Investigating Design and Evaluation Guidelines for Interactive Presentation of Visual Art

  • Jeni MaleshkovaEmail author
  • Matthew Purver
  • Tim Weyrich
  • Peter W. McOwan
Part of the Springer Series on Cultural Computing book series (SSCC)


Many of current applications for digital art presentation are built by creating a virtual environment, which aims to mimic the look and feel of a common real world exhibition space. Such attempts to imitate existing spaces are more or less unsuccessful and do not support the imagination of the user, nor do they provide an opportunity for a different experience from that in the real-world. Furthermore, presentation environment affects the art perception. Specifically designed exhibition spaces and interactive elements can aid and enhance the viewer’s experience. The design, form and colour of the artwork’s environment can influence the impact that it has on the viewer, especially in digital art presentation. A major role in how paintings are perceived in a virtual environment is played by not only the exhibited surrounding but also the interaction enabled within the application. What type of interaction contributes towards user engagement with the content presented and the application itself? How does interactivity aid digital art display and what types of interactivity are better suited for presentation of visual content? What types of paintings are most suitable to be presented in a virtual exhibition space? These are some of the questions raised and discussed in this chapter. Through two qualitative studies, we investigate how four different interactivity modes can aid towards user engagement and its different phases. Design guidelines for the virtual exhibition space are gathered as well as a list of suggested improvements for the interactivity tasks in the different modes. Moreover, the experts that took part in both focus group studies agreed with our proposed extended framework on user engagement with its different phases and the suggested metrics for their evaluation.


Virtual Environment Interactivity Mode Visual Content Interactive Application Focus Group Study 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. Bilda Z, Edmonds E, Candy L (2008) Designing for creative engagement. Des Stud 29(6):525–540CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Bollo A, Dal Pozzolo L (2005) Analysis of visitor behaviour inside the museum: an empirical study. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on arts and cultural managementGoogle Scholar
  3. Graham B, Cook S (2010) Rethinking curating. Art after new media. The MIT Presss, Cambridge, p 283Google Scholar
  4. Maleshkova J, Purver M (2014) Beyond the white cube: presentation of visual art in interactive 3D environments. In: Electronic Visualisation and the Arts (EVA). London
  5. O’Brien H, Toms E (2008) What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for defining user engagement with technology. J Am Soc Inf Sci Technol 59(6):938–955. doi: 10.1002/asi.20801 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. O’Doherty B (1986) Inside the white cube: the ideology of the gallery space. University of California Press, Berkeley, p 14Google Scholar
  7. Pares N, Pares R (2001) Interaction-driven virtual reality application design. A particular case: ElBall del Fanalet or lightpools. Presence: Teleoperators Virtual Environ 10(2):236–245Google Scholar
  8. Roussou M (2006) Interactivity and learning: examining primary school children’s activity within virtual environments. PhD Thesis, pp 1–282Google Scholar
  9. Soyel H, McOwan PW (2013) Towards an affect sensitive interactive companion. Comput Electr Eng 39(4):1312–1319CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jeni Maleshkova
    • 1
    Email author
  • Matthew Purver
    • 1
  • Tim Weyrich
    • 2
  • Peter W. McOwan
    • 1
  1. 1.Cognitive Science Research Group, Electronic Engineering and Computer ScienceQueen Mary University of LondonLondonUK
  2. 2.Virtual Environments and Computer Graphics Research Group, Department of Computer ScienceUniversity College LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations