Advertisement

From Technological Specifications to Beta Version: The Development of the Imprint+ Web App

  • Pedro Beça
  • Pedro Amado
  • Maria João Antunes
  • Milene Matos
  • Eduardo Ferreira
  • Armando Alves
  • André Couto
  • Rafael Marques
  • Rosa Pinho
  • Lísia Lopes
  • João Carvalho
  • Carlos Fonseca
Conference paper
Part of the Smart Innovation, Systems and Technologies book series (SIST, volume 80)

Abstract

Ecologically responsible behaviour and commitment to a sustainable development should be fostered among citizens. The IMPRINT+ project, co-funded by Erasmus+ programme of the European Union, intends to promote an ecological reasoning at an European level, supported by the participation of local communities and particularly by young people. Based on ICT use (smartphones, tablets and websites) and using a gamification strategy, the IMPRINT+ project aims to encourage young citizens to become aware of the global environmental impact of their everyday actions and to encourage them to act and participate in a local context. This paper aims to answer the question of what requirements, functional and non-functional, are appropriate to an app designed to engage young citizens, to be aware of their ecological footprint and to contribute, within different levels (individual, familiar, community or even national), with actions to its compensation. The paper describes the development process of the app, in terms of its specifications, requirements and system architecture. Preliminary tests suggest that the options made to develop the app were appropriate to promote the engagement of young people within the projects’ goals.

Keywords

Ecological reasoning Local community IMPRINT+ mobile app 

References

  1. Arts K, van der Wal R, Adams WM (2015) Digital technology and the conservation of nature. Ambio 44:661–673. doi: 10.1007/s13280-015-0705-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Charland A, Leroux B (2011) Mobile application development. Commun ACM 54:49–53. doi: 10.1145/1941487.1941504 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Crumlish C, Malone E (2009) Designing social interfaces: principles, patterns, and practices for improving the user experience. O’Reilly Media, SebastopolGoogle Scholar
  4. European Comission (2014a) Guidance on community-led local development for local actors Google Scholar
  5. European Comission (2014b) Cohesion policy 2014–2020 - community-led local developmentGoogle Scholar
  6. Galán-Díaz C, Edwards P, Nelson JD, van der Wal R (2015) Digital innovation through partnership between nature conservation organisations and academia: a qualitative impact assessment. Ambio 44:538–549. doi: 10.1007/s13280-015-0704-2 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Goodwin K (2009) Designing for the digital age. Wiley, IndianapolisGoogle Scholar
  8. Hamari J, Koivisto J, Sarsa H (2014) Does gamification work? A literature review of empirical studies on gamification. In: 2014 47th Hawaii international conference on system sciences. IEEE, pp 3025–3034Google Scholar
  9. Heitkötter H, Hanschke S, Majchrzak TA (2013) Evaluating cross-platform development approaches for mobile applications. Springer, Berlin, pp 120–138Google Scholar
  10. Hofacker CF, de Ruyter K, Lurie NH et al (2016) Gamification and mobile marketing effectiveness. J Interact Mark 34:25–36. doi: 10.1016/j.intmar.2016.03.001 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Lowdermilk T (2013) User-centered design: a developer’s guide to building user-friendly applications. O’Reilly Media, SebastopolGoogle Scholar
  12. Matos M, Ferreira E, Fonseca C (2015) Imprinting an ecological compensation reasoning on society by means of young citizens - IMPRINT+, Erasmus+ Programme application form, Key Action 2: Strategic Partnerships, 80Google Scholar
  13. Miorandi D, Sicari S, De Pellegrini F, Chlamtac I (2012) Internet of things: vision, applications and research challenges. Ad Hoc Netw 10:1497–1516. doi: 10.1016/j.adhoc.2012.02.016 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Preece J, Maloney-Krichmar D (2005) Online communities: design, theory, and practice. J Comput Commun. http://jcmc.indiana.edu/vol10/issue4/preece.html
  15. Robertson S, Robertson J (2012) Mastering the requirements process: getting requirements right. Pearson Education Inc., WestfordGoogle Scholar
  16. Rundcrantz K, Skärbäck E (2003) Environmental compensation in planning: a review of five different countries with major emphasis on the German system. Eur Environ J Eur Environ Policy 13:204–226. doi: 10.1002/eet.324 Google Scholar
  17. Sharp H, Rogers Y, Preece J (2007) Interaction design. Wiley, ChichesterGoogle Scholar
  18. Shitkova M, Holler J, Heide T et al (2015) Towards usability guidelines for mobile websites and applications. In: Wirtschaftsinformatik, pp 1603–1617Google Scholar
  19. Xanthopoulos S, Xinogalos S (2013) A comparative analysis of cross-platform development approaches for mobile applications. In: Proceedings of the 6th Balkan conference in informatics on BCI 2013. ACM Press, New York, USA, p 213Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Pedro Beça
    • 1
  • Pedro Amado
    • 1
  • Maria João Antunes
    • 1
  • Milene Matos
    • 2
  • Eduardo Ferreira
    • 2
  • Armando Alves
    • 2
  • André Couto
    • 2
  • Rafael Marques
    • 2
  • Rosa Pinho
    • 2
  • Lísia Lopes
    • 2
  • João Carvalho
    • 2
  • Carlos Fonseca
    • 2
  1. 1.DigiMediaUniversity of AveiroAveiroPortugal
  2. 2.CESAMUniversity of AveiroAveiroPortugal

Personalised recommendations