=Paper=
{{Paper
|id=Vol-1352/paper5
|storemode=property
|title=Emerging Tastes: Considering How Preferences Evolve
|pdfUrl=https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1352/paper5.pdf
|volume=Vol-1352
|dblpUrl=https://dblp.org/rec/conf/iui/Degler15
}}
==Emerging Tastes: Considering How Preferences Evolve==
https://ceur-ws.org/Vol-1352/paper5.pdf
Emerging Tastes: Considering How Preferences Evolve
Duane Degler
Design for Context
Washington, DC, USA
duane@designforcontext.com
ABSTRACT Our work in cultural heritage has been focused primarily on
Experiencing cultural heritage is a voyage of discovery and the user experience and design of applications for museums
learning, where emerging insights and serendipity play a and archives, and helping institutions plan to incorporate
significant role. The experience also happens in a blended linked data to enhance people’s experience with their
personal and social context. At the broader level, cultural assets. We increasingly support institutions that
engagement is longitudinal – what we learn from modern want to share and enrich data via federated approaches,
cultural experiences (daily life in our surroundings) can allowing information access to expand over time and across
provide clues to analogous interests in cultural materials, institutional boundaries. Rich personalization is important.
and vice versa. The richness of personal experience poses Many tasks will need a greater level of support as the
challenges and opportunities for capturing preferences in volume of digital information – and associations via linked
ways that support a user’s experience with cultural heritage data capabilities – grows in the coming years. As we design
across institutions and over time, both in the digital realm interfaces, we explore the personal experiences people have
and where digital interaction blends with a physical space. with cultural heritage information, whether online or in
Author Keywords person, and how their expectations and interactions with
Cultural heritage; digital humanities; personalization; cultural heritage evolve over time. The considerations that
context; information architecture; user experience; linked arise from that work are the subject of this paper.
data; LODLAM. CONSIDERATIONS
ACM Classification Keywords Designing personalized interactions that are
H.3.3 [Information Storage and Retrieval]: Information companionable, flexible, and not awkward is vital. To
Search and Retrieval—Information filtering; H.5.m achieve that aim, personalization models need to provide a
[Information Interfaces and Presentation]: Miscellaneous great degree of user transparency [9], control and be open
to many outside signals that respond to new experiences
INTRODUCTION and changing tastes, and are carefully aligned with a user’s
Cultural heritage institutions recognize the need to extend needs and expectations. These aspects are not static – they
their digital strategies as they gain an understanding of change in specific contexts and evolve over time, forming
emerging technologies and web-scale linked open data. longitudinal patterns that may help inform how
This means moving beyond “making things available” and personalization models adapt.
allowing users to save “personal collections” to more
sophisticated and personalized experiences. This has broad Preferences Interact with User Knowledge
implications for data management that goes beyond At any one time, a person’s interaction with cultural
publishing collection and image metadata. It prompts a new heritage has a purposeful dimension – whether that is
wave of design thinking for cultural sites and applications, entertainment, knowledge-seeking for its own sake, or
finding ways to meet the needs of diverse user types and resource-seeking for some outside task.
scenarios of use. Personalizing lifelong learning presents To achieve a goal of supporting lifelong learning, it is
opportunities to suggest new areas of exploration and important to focus on the general user experience with
discovery that enrich experience, particularly when digital cultural heritage interactions. Yet there are
spanning multiple institutions, cultures, and subjects. specialized audiences who have their own needs for
It is important to recognize that the domain’s data itself is a personalization. Scholars and practitioners in the field of
moving target – available data (particularly linked open cultural heritage have a driving motivation for discovering,
data) is emerging rapidly. And there are a growing number interpreting, analyzing, synthesizing, publishing, and
of initiatives for institutions to share and harmonize their sharing. Their requirements are particularly rich, due to
data representations online, which means the potential to their specialized and detailed knowledge in particular
integrate information models and user profiles across subject areas. Educators have varying levels of experience
cultural institutions will continue to evolve. and knowledge, and they act as surrogates for others who
do not share their level of knowledge. An educator’s
interaction with cultural heritage can be largely driven by a
Copyright held by the author.
task that is focused outside themselves, as their role is
primarily communication of cultural heritage information to
others (although they also have their own personal interests when and how to interpret interaction as interest, and assess
to balance with their professional focus areas). their actual longevity. It is useful to identify what elements
of personal interest/engagement are relevant to the activities
The richer a person’s experiences and knowledge, the richer
available at a particular cultural venue (whether this is a
and more nuanced their personalized modeling may need to
formal cultural institution/site, an informal urban location,
be. And the broader the possible goals and tasks, the more
or a purely digital online interaction), and identify ways to
contextually aware applications need to become. At the
interpret what someone “takes away” from the experience.
same time, single interactions between the individual and
And algorithmic interpretation gets harder as the time gap
an institution may be motivated by needs that are separate
grows between the experience and the expression in an
from preferences and knowledge. For example, Falk [6]
electronic form. More distant value judgments (ratings,
outlines five ways that individual identity is reflected in
suggestions from one user to another, etc.) can have lower
their actions within an institution, including rechargers,
validity in recommendation algorithms [9].
experience-seekers, and facilitators.
Preferences Evolve Through Lifelong Experiences
Preferences have Scenarios and May be Transitory
Where do personal preference signals come from? Cultural
There are often situations where a person is engaging with
linked data used in education, media, tourism, gaming will
cultural heritage as an aspect of a very specific, directed
produce aspects of personal interest that can be reflected
task. This could be writing a paper as a school student, or
back into cultural heritage preferences. This will require a
researching a book as a scholar, or preparing a treatment for
broader – and more nuanced – way of modeling
a major artwork as a museum conservator. While a person
“preference”, and reflects the PATCH1 workshop goal of
will often be clear about their particular context when
exploring a longitudinal perspective that encompasses
interacting with cultural heritage, they may not externalize
lifelong learning. Various dimensions to support and
that context to a supporting technology.
evaluate models have been proposed [10, 2].
When that task is completed, whether in two weeks or two
At the broader level, engagement crosses timespans – what
years, the intensity of focus decreases. In most cases there
we learn from modern cultural experiences (daily life in our
is still an interest in a particular subject or area of culture,
surroundings) can perhaps translate to analogous interests
but the goal that prompted a strong, focused interest may
in cultural materials from other time periods [15].
have waned. The corresponding strength of the preference
may need to be tuned accordingly. One further aspect to consider for lifelong models is
identifying when a person transitions from experience to
Preferences Emerge over Time
When people encounter something for the first time, they knowing, and as a result is likely to need different kinds of
may not immediately sense its significance. Tastes (and recommendation, as they are able to be more personally
emotional connections to cultural objects or experiences) directed via their own knowledge and experience. In this
way, applications and agents need to consider how much,
are emergent and are often recognized only on reflection,
and how little, to be involved in an experience.
rather than “in the moment.” So something “stays with you”
after the experience, or you recognize something as Preferences are Balanced by Serendipity
valuable/important only in the context of subsequent Personalization models need to guard against over-
experiences with other things (they form a pattern that simplicity or rigidity, and in that way foster discovery and
makes a whole, and a preference forms at that higher level). learning. At a basic human level, people seek to engage
Strong interests from one interaction may over time have with culture and art in order to find delight in something
evolved or been eclipsed by more lasting connections with new as well as to experience known and loved objects.
what were, at the time, weaker signals of engagement. Serendipity and discovery are a significant motivation for
exploring cultural heritage. This is particularly true among
In this way, personalization for cultural heritage may be
scholars and curators, whose life work centers around
more nuanced and longitudinal than preference and
interpretation and discovering new perspectives. It is also
recommendation modeling required in other domains.
true for people who engage in conservation and built
When interacting with art and exhibitions, it is also helpful cultural environments (archaeologists, historians,
to recognize that the experience itself may be what is most preservationists, architects) who want to engage in the latest
important to the user, not necessarily the specific object of science and interpretation.
the experience. In a recent conversation, two museum-goers
Some implementations of personalization can be restrictive,
described in great detail an electronic exhibition piece
even if the intention is to reduce informational “noise” and
where they interactively engaged with art. They described
increase relevance for a user. The “filter bubble” [13] term
deep engagement with the experience but had trouble
was coined to describe a concern where a system algorithm
recalling the specific art that was the focus.
As systems collect data about interactions (whether clicks,
views, likes, saves, shares), it becomes important to discern 1
PATCH 2015: https://patch2015.wordpress.com/about-2
manages navigation through a significant glut of “…no matter how enabled by artificial intelligence, such
information, but users are not easily able to go beyond the metamaps and compasses tend to become less accurate as
boundaries of the algorithm’s filters and may not encounter they try to be smarter and more richly relevant to context.
something that is valuable and engaging [12, 5, 4]. The bigger the gap we’re trying to bridge, the more it’s
subject to the fog of ambiguity…” (pg.104)
The overall aim of personalization needs to be transparent
and controllable, so as to avoid becoming restrictive. It is Implications arise from rich multi-dimensionality, uneven
vital for applications to open up new, unexpected (and yet interest weighting, and increasing ambiguity. Items that
ideally tangentially-related) experiences for users in cultural users select among online artwork or cultural artifacts today
heritage. Serendipity is not simply random encounters, could themselves have a different “profile” at a future date,
rather it is a process that incorporates and synthesizes new changing the way that automated personalization systems
things into experience [1] – and it needs to be fostered. It is then map between profiles of the art and the nature of a
important to find patterns that can foster an “aha!” moment person’s interests over time. So not only is a person’s
– that moment when they discover a relationship between longitudinal profile evolving, but the object models that are
what they know and what they experience. drawn upon also evolve, with uncertain consequences.
Preferences are Influenced by Social Interactions INFORMATION ARCHITECTURE AND DESIGN
When I go to a museum with other people, we engage with At the information architecture level, how can publishers of
things that Group/social interaction in physical space makes cultural heritage information and creators of cultural
it harder to know what is persistently preferential for the experiences formulate dynamic information architectures
individual rather than a reflection of an immediate social that respond appropriately to personal representations and
group dynamic. What do I “keep for later” and transfer departures from those representations? And how can the
between contexts, and what is purely “in the moment” for technology community establish models and frameworks
my relationship with the people and place? that reflect the inherent dynamism in this data?
One research area to consider is exemplified by the At the UI level, how can we use UI frameworks to broaden
Epiphany Project [7]. This emerging research aims to and evolve experiences, without losing focus or
analyze social media streams to identify how individual overwhelming the user? Is it feasible to craft an “ambient”
interests, and institutional influences, are mirrored in what awareness of information and opportunities for
an individual publishes via social media. engagement, without at the same time intruding on an
individual’s primary experience?
In addition, the role of intra-group profiling of personalized
dimensions plays a role in weighting recommendations and For the overall experience, how do we establish design
interactions in situations where the experiences are social. patterns that make sure a person has an easy way to “turn
off” aspects of personalization that become dissonant to
Another aspect of social interaction with taste-making is
their immediate experience, or where their digital
that a person’s knowledge of participants in a community
interactions are out of the immediate context? For example,
and the mutual alignment of interests can affect their
using a mobile device to look something up based on an in-
interpretation of how they judge recommendations [17].
progress conversation with a friend that is not related to the
When in a social recommendation environment for some
surrounding cultural space where they are located at that
subject I don’t know well, I expect to use different value
time? Their task context is separated from their physical
judgments about other people’s preferences in relation to
context for some period of interaction. In other words,
my interests. And those judgments can grow and change
make sure the algorithm is not in charge of the experience.
over time as my interaction with those same people grows
over time, calling for an evolutionary learning approach to The Role of a Guide or Agent
my preferences based on social context. Recommendations in a cultural setting are likely not just
focused on single objects, but a sequence of items in a place
Preferences are Uneven Across Descriptive Dimensions
that help craft an experience flow. We find it helpful to
The dimensions of description and interpretation of cultural
consider the role of attentive guide as an aspect of
material and places are deeply multi-faceted. As we know
personalization in cultural heritage.
that not all dimensions have equal weight in a person’s
engagement with culture [15], finding longitudinal patterns Creating an emerging personal profile could involve
is important for discerning relative weighting of interests interacting with an agent that is focused on your
derived from personal experience. personalized experience; one that both guides and listens to
a person’s expressions of interest [14]. One perspective on
As we consider rich dimensions, it is important also to
this involves the role of the “information flaneur” [5]. This
consider the challenges that arise from such deepening data
is an independent, knowledgeable agent who provides a
pools. In the recent book Understanding Context [8],
perspective on overall information spaces, as well as being
Andrew Hinton writes:
a guide to more specific information objects. The agent
embodies properties of curious explorer, critical spectator,
and creative mind to prompt new perspectives. It is useful • Recognize shared and social interactions: Models
to consider what such a guide would need to know about could usefully identify social contexts that people are in
the individual and the alignment with the cultural space at when preferences are engaged, and have ways of re-
hand, as well as motivations for any particular interaction, aligning their weightings accordingly – or prompt the
for example as framed by Falk [6]. The flaneur could offer user to take greater control of the experience.
a launch point for refining the role of recommendation and • Allow dynamic weighting: Recognize context and user
guidance in subjective, interpretive learning settings. expectations, and provide an appropriate level of control
Who Controls the Data? for a person to express goals and needs. Then have those
Beyond the individual’s experience, is there a role for an expressions reflect back into the preference model.
aggregation of experience patterns across many individuals • Provide simple frameworks for permission-giving:
and institutions? How might those aggregations be Plan for an emerging ecosystem of information around
consumed and used by an institution, ideally in ways that personal interests information and preferences. Identify
increase diversity of experience rather than homogenize? how to make the collection and use of information as
How might they be shared among institutions, so that they transparent as possible, to foster trust and communication
can craft the way their applications respond to personalized among the parties involved (whether humans, institutions,
needs in ways that create more seamless experiences for or digital agents) [3].
individuals as they move among cultural sites?
Personal profiling must, in this context, move beyond REFERENCES
individual applications and institutions. Are there aspects of 1. André, P., schraefel, m.c., Teevan, J., and Dumais, S.T.
personal models that should not only be linked data, but Discovery is never by chance: designing for
linked open data so that the models can be extended and (un)serendipity. In Proceedings of the seventh ACM
built upon? It is interesting and important to consider to conference on Creativity and cognition (C&C '09), pg
what extent a profile of personal interests remains under the 305-314. New York, NY, USA, ACM, 2009.
control of the person (for example, carried with the person http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1640233.1640279
in their mobile smart phone [11]), and how much of the
2. Ardissono, L., Kuflik, T., and Petrelli, D.
profile needs to be shared with a cultural institution for a
Personalization in cultural heritage: the road travelled
relevant experience to be crafted. It seems clear that the
and the one ahead. In User Modeling and User-Adapted
representation of personal interest is best held by the person
Interaction 22, 1-2 (April 2012), 73-99.
rather than individual institutions or a data aggregator, but
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11257-011-9104-x
that raises questions that go beyond cultural heritage
personalization. 3. Cramer, H., Evers, V., Ramlal, S., van Someren, M.,
Rutledge, L., Stash, N., Aroyo, L. and Wielinga, B. The
Focusing on the institution’s perspective, how does a effects of transparency on trust in and acceptance of a
particular cultural environment access an individual’s content-based art recommender. Journal of User
personalized model to align the person’s experience with Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction (UMUAI),
information or an activity? What permissions might be Volume 18, Number 5, 2008.
required, and perhaps how would an automated agent be http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11257-008-9051-3
empowered to provide that on a person’s behalf?
4. Cremonesi, P., Garzotto, F., and Turrin, R. Investigating
POSSIBLE ATTRIBUTES OF PERSONAL MODELS the Persuasion Potential of Recommender Systems from
Reflecting on the above considerations for personalization a Quality Perspective: An Empirical Study. ACM Trans.
leads to attributes that could be incorporated into Interact. Intell. Syst. 2, 2, Article 11, 2012.
frameworks explored by PATCH participants, as well as http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2209310.2209314
others in the cognitive computing and HCI communities.
5. Dörk, M., Carpendale, S., and Williamson, C. The
• Longitudinal preference building: Both the elements of information flaneur: a fresh look at information seeking.
preference (signals of interests expressed by an In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human
individual) and their strengths may be accrued over time, Factors in Computing Systems, 2011.
so the longevity of interest and the context in which it http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1978942.1979124
arose is evaluated over time. 6. Falk, J. Identity and the museum visit experience. Left
• Organic movement and decay: Individuals can remain Coast Press (2009).
interested in things long after their focus or tastes have http://www.lcoastpress.com/book.php?id=214
changed. But models need to provide a method of
“decay” for interests that are not acted on, as preferences
change over time, and outdated preferences can be
perceived as noise by users.
7. Gerrard, D., Jackson, T. and O'Brien, A. The Epiphany Part II (ISWC'12). Vol. Part II, pg 391-398. Berlin,
Project: Discovering the Intrinsic Value of Museums by Heidelberg: Springer-Verlag, 2012.
Analysing Social Media. In Museums and the Web http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-35173-0_28
2014, N. Proctor & R. Cherry (eds). Silver Spring, MD: 13. Pariser, E. The Filter Bubble. What the Internet is hiding
Museums and the Web (2014). from you. London: Viking/Penguin Press, 2011.
http://mw2014.museumsandtheweb.com/paper/the-
epiphany-project-discovering-the-intrinsic-value-of- 14. Richards, D. Agent-based museum and tour guides:
museums-by-analysing-social-media/ applying the state of the art. In Proceedings of The 8th
Australasian Conference on Interactive Entertainment:
8. Hinton, A. Understanding Context: Environment, Playing the System. Article 15, 2012.
Language, and Information Architecture. California, http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/2336727.2336742
USA: O'Reilly Media, 2014. Quote pg 104.
15. Wang, Y., Stash, N., Aroyo, L., Hollink, L. and
9. Kay, J. "Scrutable adaptation: Because we can and Schreiber, G. Using Semantic Relations for Content-
must." In Adaptive hypermedia and adaptive web-based based Recommender Systems in Cultural Heritage.
systems, pp. 11-19. Springer Berlin Heidelberg, (2006). Workshop on Ontology Patterns (WOP) at International
10. Koren, Y., Bell, R., Volinsky, C. Matrix Factorization Semantic Web Conference (ISWC), 2009.
Techniques for Recommender Systems. Computer, http://chip.win.tue.nl/presentation/wangetal-wop.pdf
vol.42, no.8, (2009). 16. Wecker, A.J., Kuflik, T., Stock, O. Personalized
http://dx.doi.org/10.1109/MC.2009.263 Cultural Heritage Experience outside the Museum:
11. Kuflik, T., Kay, J., and Kummerfeld, B. Lifelong Connecting the outside world to the museum
personalized museum experiences. In Pervasive User experience. In PATCH Proceedings, (2013). http://ceur-
Modeling and Personalization (PUMP'10) at ws.org/Vol-997/patch2013_paper_3.pdf
UMAP2010, (2010). 17. Ziegler, C-N., Golbeck, J. Investigating interactions of
12. Maccotrazzo, V. Burst the filter bubble: using semantic trust and interest similarity, Decision Support Systems,
web to enable serendipity. In Proceedings of the 11th 2006. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.dss.2006.11.003
international conference on The Semantic Web - Volume