage Imagine looking at an object not for its artistic or historical significance but for its ability to spark conversation Nina Simon (2010) The Participatory MuseumUniversity of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    32. 32. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Applications Michael Craig-Martin: An Oak Tree (1973). Tate BritainUniversity of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    33. 33. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Applications Conservation | Remediation | Accountability | Display capacity Source: Tate Modern Source: Tate Modern Source: London College of Fashion Source: Art Works / Plains Art MuseumUniversity of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    34. 34. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience ApplicationsUniversity of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    35. 35. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Applications Curators: analytics and editorial controlUniversity of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    36. 36. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Dynamic Touchpoints Some more use case scenarios...University of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    37. 37. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Applications Source: LDS Intelligent LivingUniversity of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    38. 38. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Applications Source: LDS Intelligent LivingUniversity of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    39. 39. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Applications Source: http://www.flickr.com/photos/garyshield/1239571384/in/pool-97089265@N00/University of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    40. 40. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Applications Memorial to victims of Hiroshima, Tavistock Square, LondonUniversity of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    41. 41. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Applications Airport Berlin-SchönefeldUniversity of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    42. 42. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Summary and ConclusionsSummary① Ubiquitous Annotation• anchoring / identification key in ubiquitous annotation• different technologies shaped user perceptions• most applications today involve the delivery of static contentanalogue to the Web 1.0 model• more dynamic applications are emerging that involve dynamicuser-generated content along the Web 2.0 modelUniversity of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    43. 43. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Summary and Conclusions② User Experience Issues• uncertainty and low expectations of potential rewards• weak mental models of tags and tag interaction• trust and control issues, security concerns• static touchpoints violate basic usability heuristics - visibility of system status - interaction feedbackUniversity of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    44. 44. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Summary and Conclusions③ Dynamic Touchpoints• combine service trigger with small dynamic display• informed by research into mobile physical interaction, ambientdisplays, pervasive displays and digital signage• lightweight generic annotation service as a research vehicleUniversity of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    45. 45. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Summary and Conclusions④ Applications• focus on ubiquitous annotation for object-centred sociality• use case scenario: social interpretation in the museum• many potential applications in other domainsUniversity of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    46. 46. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience Questions and Demo marcus.winter@brighton.ac.ukUniversity of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter
    47. 47. Ubiquitous Annotation User Experience References References Aguirre, D., Johnston, B & Kohn, L. (2012). QR Codes Go to College. Archrival Youth Marketing. Available: http://www.archrival.com/ideas/13/qr- codes-go-to-college. Retrieved: 23 June 2012. Engeström, J. (2005). Why some social network services work and others don’t – Or: the case for object-centered sociality. Blog post 13 April 2005. Available: http://www.zengestrom.com/blog/2005/04/ why-some-social-network-services-work-and-others-dont-or-the-case-for- object-centered-sociality.html. Accessed 7 December 2012. Hansen, F. (2006). Ubiquitous annotation systems: technologies and challenges. Proceedings of the seventeenth conference on Hypertext and hypermedia, HYPERTEXT’06, pp. 121–132. Hardy, R., Rukzio, E., Holleis, P., & Wagner, M. (2010). Mobile interaction with static and dynamic NFC-based displays. Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Human computer interaction with mobile devices and services, MobileHCI ’10, p. 123-133. Knorr Cetina, K. (1997) Sociality with Objects: Social Relations in Postsocial Knowledge Societies Theory, Culture & Society, vol. 14(4): 1-30 Mäkelä, K., Belt, S., Greenblatt, D., & Häkkilä, J. (2007). Mobile Interaction with Visual and RFID Tags – A Field Study on User Perceptions. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, San Jose, California, USA, pp. 991–994. March, S. and Smith, G. (1995) Design and Natural Science Research on Information Technology. Decision Support Systems, 15, pp. 251-266. Neill, E. O., Thompson, P., Garzonis, S., & Warr, A. (2007). Reach out and touch: using NFC and 2D barcodes for service discovery and interaction with mobile devices. Proceedings of Pervasive 2007, pp. 19–36. Purao, S. (2002). Design Research in the Technology of Information Systems: Truth or Dare. School of Information Sciences and Technology, Pennsylvania State University. Available: http://iris.nyit.edu/~kkhoo/Spring2008/Topics/DS/000DesignSc_TechISResearch-2002.pdf. Retrieved 6 August 2012. Riekki, J., Salminen, T., & Alakärppä, I. (2006). Requesting Pervasive Services by Touching RFID Tags. IEEE Pervasive Computing, 5(1), pp. 40–46. Russel, H. (2011). The QR Question: Are QR codes an effective marketing tool for engaging customers? Thought Leader Series. Russel Herder. Available: http://www.russellherder.com/ wp-content/themes/RH_Theme_2011/pdf /QRQuestion_Whitepaper.pdf. Retrieved: 19 June 2012. Simon, N. (2010). The Participatory Museum. Santa Cruz, California: Museum 2.0, 2010. Available: http://www.participatorymuseum.org/. Accessed 7 December 2012. Vaishnavi, V. and Kuechler, W. (2009). Design Research in Information Systems. Available: http://desrist.org/design-research-in-information- systems. Accessed 24 Aug 2011.University of Portsmouth, 13 February 2013 Marcus Winter

    ×