Flypad: Designing Trajectories in a Large-Scale Permanent Augmented Reality Installation

  • Martin Flintham
  • Stuart Reeves
  • Patrick Brundell
  • Tony Glover
  • Steve Benford
  • Duncan Rowland
  • Boriana Koleva
  • Chris Greenhalgh
  • Matt Adams
  • Nick Tandavanitj
  • Ju Row Farr
Conference paper

Abstract

A long-term naturalistic study reveals how artists designed, visitors experienced, and curators and technicians maintained a public interactive artwork over a four year period. The work consisted of a collaborative augmented reality game that ran across eleven networked displays (screens and footpads) that were deployed along a winding ramp in a purpose-built gallery. Reflections on design meetings and documentation show how the artists responded to this architectural setting and addressed issues of personalisation, visitor flow, attracting spectators, linking real and virtual, and accessibility. Observations of visitors reveal that while their interactions broadly followed the artists’ design, there was far more flexible engagement than originally anticipated, especially within visiting groups, while interviews with curators and technicians reveal how the work was subsequently maintained and ultimately reconfigured. Our findings extend discussions of ‘interactional trajectories’ within CSCW, affirming the relevance of this concept to describing collaboration in cultural settings, but also suggesting how it needs to be extended to better reflect group interactions at multiple levels of scale.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Aoki, P., Grinter, R., Hurst, A., Szymanski, M., Thornton, J. & Woodruff, A (2002); ‘Sotto voce: exploring the interplay of conversation and mobile audio spaces’, Proc. CHI, pp. 431–438, ACM.Google Scholar
  2. Bell, G. (2002): Making Sense of Museums, Intel Labs.Google Scholar
  3. Benford, S., Giannachi, G., Koleva, B. & Rodden, T. (2009): ‘From Interaction to Trajectories: Designing Coherent Journeys Through User Experiences’, Proc. CHI, pp. 709–718, ACM.Google Scholar
  4. Brignull, H. & Rogers, Y. (2003): ‘Enticing people to Interact with Large Public Displays in Public Spaces’, Proc. Interact, pp. 17–24, IOS Press, IFIP.Google Scholar
  5. Brown, B., MacColl, I., Chalmers, M., Galani, A., Randell, C. & Steed, A., (2003): ‘Lessons From the Lighthouse: Collaboration in a Shared Mixed Reality System’, Proc. CHI, pp. 577–584, ACM.Google Scholar
  6. Costello, B., Muller, L., Amitani, S. & Edmonds, E. (2005): ‘Understanding the Experience of Interactive Art: Iamascope in Beta_space’, Proc. 2nd Australasian Conference on Interactive entertainment, Sydney.Google Scholar
  7. Crabtree, A & Rodden, T. (2008): ‘Hybrid Ecologies: Understanding Cooperative Interaction in Emerging Physical Digital Environments’, Personal & Ubiquitous Computing, 12:481–493, Springer.Google Scholar
  8. Dix, A., (1997): ‘Challenges for cooperative work on the web: An analytical approach’, Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 6(2–3):135–156.CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  9. Fraser, M., Stanton, D, Ng, K., Benford, S., O’Malley, C., Bowers,J., Taxen, G., Ferris, K., Hindmarsh, J., (2003): ‘Assembling history: achieving coherent experiences with diverse technologies’, Proc ECSCW, Kluwer.Google Scholar
  10. Gaver, W., Sellen, A., Heath, C., & Luff, P., (1993): ‘One is not enough: multiple views in a media space’, Proc. CHI, pp. 335–341, ACM.Google Scholar
  11. Heath, C. & vom Lehn, D. (2002): ‘Misconstruing interactivity’, Proc. Interactive Learning in Museums of Art and Design, Victoria and Albert Museum, 2002.Google Scholar
  12. Hindmarsh, J., Heath, C., vom Lehn, D., & Cleverly, J., (2005): ‘Creating assemblies in public environments’, Journal of CSCW, 14(1):1–41, Kluwer.Google Scholar
  13. Hornecker, E. & Buur, J. (2006): ‘Getting a grip on tangible interaction, Proc. CHI, pp. 437–446, ACM.Google Scholar
  14. Koleva, B., Egglestone, S., Schnädelbach, H., Glover, K., Greenhalgh, C. & Rodden, T. (2009): ‘Supporting the creation of hybrid museum experiences’, Proc. CHI, pp. 1973–1982, ACM.Google Scholar
  15. Mazalek, A., Winegarden, C., Al-Haddad, T., Robinson, S., & We, C., (2009): ‘Architales: physical/digital co-design of an interactive story table’, Proc. TEI, pp. 241–248, ACM.Google Scholar
  16. Nardi, B. & O’Day, V. (1999): ‘Information Ecologies: Using Technology with Heart’, pp. 49–58, MIT Press.Google Scholar
  17. Not, E., Peterelli D., Stock O., Strapparava C., & Zancanaro M., (1997): ‘Person-oriented guided visits in a physical museum.’, Proc. ICHIM’97, Archives and Museum Informatics.Google Scholar
  18. Reeves, S., Benford, S., O’Malley, C. & Fraser, M., (2005): ‘Designing the spectator interface’, Proc. CHI, pp. 741–750, ACM.Google Scholar
  19. Smith, J., (2006): ‘Digital Dance Hall: The Fan Culture of Dance Simulation Arcade Games.’, Consuming Music Together pp. 193–210, Springer.Google Scholar
  20. Snibbe, S. & Raffle, H., (2009): ‘Social Immersive Media Pursuing Best Practices for Multi-user Interactive Camera/projector Exhibits’, Proc. CHI, pp. 1447–1456, ACM.Google Scholar
  21. Terrenghi, L., Quigley, A. & Dix, A. (2009|): ‘A Taxonomy for and Analysis of Multi-Person-Display Ecosystems’, Personal & Ubiquitous Computing, 13:853–598, Springer.Google Scholar
  22. vom Lehn, D., Heath, C. & Knoblauch, H., (2001): ‘Configuring exhibits’, Verbal Art Across Cultures, pp. 281–297, Gunter Narr Verlag Tubingen.Google Scholar
  23. vom Lehn, D., Hindmarsh, J., Luff, P. & Heath, C. (2007): ‘Engaging constable: revealing art with new technology’, Proc. CHI, pp. 1485–1494, ACM.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Martin Flintham
    • 1
  • Stuart Reeves
    • 1
  • Patrick Brundell
    • 1
  • Tony Glover
    • 1
  • Steve Benford
    • 1
  • Duncan Rowland
    • 2
  • Boriana Koleva
    • 1
  • Chris Greenhalgh
    • 1
  • Matt Adams
    • 3
  • Nick Tandavanitj
    • 3
  • Ju Row Farr
    • 3
  1. 1.University of NottinghamNottinghamUK
  2. 2.University of LincolnLincolnUK
  3. 3.Blast TheoryBrightonUK

Personalised recommendations