Advertisement

OTM Machine Acceptance: In the Arab Culture

  • Abdullah Rashed
  • Henrique Santos
Part of the Communications in Computer and Information Science book series (CCIS, volume 92)

Abstract

Basically, neglecting the human factor is one of the main reasons for system failures or for technology rejection, even when important technologies are considered. Biometrics mostly have the characteristics needed for effortless acceptance, such as easiness and usefulness, that are essential pillars of acceptance models such as TAM (technology acceptance model). However, it should be investigated. Many studies have been carried out to research the issues of technology acceptance in different cultures, especially the western culture. Arabic culture lacks these types of studies with few publications in this field. This paper introduces a new biometric interface for ATM machines. This interface depends on a promising biometrics which is odour. To discover the acceptance of this biometrics, we distributed a questionnaire via a web site and called for participation in the Arab Area and found that most respondents would accept to use odour.

Keywords

Technology acceptance ATM interface Arab culture 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Al-Gahtani, S., Geoffrey, S., Hubona, G., Wang, J.: Information Technology (IT) in Saudi Arabia: Culture and the Acceptance and Use of IT Source Information and Management 44(8), 681–691 (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beefing up security with biometrics. Card Technology Today, 14–15 (May 2008)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brewster, S., McGookin, D., Miller, C.: Olfoto: Designing a Smell-based Interaction. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems, Montréal, Québec, pp. 653–662 (2006) ISBN:1-59593-372-7Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Conventry, L., Angeli, A., Jonson, G.: Usability and Biometric Verification at the ATM Interface. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Archive, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA, pp. 153–160 (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Coventry, L.: Biometrics, self-service and the user. Biometric Technology Today, 7–9 (November/December 2004)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dhamija, R., Perrig, A.: Déjà Vu: A User Study Using Images for Authentication. In: 9th USENIX Security Symposium, Denver, Colorado, US, p. 4 (2000)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fox News: U.S. Rushing Bomb-Sniffing Dogs to Iraq amid Skepticism over Equipment (2010), http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,584801,00.html
  8. 8.
    Gong, L., Lomas, M., Needham, R., Saltzer, J.H.: Protecting Poorly Chosen Secrets from Guessing Attacks. IEEE J. on Selected Areas in Communications 11, 648–656 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Heckle, R., Patrick, A., Ozok, A.: Perception and Acceptance of Fingerprint Biometric Technology. In: Proceedings of the 3rd symposium on Usable privacy and security, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA. ACM International Conference Proceeding Series, vol. 229, pp. 153–154 (1996) ISBN:978-1-59593-801-5Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Korotkaya, Z.: Biometric Person Authentication: Odor (2009), http://www.it.lut.fi/kurssit/03-04/010970000/seminars/Korotkaya.pdf
  11. 11.
    Lewis, V.R., Fouche, C.F., Lemaster, R.L.: Evaluation of Dog-Assisted Searches and Electronic Odor Devices for Detecting the Western Subterranean Termite. Forest-products-journal (USA) 47(10), 79–84 (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Loch, K., Straub, D., Kamel, S.: Diffusing the Internet in the Arab world: the role of social norms and technological culturation. IEEE Transactions on Engineering Management 50, 45–63 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    McIntosh, D.: Biometrics – a fad or the future? Biometric Technology Today, 9–11 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    MIT School of Engineering: Inventor of the Week: Range Estimation Trainer (2003), http://web.mit.edu/invent/iow/simjian.html
  15. 15.
    Rashed, A., Santos, H.: Odour User Interface for Authentication: Possibility and Acceptance: Case Study. In: The International MultiConference of Engineers and Computer Scientists 2010 (IMECS 2010), The 2010 IAENG International Conference on Bioinformatics, Hong Kong (2010)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rejman-Greene, M.: A Framework for the Development of Biometric Systems. Biometric Technology Today, 6–8 (2003)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Rooney, S.: University of Bristol OdoReader Could Save Health Services Millions by Sniffing Out Stomach Bugs (February 2010), http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/printerfriendlynews.php?newsid=178283
  18. 18.
    Rose, G., Straub, D.: Predicting General IT Use: Applying TAM to the Arab World. Journal of Global Information Management 6(3), 39–46 (1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Skaff, G.: An alternative to passwords? Biometric Technology Today, 10–11 (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Tibenderana, P., Ogao, P.: Acceptance And Use of Electronic Library Services in Ugandan Universities. In: International Conference on Digital Libraries, Proceedings of the 8th ACM/IEEE-CS joint conference on Digital libraries, Pittsburgh, PA, USA (2008)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Twati, J.M.: Societal and Organisational Culture and the Adoption of Management Information Systems in Arab Countries, Ph.D. theses, Griffith University (2009)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wang F.: Patent application title: Device and Method for Setting Odor, Inventors: Agents: Rosenberg, Klein & Lee Assignees: Altek Corporation Origin: Ellicott City, MD US IPC8 Class: AG06F1730FI USPC Class: 7071041 (2009), http://www.faqs.org/patents/app/20090132596#ixzz0eTfz5AQY

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2010

Authors and Affiliations

  • Abdullah Rashed
    • 1
  • Henrique Santos
    • 1
  1. 1.R & D Algoritmi CentreUniversity of MinhoGuimarãesPortugal

Personalised recommendations