Fail Better: Lessons Learned from a Formative Evaluation of Social Object Labels Marcus Winter1, Michael John Gorman2, Ian Brunswick2, Danny Browne2, Derek Williams2, Fionn Kidney2 1 2 University of Brighton Science Gallery Watts Building, Lewes Road The Naughton Institute, Pearse Street Brighton BN2 4GJ, UK Trinity College, Dublin 2, Ireland marcus.winter@brighton.ac.uk {firstname.lastname}@sciencegallery.com ABSTRACT In contrast to other in-gallery annotation systems, which This paper presents Social Object Labels as an in-gallery typically aim for deep integration with a museum's commenting platform and reports on a formative evaluation workflow and IT systems [e.g. 13,24], they provide a self- of the concept focusing on visitors' awareness and mental contained layer of infrastructure and functionality that can models of the developed prototype. Findings confirm many extend and complement existing technologies and design assumptions underlying the evaluated prototype but engagement efforts in museums and galleries. This light- also flag up serious problems resulting in low engagement weight approach makes SOLs quick and easy to deploy, levels. They suggest a need to de-emphasise optical allowing for short-term trials in the target environment and markers in the user interface, to provide visitors with a clear reducing costs and risks for organisations transitioning to idea about the potential rewards of engagement and to align exhibit-based in-gallery commenting. the interaction design with users' expectations shaped by the wider interaction environment. The paper concludes with an SOLs are designed to be peripheral and unobtrusive in tentative outlook on future design directions. order to not distract visitors' attention from an exhibit, but conspicuous enough to be noticed by visitors and encourage Author Keywords engagement. Getting this balance right is particularly Social Object Labels; User Generated Content; Pervasive relevant in gallery environments, where curators try to Displays; Ubiquitous Annotation; Mobile Interaction. create a certain atmosphere and visitor engagement with exhibits often has contemplative undertones [26]. The SOL ACM Classification Keywords prototype discussed here (Figure 1) addresses this design H.5.m. Information interfaces and presentation (e.g., HCI): tension in two ways. Firstly, it uses small, passive, Miscellaneous. monochrome e-ink displays that draw less attention than active colour screens. Secondly, it delegates interaction for INTRODUCTION creating, browsing and rating comments to the user's mobile Social Object Labels (SOLs) are small interactive displays device, where it can be carried out in a discreet and that can be attached to objects or places in order to collect personal manner. In order to account for different device user-generated comments and ratings about them [30,31]. capabilities, personal preferences and varying degrees of They typically display information about current digital literacy, the mobile interaction with SOLs can be annotations for the object they are attached to, such as the initiated in various ways. The current design supports Near number of comments or an average star rating, and support Field Communication (NFC), optical markers (QR codes) interaction via a user's mobile device. In addition to the and manual input of a Web address (URL). display component, which is deployed in-situ, the system comprises a mobile web application for users to browse and create content, an admin application to register SOLs to physical objects and various backend services for content moderation, analysis and syndication. SOLs are currently being developed mainly in a museums context to support visitors' social interpretation of exhibits. 8th International Workshop on Personalized Access To Cultural Heritage, PATCH @ IUI 2015, March 29–April 1, 2015, Atlanta, USA. Copyright held by the author(s). Figure 1. SOL prototype with e-ink display and NFC tag There is a broad consensus in the literature about the need social object annotation. The system uses RFID technology to evaluate ubiquitous computing technologies in the wild. to provide visitors with digital information and to anchor Arguments include that important dimensions such as user-generated comments to exhibits. Visitors have the device, space, people and time requires real use of a system option to additionally share posted comments on their in authentic settings [1], that situated user behaviour is preferred social network. In order to protect the museum fundamentally different from user behaviour in a lab as it and its visitors from inappropriate user-generated content, puts more emphasis on improvisation and less emphasis on comments are pre-moderated, i.e. they are accessible to the following a-priori plans [2] and that research into awareness public only after they have been approved by the museum. and acceptance in particular requires real world settings The most recent research in this context relates to the where users behave more naturally [12, 15]. QRator [9] and Social Interpretation (SI) [4] projects. Both This paper reports on the formative evaluation of SOLs at projects used similar technologies to explore social object Science Gallery Dublin (SGD). It discusses the gallery annotation in museums. They involved both, touch screens environment into which SOLs were deployed, the in the gallery space as a prominent way for curators to pose methodology and findings of the formative evaluation and topical questions relating to the exhibition and collect their design implications for SOLs and similar in-gallery visitors' responses via an on-screen keyboard, and QR commenting systems. codes printed on object labels as a more peripheral mechanism to collect visitors' comments about specific BACKGROUND Hawkey [11] points out that the goal of many museums is exhibits via a mobile application. participation, which can take many forms, including simple Engagement statistics from the SI project found that while a feedback, voting, collection of ideas and contributing to a large proportion of visitors used the more prominent touch museum’s exhibits and interpretation. A key idea behind screens, only tiny minority scanned the OR codes next to the drive for participatory museums experiences is that they exhibits. While in visitor interviews most respondents provide visitors with opportunities to reflect and respond to claimed to have noticed the QR codes, only two out of ten exhibits. Several efforts in the past have developed mobile staff reported to ever have observed visitors scanning a QR technologies to support visitors' social interpretation of code [4]. This lack of engagement is further confirmed in a exhibits while physically present in the gallery space. separate SI project evaluation [8], which found that despite Van Loon et al. [28] present research around ARCHIE, a frequent iterations in the way QR codes were presented, handheld guide with functionality to stimulate interaction they were ignored by a vast majority of visitors. The with other visitors and the museum. Citing previous authors [8] identify several aspects contributing to the low research [29], which shows that the use of handheld devices engagement with QR codes, including unreliable WiFi in galleries can lead to isolated experiences and visitors connections, the requirement to install a proprietary mobile paying less attention to the actual exhibits, they integrated app and a lack of appropriate framing by the museum that communication, personalisation and localisation would explain their use and purpose to visitors. functionality into a collaborative game to be played on Literature from the field of Human Computer Interaction handheld devices in the gallery space. The game is (HCI) suggests more fundamental problems. Research into anchored around exhibits, assigns players different roles users' perceptions, concerns and interaction with QR codes and enables them to communicate via voice and other and RFID/NFC tags has revealed a wide range of media, thereby promoting social interaction to support problems, including users having weak mental models of visitors' intellectual, social, and cultural development. tags and tag interaction [10,17,19], feeling not in control Seirafi and Seirafi [24] present FluxGuide, a commercial when interacting with tags [20] and being uncertain about system for museums to present curated information on the security [20], integrity [19] and currency [10] of mobile devices and enable visitors to add their own markers. Furthermore, market research studies [3,22] have commentary about exhibits. The system deeply integrates identified low expectations of the potential rewards of with a museum's IT backend to access digital materials scanning QR codes as the main reason non-engagement. about exhibits, and to support social commenting and rating Many of these problems can be traced back to a lack of of exhibits and related content by visitors. A key aspect information: markers with static signage cannot provide discussed by the authors is that the system extends the dynamic information that could motivate users’ engagement traditional one-way communication from museum to visitor and support their interaction. They require users to carry out to a two-way model where information flows in both several interaction steps with their mobile phone before directions and between users, thereby enabling new forms disclosing dynamic information on the device screen. SOLs of interpretation and learning. address this point by showing up-to-date information in-situ Hsu and Liao [13] describe a prototype mobile application next to the exhibit, i.e. independent of the visitor's mobile at the Exploratorium science gallery in San Francisco device. The information is visible before interaction takes integrating self-guided exploration of an exhibition with place and enables users to make a more informed decision about their engagement. SOLs also provide a more coherent user experience after the interaction took place: while markers with static signage do not change appearance when a user submits content, SOLs dynamically update their display (e.g. increase the comment counter) and show a physical trace of the interaction in the environment. An important aspect of the evaluation reported on is to assess how gallery visitors notice SOLs and interact with them. Of particular interest is whether the provided dynamic information about comments for an exhibit can help to address the usability problems experienced with static markers, support visitors to form a suitable mental model of the tag interaction and overcome low expectations of the potential rewards of engaging with markers. GALLERY DEDPLOYMENT Two SOL prototypes were deployed at Science Gallery Dublin (SGD) during the recent Fail Better exhibition, which explored the instructive role of failure in stimulating creativity in research and development. The exhibition ran for 12 weeks (7 February to 27 April 2014) and attracted 92,000 visitors during that time. The two displays were installed during the final two weeks of the exhibition. Figure 3. SOL (circled red) installed next to the exhibit Drawing on the idea of social objects [7,25], the prototypes Apparatus for Facilitating the Birth of a Child by Centrifugal were attached to exhibits that are likely to provoke a Force on the first-floor gallery space. reaction from visitors. One display (SOL1) was installed on the ground floor next to Superman's Wheelchair (Figure 2) Framing and a second display (SOL2) was installed on the first floor While Giannachi and Tolmie [8] suggest that commenting next to the Apparatus for Facilitating the Birth of a Child mechanisms involving novel technologies such as QR by Centrifugal Force (Figure 3). Both exhibits were key codes need suitable framing in order to give visitors a clear pieces of the exhibition and attracted much interest from reason why to scan the code and why to share their visitors. thoughts, no notices, instructions or calls to action were provided in the gallery space to explain the purpose or use of SOLs. Instead, it was hoped that the dynamic information shown on SOLs would provide enough clues for visitors to guess their purpose and at the same time promote engagement by piquing their interest. The deployment therefore relied on the participatory environment in SGD, which invites visitor engagement in many different ways, and on visitors being inquisitive and tech-savvy enough to try out the installed SOLs. Physical integration In accordance with Kules et al. [16], who suggest that interactive installations should be situated in locations with a sustained flow of people and sufficient space for interaction, both exhibits had enough space for visitors to walk around them and to approach the SOL (Figures 2, 3). Considering that displays installed at eye height and close to other eye-catching objects receive more attention [14], SOL1 was installed at eye height next to the object label (Figure 4a) while SOL2 was installed close to eye height just below the object label (Figure 4b). Both displays were easy to read and to scan, taking into account that the height Figure 2. SOL (circled red) installed next to the exhibit of physical markers directly impacts on the success and Superman's Wheelchair on the ground-floor gallery space. ease of interaction [10] In addition to these moderated engagement opportunities, where visitors could discuss exhibits and related issues with a student-mediator, Fail Better had various interactive installations that invited people to contribute their views and explore additional information. a) b) Figure 4. SOLs were installed close to eye-height a) next to the exhibits' object label or b) below the object label. Technical integration In parallel to the free public WiFi offered by SGD to all visitors, SOLs were connected to a separate staff network available in the gallery space. Reflecting variations in the WiFi signal strength, SOL1 on the ground floor had a very solid connection while SOL2 on the first floor sometimes a) b) had connection problems, e.g. when re-connecting after Figure 5. Twitter printer (a) in the ground floor gallery (b). having been charged. A Twitter printer (Figure 5) was installed in the ground While it was initially planned to run SOLs on mains power floor exhibition space. Consisting of a small thermal to reduce maintenance, the actual deployment was battery transfer printer connected via Bluetooth to a hidden operated and depended on gallery staff to periodically computer, the device uses the Twitter API to periodically check and recharge the displays. Once flat, SOLs were search for Tweets containing the exhibition hashtag taken from their casing, charged for 3 hours and then re- (#failbetter) and then prints them out. The resulting endless inserted into the casing, which occasionally left an empty print roll spools down from the printer and is collected in a casing in the exhibition space for several hours. box on the floor below the printer. Information environment Brewer [5] introduces the notion of an information environment as a way to describe how the information shown by an ambient display integrates with other information available at the site. While the evaluated SOL prototype is capable to display information about the exhibit it is attached to, such as a title, description or image, the installed units were configured to only show the number of comments for an exhibit, a QR code and an URL for visitors to connect their mobile phone (in addition to the NFC tag integrated into the casing). Consequently, there was no information overlap between SOL and object labels or other information available in the gallery space. Interaction environment A standard feature in all exhibitions at SGD are student Figure 6. Fail Wall in the first floor gallery. mediators with knowledge of the relevant subject area, A Fail Wall (Figure 6) was installed in the first-floor ready to answer questions about exhibits and involve gallery space. The installation prompted visitors to write a visitors into discussions about related issues. Another personal failure on a plastic tile, photograph it for upload to common feature are opportunities for visitors to get an online photo stream and then put up the physical tile on involved in research studies by taking part in a short the wall for other visitors to read. The installation involved experiment or filling in a questionnaire. For instance, a work area for writing on the plastic tiles, a camera area visitors to Fail Better had the opportunity to take part in an where the plastic tiles could be photographed and a display experiment run by the School of Psychology at Trinity area where tiles could be put up on simple shelves. A College Dublin, which examined attitudes to failure and separate second display area was used to feature a Fail of their impact on wellbeing. the Day selected and put up by gallery staff. being studied would reasonably expect to be observed by strangers, with reference to local cultural values and to the privacy of persons who, even while in a public space, may believe they are unobserved." [6] (p.13). Observations focused on "encounters" as a quantifiable unit. Encounters were conceptualised as situations where visitors had a clear chance to notice and engage with a SOL. At minimum, an encounter involves a visitor approaching and stopping at an exhibit. Visitors might then look at the exhibit, read the object label, look at the SOL, point others to the SOL or engage with the SOL in various ways. Observations were coded on the spot using a coding template supporting both quantitative and qualitative observations. Figure 7. Touch screen with additional video footage. The observations were carried out over two days during the last week of the exhibition. Total observation time was 6 Some exhibits had associated projections or interactive hours and 35 minutes, during which 212 encounters were touch screens that offered additional information. For observed. Of these, 90 involved Superman's Wheelchair instance, Superman's Wheelchair had a small (10 inch) and 122 the Apparatus for Facilitating the Birth of a Child touch screen installed in front of the exhibit showing a by Centrifugal Force. The observations suggest that 62 selection of related video footage (Figure 7). (29%) visitors were on their own, 82 (39%) part of a couple Together, these engagement opportunities offered analogue and 68 (32%) part of a group of three or more. and digital routes to participation, spanning a wide range of modalities, capabilities and learning styles. Rounding off the open and participatory atmosphere, SGD offers free wireless internet access to visitors and has no restrictions on mobile phone use in the gallery space, enabling visitors to take pictures of exhibits and share their experience live on social networks. EVALUATION The formative evaluation focused primarily on qualitative aspects such as visitors' awareness and mental models of Figure 8. Observed visitor attention during encounters. SOLs. It involved visitor observations and structured interviews carried out in the gallery space. The study In the observed 212 encounters, 202 visitors (95%) looked employed convenience sampling that includes gallery at the exhibit (some only read the label), 181 visitors (85%) visitors most easily observed and willing to take part in an read part or all of the object label and 35 visitors (17%) interview. However, in order to maximise the range of visibly noticed the SOL (Figure 8). views and insights, sampling was still informed by basic Of the 35 visitors who looked the SOL, six (17%) touched strategies from probability sampling to address potential the NFC tag in a manner one would press a button, four biases. With respect to coverage, the study was carried out (11%) touched the screen to see if it was interactive, three over a Friday (workday) and Saturday (weekend), which (9%) scanned the QR code and two (3%) scanned the NFC are likely to vary in audience volume and composition. tag with their mobile phone (Figure 9). With respect to visitor sampling, the researcher aimed for a balanced demographic and included people visiting on their own and in pairs or groups. Visitor observations Observations were carried out in the gallery space to find out whether visitors notice SOLs and how they interact with them. In order to not disturb people’s natural behaviour, observations were carried out without prior notice or informed consent. The researcher's conduct during these observations was informed by the British Psychological Society's code of ethics and conduct, restricting Figure 9. Observed SOL attention and interaction. observations "[...] to those situations in which persons The observations suggest that of the 35 visitors who visibly out by the interviewer, nine visitors (53%) answered yes noticed the SOL, many assumed that it was somehow and eight visitors (47%) answered no (Figure 10). interactive but were not sure how to actually interact with it. At least ten (28%) assumed a direct interaction model and tried to press the NFC tag or touch the display screen. When these actions had no effect, visitors did not further investigate but simply moved on. With regard to group dynamics, two out of the three observed QR code scans were carried out by visitors who were part of a couple or group. In both cases the primary actor tried to get their partner or other group members involved, either by pointing out the SOL to them or by sharing their mobile screen after scanning to read submitted Figure 11. Interviewees' assumptions what SOLs are for comments. In none of the observed interactions did visitors actually contribute a comment. With regard to visitors' understanding of the purpose of SOLs, 14 visitors (82%) thought they were for reading Visitor interviews comments, 12 visitors (71%) thought they would also allow In addition to observations, which focused on visitors' submitting comments and three visitors (18%) were not awareness and interaction, structured interviews were sure (Figure 11). This suggests that the majority of visitors carried out to understand visitors' mental models of SOLs made correct assumptions about the purpose of SOLs in the and explore their motivations and barriers to engagement. gallery space once they were aware of them. The interviews also included questions to further qualify recorded observations. Visitors were approached by the researcher after their encounter with the exhibit and possibly the SOL. Visitors were informed about the research context and asked to sign a consent form before the interview. Interviews lasted between 5-7 minutes and followed a fixed structure. The interviewer recorded answers in a coding template. A short section with demographic questions was filled in by participants themselves after the interview. Figure 12. Interviewees' assumptions how SOLs work. A total of 17 visitor interviews were carried out, involving ten female (59%) and seven male (41%) participants. The Asked about interactivity, 14 respondents (82%) thought age range of interviewees reflects SGD's target audience that SOLs were interactive in some way while one visitor with ten participants between 25-34 years of age (59%), (6%) thought they were not interactive and two visitors three between 16-24 years (18%) and others falling in equal (12%) were not sure. When asked how the interaction with measure into older age brackets. All participants reported to SOLs might work, 13 visitors (76%) answered that one own a smartphone (defined as a mobile phone with internet would scan the QR code, two visitors (12%) thought it was access and touch screen) and more than half of all a touch screen and another two visitors (12%) were not sure interviewees (53%) indicated that they had scanned a QR (Figure 12). Contrary to observations, which suggest that code before. None had ever have scanned an NFC tag. many visitors assumed a direct interaction model, the interviews indicate that most visitors understood that scanning the QR code was the primary mode of interaction. Figure 10. Interviewees' self-reported awareness of SOLs . When asked whether they had noticed the SOL, referred to as "the small display next to the object label" and pointed Figure 13. Interviewees' expectations of content. When asked what kind of content they would expect when low expectations of QR codes are well documented [3,22], scanning the SOL, eight visitors (47%) answered they and ignoring them in this manner would be in line with the would expect to be directed to the gallery's website where known phenomenon of "display blindness" [18], where they could read and submit comments, six visitors (35%) people have such low expectations of displays in their would expect a list of comments and three visitors (18%) environment that they automatically blank them out. would expect "information" but did not further specify what This interpretation is further supported by the low numbers kind of information (Figure 13). of actual scans, and by visitor interviews suggesting a weary and sometimes negative attitude towards QR codes. While most visitors understood that they had to scan the QR code on the SOL with their mobile phone, they had no clear expectations what to expect in return. Many visitors reported that a lack of interest in the expected content was their main barrier to engagement. This suggests that the dynamic information provided by the current SOL prototype is not enough to give visitors a clear idea about the content they can expect and motivate engagement. Possible ways to address these problems include de- Figure 14. Interviewees' barriers to engagement. emphasising the QR code in the user interface and providing more detailed information on the display. Current Finally, when asked what it would take for them to engage practice in museums (and elsewhere) is to use QR codes not with the SOL and what was holding them back, six visitors only as an optical marker to be scanned by mobile devices, (35%) mentioned a lack of interest in comments or more but also to advertise interaction opportunities to potential generally in further engaging with the exhibit, four visitors audiences. While the former is a robust, cheap and (24%) mentioned technological barriers such as not having relatively well-known mechanism, the latter has come into a QR code scanner installed on their phone or not being disrepute due to the low quality of content often linked to. sure exactly how to scan a code, two visitors (12%) Displaying QR codes less prominently or relegating them to mentioned a lack of information in the gallery that would a secondary screen together with other connection options explain the purpose and use of SOLs while five visitors helps to split these two roles and make use of their qualities (29%) did not answer the question (Figure 14). as robust and well-supported machine-readable markers while not misusing them to advertise interactivity to DISCUSSION potential audiences. At the same time, users’ lack of interest The primary focus of this formative evaluation has been on in the expected content can possibly be addressed by visitors' awareness and mental models of SOLs. It providing more engaging information on the SOL. This employed observations to find out whether visitors notice could involve “bringing the data forward” [23] by showing SOLs and how they engage with them, and visitor some actual comments on the display that can give visitors interviews to compare observed awareness with self- a better idea of potential rewards of engagement. reported awareness and further probe visitors’ understanding of the purpose and use of SOLs. Another recurring theme in this evaluation is the need to support direct interaction on SOLs without a mobile device. Visitors' awareness of SOLs directly relates to the inherent Visitors' expectations of how to interact with SOLs are design tension between being peripheral and not distract shaped by the wider interaction environment and their from the exhibit but noticeable enough to encourage experience with other interactive installations, which often engagement. With observations suggesting that only 17% of support hands-on direct interaction in the form of touch visitors are aware of SOLs and self-reported awareness at screens or buttons. Observations suggest that visitors build 53%, the current SOL design is clearly not too obtrusive or on this experience when trying to figure out how to interact distracting. In fact these numbers suggest that SOLs could with SOLs, e.g. by tentatively touching the display or trying be more conspicuous to reach higher levels of awareness to press the NFC tag like a button. Supporting direct without diverting too much attention from the exhibits. interaction is also desirable from a curatorial perspective as The strong discrepancy between observed and self-reported it is more inclusive and enables visitors without awareness is remarkable. While some of this difference smartphones and technical skills to participate. might be attributed to the Hawthorn Effect [27] or "good Two common barriers to engagement mentioned in visitor bunny effect" [21], where respondents try to give "the right" interviews are a lack of information about SOLs and answer to a researcher's questions, another possible technological issues, such as not having a QR code scanner interpretation is that visitors automatically blank out QR installed. With regard to the former, the results refute the codes when they see them, resulting in only a passing notion of SOLs being self-explanatory and the displayed glance that is difficult to detect in observations. People's dynamic information being intriguing enough to encourage engagement. Instead, future deployments should learn from SOLs, were unclear exactly what kind of content to expect others [8] and provide information that frames and explains and seemed to assume a direct interaction model in line their purpose and use to visitors. With regard to the latter, with other interactive installations in the exhibition. Various the results suggest that it is beneficial to support a wide opportunities were identified how the information range of mechanisms to connect a mobile device and presentation and overall design of SOLs could be improved. thereby minimise the chances of technical issues or One key finding relevant beyond the immediate context of preferences becoming real barriers to engagement. In SOLs is the observed QR code blindness. Visitors seem to addition to the currently supported NFC tags, QR codes and blank out QR codes in their environment much in the same manual URL input, this could, for instance, involve posting way as display blindness has been observed for people's comments on SOLs via commonly used social platforms attention to public displays [18]. In both cases low like Twitter, which at least a subset of visitors are familiar expectations based on previous poor experiences can be with and have already installed on their mobile device. identified as the main reason. The paper suggests to decouple the technical utility of QR codes as markers for SUMMARY AND CONCLUSIONS This paper has presented SOLs as a platform for the social mobile interaction from their misguided use as a means to interpretation of exhibits in the gallery space and reported advertise interactivity. This can be achieved by making QR on a formative evaluation in the field. codes less prominent and showing them as one of many options for mobile interaction. Drawing on literature from museum studies and HCI, it has discussed a range of problems relating to visitors' Overall the evaluation resulted in valuable insights how awareness, acceptance and engagement with in-gallery people perceive and understand SOLs in a gallery space, commenting systems using optical or radio-frequency confirming that ubiquitous computing technologies should markers for mobile interaction. The paper has linked these be evaluated in realistic settings. The findings will help to problems to a lack of dynamic information that could further develop the current prototype in order to improve motivate and support user interaction, and discussed how the user experience. It is envisaged that the next design SOLs aim to address this by providing current information iteration will depart from a single-screen interaction model about object annotations in-situ and independent from the with sparse information upfront and instead move to a mobile device screen. multi-screen model with direct interaction and more detailed information upfront. It is hoped that this change Motivating the empirical evaluation of SOLs at SGD with will raise awareness levels by avoiding the effects of QR the need to evaluate ubiquitous computing technologies in code blindness, increase engagement by presenting more realistic contexts, the paper described in detail the gallery relevant content and better align with people's expectations environment into which SOLs were deployed. It explained shaped by the wider interaction environment. the (lack of) framing, the physical integration with the exhibition, the technical integration with regard to ACKNOWLEDGMENTS networking and power supply, the information environment We thank all the visitors and student mediators at Science and the interaction environment in the gallery space. The Gallery Dublin who took part in or otherwise supported this latter was described as rich in engagement opportunities, evaluation. We also would like to thank the reviewers of with analogue and digital routes to participation and this paper for their insightful comments and feedback. addressing a wide range of modalities, capabilities and learning styles. While such an environment primes visitors REFERENCES for engagement it also is very competitive, requiring 1. Abowd, G. and Mynatt, E. Charting past, present, and installations to provide an excellent user experience in order future research in ubiquitous computing. ACM Trans. to attract visitors’ attention and at the same time conform to on Computer-Human Interaction, 7(1), (2000), 29–58. a common set of interaction mechanisms as visitors’ 2. Abowd, G. What next, ubicomp? Celebrating an expectations are shaped by their experience with other intellectual disappearing act. In Proc. UbiComp 2012, interactive installations in the exhibition. 1–10. The formative evaluation was based on visitor observations 3. Aguirre, D., Johnston, B. and Kohn, L. QR Codes Go to and structured interviews to assess visitors' awareness and College. Archrival (2011), mental models of SOLs. While engagement numbers for the http://www.archrival.com/ideas/13/ deployed SOLs were disappointing, the evaluation flagged up a number of problems with the current design and can 4. Bagnal, G., Light, B., Crawford, G., Gosling, V., therefore be seen as an instructive failure. The evaluation Rushton, C. and Peterson, T. The Imperial War results suggest that the majority of visitors understands in Museum's Social Interpretation Project. Digital R&D principal that SOLs are for reading and writing comments Fund for the Arts. http://usir.salford.ac.uk/29146/1/ and that they can be accessed by scanning a QR code. Academic_report_ Social_Interpretation2.pdf. However, many visitors were unaware of the deployed 5. Brewer, J. Factors In Designing Effective Ambient Field Study on User Perceptions. In Proc. CHI 2007, Displays. In Proc. UbiComp 2004, pp. 1–2. 991–994 6. British Psychological Society (2011). Code of Ethics 18. Müller, J., Wilmsmann, D. and Exeler, J. Display and Conduct. blindness: The effect of expectations on attention http://www.bps.org.uk/system/files/documents/code_of_ towards digital signage. In Proc. Pervasive 2009, ethics_and_conduct.pdf. 19. Neill, E. O., Thompson, P., Garzonis, S. and Warr, A. 7. Engeström, J. Why some social network services work Reach out and touch: using NFC and 2D barcodes for and others don’t - Or: the case for object-centered service discovery and interaction with mobile devices. sociality. (2005). http://www.zengestrom.com/blog/ In Proc. Pervasive 2007, 19–36 2005/04/why-some-social-network-services-work-and- 20. Riekki, J., Salminen, T. and Alakärppä, I. Requesting others-dont-or-the-case-for-object-centered- Pervasive Services by Touching RFID Tags. IEEE sociality.html. Pervasive Computing, 5(1), (2006), 40–46. 8. Giannachi, G. and Tolmie, P. Info-Objects: Embedding 21. Robson, C. Real World Research. (2002) Oxford, UK: Objects with Audience Interpretation. Research Report. Blackwell Publishing Digital R&D Fund for the Arts, (2012) http://www.nesta.org.uk/library/documents/Academic_r 22. Russel Herder. The QR Question: Are QR codes an eport_Social_Interpretation-1.pdf. effective marketing tool for engaging customers? (2011) http://www.russellherder.com/ wp-content/themes/ 9. Gray, S., Ross, C., Hudson-Smith, A. and Warwick, C. RH_Theme_2011/pdf /QRQuestion_Whitepaper.pdf. Enhancing Museum Narratives with the QRator Project: a Tasmanian devil, a Platypus and a Dead Man in a Box. 23. Saffer, D. Microinteractions. (2013). Sebastopol, CA: In Proc. Museums and the Web 2012. O’Reilly. 10. Hardy, R., Rukzio, E., Holleis, P. and Wagner, M. 24. Seirafi, A. and Seirafi, K. Fluxguide: Mobile Mobile interaction with static and dynamic NFC-based Computing, Social-Web & Participation @ the Museum. displays. In Proc. MobileHCI 2010, 123-133. In Proc. Forum Medientechnik 2011, 325-331 11. Hawkey, R. Learning with Digital Technologies in 25. Simon, N. The participatory museum. (2010). Museums, Science Centres and Galleries. Futurelab, http://www.participatorymuseum.org/ Bristol, Report 9, (2004). http://archive.futurelab.org.uk 26. Tröndle, M. and Wintzerith, S. A museum for the /resources/publications-reports-articles/literature- twenty-first century: the influence of “sociality”on art reviews/Literature-Review205. reception in museum space. Museum Management and 12. Hazlewood, W. R. and Coyle, L. On Ambient Curatorship, 27(5), (2012), 461–486. Information Systems. Int. Journal of Ambient 27. Turnock, C., and Gibson, V. Validity in action research: Computing and Intelligence, 1(2), (2009), 1–12. a discussion on theoretical and practice issues 13. Hsu, H. and Liao, H. A mobile RFID-based tour system encountered whilst using observation to collect data. with instant microblogging. Journal of Computer Journal of Advanced Nursing, 36 (3), (2001), 471-477. Systems Science, 77(4), (2011), 720–727 28. Van Loon, H., Gabriëls, K., Teunkens, D., Robert, K., 14. Huang, E., Koster, A. and Borchers, J. Overcoming Luyten, K., Coninx, K., & Manshoven, E. Designing for assumptions and uncovering practices: When does the interaction: socially-aware museum handheld guides. In public really look at public displays? In Proc. Pervasive Proc. NODEM 06, (2006). 2008, 228–243 29. Vom Lehn, D. and Heath, C. Accounting for New 15. Ju, W. and Sirkin, D. Animate Objects: How Physical Technology in Museum Exhibitions. International Motion Encourages Public Interaction. In Proc. Journal of Arts Management, 7(3), (2005), pp. 11-21 Persuasive 2010, 40–51. 30. Winter, M. Inch-scale Interactive Displays for Social 16. Kules, B., Kang, H., Plaisant, C. and Rose, A. Object Annotation. In Adj. Proc. UbiComp 2013, 183- Immediate usability: a case study of public access 186. design for a community photo library. Interacting with 31. Winter, M. Social Object Labels: Supporting Social Computers, 16(6), (2004), 1171 – 1193 Object Annotation with Small Pervasive Displays. In 17. Mäkelä, K., Belt, S., Greenblatt, D. and Häkkilä, J. Proc. PerCom 2014, 489-494. Mobile Interaction with Visual and RFID Tags – A