research-article

The Attendant Perspective: Present Others in Public Technology Interactions

Authors:

Sarah DiefenbachAuthors Info & Claims

CHI '23: Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Article No.: 502, Pages 1 - 18

https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3581231

Published: 19 April 2023 Publication History

Abstract

Technology interactions found their way into public space and present others attend what users are doing. However, in HCI research, the attendant perspective has often been neglected or considered only vaguely in the sense of “social context”. Aiming at a better understanding of different types of attendants and their experiences, we developed a typology of four types based on two differentiating criteria (conspicuousness and voluntariness of attending the user interaction). An experimental vignette study (N = 181) tested the typology and revealed typical experiential patterns (e.g., need fulfillment, emotions, desire to join the technology interaction) related to the four types based on quantitative and qualitative data. Our research provides various contributions to HCI theory and design. For example, the typology can be used analytically in UX research. Moreover, it can be used generatively to design positive technology experiences in public for all stakeholders, namely, users and attendants.

Supplementary Material

MP4 File (3544548.3581231-talk-video.mp4)

Pre-recorded Video Presentation

Download
13.64 MB

References

[1]

Anshu Agarwal, and Andrew Meyer. 2009. Beyond usability: evaluating emotional response as an integral part of the user experience. In Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’09). Boston, USA, 2919–2930. https://doi.org/10.1145/1520340.1520420

Digital Library

[2]

Herman Aguinis, and Kyle J. Bradley. 2014. Best practice recommendations for designing and implementing experimental vignette methodology studies. Organizational research methods 17, 4 (Ocotber 2014), 351–371. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428114547952

[3]

Fouad Alallah, Ali Neshati, Yumiko Sakamoto, Khalad Hasan, Edward Lank, Andrea Bunt, 2018. Performer vs. observer: whose comfort level should we consider when examining the social acceptability of input modalities for head-worn display? In Proceedings of the 24th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (VRST’18). Tokyo, Japan, 1–9. https://doi.org/10.1145/3281505.3281541

Digital Library

[4]

Christiane Atzmüller, and Peter M. Steiner. 2010. Experimental vignette studies in survey research. Methodology: European Journal of Research Methods for the Behavioral and Social Sciences 6, 3 (January 2010), 128. https://doi.org/10.1027/1614-2241/a000014

[5]

Monique Faye Baier, and Michael Burmester. 2019. Not Just About the User: Acceptance of Speech Interaction in Public Spaces. In Proceedings of Mensch und Computer 2019 (MuC’19). Hamburg, Germany, 349-359. https://doi.org/10.1145/3340764.3340801

Digital Library

[6]

Margaret M. Bradley, and Peter J. Lang. 1994. Measuring emotion: the self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of behavior therapy and experimental psychiatry 25, 1 (March 1994), 49-59. https://doi.org/10.1016/0005-7916(94)90063-9

[7]

Drederik Brudy, David Ledo, Saul Greenberg, and Andreas Butz. 2014. Is anyone looking? mitigating shoulder surfing on public displays through awareness and protection. In Proceedings of The International Symposium on Pervasive Displays (PerDis’14). Copenhagen, Denmark, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1145/2611009.2611028

Digital Library

[8]

Scott W. Campbell. 2007. Perceptions of mobile phone use in public settings: A cross-cultural comparison. International Journal of Communication 1, 1, 20.

[9]

Marta E. Cecchinato, Anna L. Cox, and Jon Bird. 2017. Always on(line)?: User experience of smartwatches and their role within multi-device ecologies. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’17). Denver, Colorado, USA, 3557–3568. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025538

Digital Library

[10]

Varoth Chotpitayasunondh, and Karen M. Douglas. 2018. The effects of “phubbing” on social interaction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 48, 6 (March 2018), 304–316. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12506

[11]

Tamara Denning, Zakariya Dehlawi, and Tadayoshi Kohno. 2014. In situ with bystanders of augmented reality glasses: Perspectives on recording and privacy-mediating technologies. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’14). Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 2377–2386. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557352

Digital Library

[12]

Kai Eckoldt, Marc Hassenzahl, Matthias Laschke, and Martin Knobel. 2013. Alternatives: exploring the car's design space from an experience-oriented perspective. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Designing Pleasurable Products and Interfaces (DPPI’13). Newcastle, UK, 156–164. https://doi.org/10.1145/2513506.2513523

Digital Library

[13]

Christos Efthymiou, and Martin Halvey. 2016. Evaluating the social acceptability of voice based smartwatch search. In Asia Information Retrieval Symposium. Lecture Notes in Computer Science (October 2016), Vol. 9994. Springer, Cham, 267–278. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-48051-0_20

Digital Library

[14]

Pouya Eghbali, Kaisa Väänänen, and Tero Jokela. 2019. Social acceptability of virtual reality in public spaces: Experiential factors and design recommendations. In Proceedings of the 18th international conference on mobile and ubiquitous multimedia (MUM’19). Pisa, Italy, 1–11. https://doi.org/10.1145/3365610.3365647

Digital Library

[15]

Malin Eiband, Mohamed Khamis, Emanuel von Zezschwitz, Heinrich Hussmann, and Florian Alt. 2017. Understanding shoulder surfing in the wild: Stories from users and observers. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’17). Denver, Colorado, USA, 4254–4265. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025636

Digital Library

[16]

Barrett Ens, Tovi Grossman, Fraser Anderson, Justin Matejka, and George Fitzmaurice. 2015. Candid interaction: revealing hidden mobile and wearable computing activities. In Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST’15). Charlotte NC, USA, 467–476. https://doi.org/10.1145/2807442.2807449

Digital Library

[17]

Fatemeh Erfanian, Robab Latifnejad Roudsari, Abbas Heydari, and Mohsen Noghani Dokht Bahmani. 2020. A narrative on using vignettes: its advantages and drawbacks. Journal of Midwifery and Reproductive Health 8, 2, 2134-2145. https://dx.doi.org/10.22038/jmrh.2020.41650.1472

[18]

Habiba Farzand, Kinshuk Bhardwaj, Karola Marky, and Mohamed Khamis. 2021. The Interplay between Personal Relationships & Shoulder Surfing Mitigation. In Proceedings of the Mensch und Computer 2021 (MuC’21). Ingolstadt, Germany, 338–343. https://doi.org/10.1145/3473856.3474006

Digital Library

[19]

Ivo Flammer. 2016. Genteel wearables: Bystander-centered design. IEEE Security & Privacy 14, 5 (September – October 2016), 73–79. https://doi.org/10.1109/MSP.2016.91

Digital Library

[20]

Vito Gentile, Mohamed Khamis, Salvatore Sorce, and Florian Alt. 2017. They are looking at me! Understanding how audience presence impacts on public display users. In Proceedings of the 6th ACM International Symposium on Pervasive Displays (PerDis’17). Lugano, Switzerland, 1–7. https://doi.org/10.1145/3078810.3078822

Digital Library

[21]

Ceenu George, Philipp Janssen, David Heuss, Florian Alt. 2019. Should I interrupt or not? Understanding interruptions in head-mounted display settings. In Proceedings of the 2019 on Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS’19). San Diego, CA, USA, 497–510. https://doi.org/10.1145/3322276.3322363

Digital Library

[22]

Erving Goffman. 1963. Behavior in public places. Free Press. Glencoe.

[23]

Stefan Greuter, Florian F. Mueller, and Thuong Hoang. 2022. Designing public VR installations. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS’22). Virutal Event, Australia, 792–806. https://doi.org/10.1145/3532106.3533454

Digital Library

[24]

Jan Gugenheimer, Evgeny Stemasov, Julian Frommel, and Enrico Rukzio. 2017. ShareVR: Enabling Co-Located Experiences for Virtual Reality between HMD and Non-HMD Users. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’17). Denver, Colorado, USA, 4021–4033. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025683

Digital Library

[25]

Marc Hassenzahl, and Sarah Diefenbach. 2012. Well-being, need fulfillment, and Experience Design. In Proceedings of the DIS 2012 Workshop Designing Wellbeing (June 2012). Newcastle, UK.

[26]

Marc Hassenzahl, Sarah Diefenbach, and Anja Göritz. 2010. Needs, affect, and interactive products - facets of user experience. Interact. Comput. 22, 5 (September 2010), 353–362. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2010.04.002

Digital Library

[27]

Marc Hassenzahl, Kai Eckoldt, Sarah Diefenbach, Matthias Laschke, Eva Lenz, and Joonhwan Kim. 2013. Designing moments of meaning and pleasure. Experience design and happiness. International journal of design 7, 3, 21–31.

[28]

Andrew F. Hayes, and Klaus Krippendorf. 2007. Answering the call for a standard reliability measure for coding data. Communication Methods and Measures 1, 1 (December 2007), 77–89. https://doi.org/10.1080/19312450709336664

[29]

Daniel Hepperle, Andreas Siess, and Matthias Wölfel. 2019. Staging Virtual Reality Exhibits for Bystander Involvement in Semi-public Spaces. Interactivity, Game Creation, Design, Learning, and Innovation, 261–272. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-53294-9_18

[30]

Kasper Hornbæk, and Morten Hertzum. 2017. Technology acceptance and user experience: A review of the experiential component in HCI. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. (TOCHI) 24, 5 (October 2017), 1–30. https://doi.org/10.1145/3127358

Digital Library

[31]

Gijs Huisman, Marco van Hout, Elisabeth van Dijk, Thea van Der Geest, and Dirk Heylen. 2013. LEMtool: measuring emotions in visual interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’13). Paris, France, 351–360. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2470706

Digital Library

[32]

Pradthana Jarusriboonchai, Aris Malapaschas, Thomas Olsson, and Kaisa Väänänen. 2016. Increasing collocated people's awareness of the mobile user's activities: a field trial of social displays. In Proceedings of the 19th ACM Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (CSCW’16). San Francisco, California, USA, 1691–1702. https://doi.org/10.1145/2818048.2819990

Digital Library

[33]

Holger Klapperich, Alarith Uhde, and Marc Hassenzahl. 2020. Designing everyday automation with well-being in mind 24, 6 (December 2020), 763–779. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-020-01452-w

Digital Library

[34]

Marion Koelle, Swamy Ananthanarayan, Simon Czupalla, Wilko Heuten, and Susanne Boll. 2018. Your smart glasses’ camera bothers me! exploring opt-in and opt-out gestures for privacy mediation. In Proceedings of the 10th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (NordiCHI’18). Oslo, Norway, 473–481. https://doi.org/10.1145/3240167.3240174

Digital Library

[35]

Marion Koelle, Matthias Kranz, and Andreas Möller 2015. Don't look at me that way! Understanding user attitudes towards data glasses usage. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI’15). Copenhagen, Denmark, 362–372. https://doi.org/10.1145

Digital Library

[36]

Marion Koelle, Thomas Olsson, Robb Mitchell, Julie Williamson, and Susanne Boll. 2019. What is (un)acceptable?: thoughts on social responsibility in HCI research. Interactions, 26, 3 (June 2019), 36–40. https://doi.org/10.1145/3319073

Digital Library

[37]

Anne E. Krueger. 2022. Two methods for Experience Design based on the Needs Empathy Map: Persona with Needs and Needs Persona. In Mensch und Computer 2022 – Workshopband, K. Marky, U. Grünefeld, and T. Kosch Eds., Gesellschaft für Informatik e.V., Bonn, Germany. https://doi.org/10.18420/muc2022-mci-ws07-425

[38]

Kari Kuutti and Liam J. Bannon. 2014. The Turn to Practice in HCI: Towards a Research Agenda. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3543–3552. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557111

Digital Library

[39]

Daniël Lakens. 2013. Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: a practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Front. Psychol. 4, 863. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2013.00863

[40]

Rich Ling. 2004. The mobile connection: The cell phone's impact on society. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. San Francisco.

Digital Library

[41]

Shunzhong Liu. 2012. The impact of forced use on customer adoption of self-service technologies. Computers in Human Behavior 28, 4, 1194–1201. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2012.02.002

Digital Library

[42]

Ville Mäkelä, Johannes Kleine, Maxine Hood, Florian Alt, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2021. Hidden interaction techniques: Concealed information acquisition and texting on smartphones and wearables. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’21). Yokohama, Japan, 1–14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445504

Digital Library

[43]

Philipp Mayring. 2021. Qualitative content analysis: a step-by-step guide. Sage. New York, USA.

[44]

Brandon T. McDaniel, and Eric Wesselmann. 2021. You phubbed me for that? Reason given for phubbing and perceptions of interactional quality and exclusion. Human Behavior and Emerging Technologies 3, 3, 413–422. https://doi.org/10.1002/hbe2.255

[45]

Emmanuel O.C. Mkpojiogu, Obianuju E. Okeke-Uzodike, Chika Eze, and Emelda I. Emmanuel. 2022. A conceptual UX model for the design and evaluation of interactive digital artifacts over time. In Proceedings of the 2022 Conference on Information Communications Technology and Society (ICTAS). IEEE, New Jersey, 1–6. https://doi.org/10.1109/ICTAS53252.2022.9744658

[46]

Andrew Monk, Jenni Carroll, Sarah Parker, and Mark Blythe. 2004. Why are mobile phones annoying? Behaviour & Information Technology 2, 1 (February 2007), 33–41. https://doi.org/10.1080/01449290310001638496

Digital Library

[47]

Jon D. Morris. 1995. Observations: SAM: the Self-Assessment Manikin; an efficient cross-cultural measurement of emotional response. Journal of advertising research 35, 6 (November 1995), 63–68.

[48]

Marie Muehlhaus, Jürgen Steimle, and Marion Koelle. 2022. Feather Hair: Interacting with Sensorized Hair in Public Settings. In Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems Conference (DIS’22). Virtual Event, Australia, 1228-1242. https://doi.org/10.1145/3532106.3533527

Digital Library

[49]

Ghasim Nabizadeh Chianeh, Shahram Vahedi, Mohammad Rostami, and Mohammad Ali Nazari. 2012. Validity and reliability of self-assessment manikin. Journal of Research in Psychlogical Health 6, 2 (September 2022), 52–61.

[50]

Lene Nielsen. 2019. Personas – User Focused Design. Springer-Verlag London. London, UK.

[51]

Brendan Norman, and Daniel Bennett. 2014. Are mobile phone conversations always so annoying? The ‘need-to-listen’ effect re-visited. Behaviour & Information Technology 33, 12 (October 2014), 1294–1305. https://doi.org/10.1080/0144929X.2013.876098

[52]

Oxford Leaner's Dictionary 2022. Witness. Retrieved December 02, 2022 from https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/definition/english/witness_1?q=witness

[53]

Jeni Paay, Jesper Kjeldskov, Dimitrios Raptis, Mikael B. Skov, Ivan S. Penchev, and Elias Ringhauge. 2017. Cross-device interaction with large displays in public: Insights from both users' and observers' perspectives. In Proceedings of the 29th Australian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction (OZCHI’17). Brisbane, Queensland, Australia, 87–97. https://doi.org/10.1145/3152771.3152781

Digital Library

[54]

Delroy L. Paulhus, and Simine Vazire. 2007. In Handbook of Research Methods in Personality Psychology. The Guilford Press, 224–239. New York, USA.

[55]

Peter Peltonen, Antti Salovaara, Giulio Jacucci, Tommi Ilmonen, Carmelo Ardito, Petri Saarikko, and Vikram Batra. 2007. Extending large-scale event participation with user-created mobile media on a public display. In Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Mobile and ubiquitous multimedia (MUM’07). Oulu, Finland, 131–138. https://doi.org/10.1145/1329469.1329487

Digital Library

[56]

Alfredo J. Perez, Sherali Zeadally, Scott Griffith, Luis Y. Matos Garcia, and Jaouad A. Mouloud. 2020. A User Study of a Wearable System to Enhance Bystanders’ Facial Privacy. IoT 1, 2 (October 2020), 13. https://doi.org/10.3390/iot1020013

[57]

Dorian Peters, Rafael A. Calvo, and Richard M. Ryan. 2018. Designing for motivation, engagement and wellbeing in digital experience. Front. Psychol. 9, 797 (May 2018). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.00797

[58]

Kevin P. Pfeil, Neeraj Chatlani, Joseph J. LaViola, and Pamela Wisniewski. 2021. Bridging the socio-technical gaps in body-worn interpersonal live-streaming telepresence through a critical review of the literature. In Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 5, CSCW1 (April 2021), 1–39. https://doi.org/10.1145/3449194

Digital Library

[59]

Dorin M. Popovici, Cyril Septseault, and Ronan Querrec. 2006. Motivate them to communicate. In 2006 International Conference on Cyberworlds (CW’2006). Lausanne, Schweiz, 198–205.

Digital Library

[60]

Halley P. Profita, James Clawson, Scott Gilliland, Clint Zeagler, Thad Starner, Jim Budd, and Ellen Yi-Luen Do. 2013. Don't mind me touching my wrist: a case study of interacting with on-body technology in public. In Proceedings of the 2013 International Symposium on Wearable Computers (ISWC’13). Zurich, Switzerland, 89–96. https://doi.org/10.1145/2493988.2494331

Digital Library

[61]

Stuart Reeves. 2011. Designing Interfaces in Public Settings: Understanding the Role of the Spectator in Human-Computer Interaction. Germany, Springer Science and Business Media. Berlin, Germany.

[62]

Machiel J. Reinders, Pratibha A. Dabholkar, and Ruud T. Frambach. 2008. Consequences of forcing consumers to use technology-based self-service. Journal of Service Research 11, 2 (October 2008), 107–123. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094670508324297

[63]

Julie Rico Williamson. 2012. User experience, performance, and social acceptability: usable multimodal mobile interaction. PhD Thesis, University of Glasgow.

[64]

Julie Rico Williamson, and Stephen Brewster. 2010. Usable gestures for mobile interfaces: evaluating social acceptability. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’10). Atlanta, Georgia, USA, 887–896. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753458

Digital Library

[65]

Said A. Salloum, Ahmad Qasim Mohammad Alhamad, Mostafa Al-Emran, Azza Abdel Monem, and Khaled Shaalan. 2019. Exploring Students’ Acceptance of E-Learning Through the Development of a Comprehensive Technology Acceptance Model. IEEE Access, 7 (September 2019), 128445–128462. https://doi.org/10.1109/ACCESS.2019.2939467

[66]

Florian Schaub, Ruben Deyhle, and Michael Weber. 2012. Password entry usability and shoulder surfing susceptibility on different smartphone platforms. In Proceedings of the 11th international conference on mobile and ubiquitous multimedia (MUM’12). Ulm, Germany, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/2406367.2406384

Digital Library

[67]

Anastasia Sergeeva, Marleen Huysman, Maura Soekijad, and Bart van den Hooff. 2017. Through the eyes of others: how onlookers shape the use of technology at work. MIS Q. 41, 4 (December 2017), 1153–1178. https://doi.org/10.25300/MISQ/2017/41.4.07

[68]

Kennon M. Sheldon, Andrew J. Elliot, Youngmee Kim, and Tim Kasser. 2001. What is satisfying about satisfying events? Testing 10 candidate psychological needs 80, 2 (Februrary 2001), 325–339. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.80.2.325.

[69]

Georg Simmel. 1903. Die Großstädte und das Geistesleben [The metropolis and mental life]. Dresden, Petermann.

[70]

Andrea Tagarelli, and Roberto Interdonato. 2013. Who's out there?: Identifying and ranking lurkers in social networks. In Proceedings of the 2013 IEEE/ACM International Conference on Advances in Social Networks Analysis and Mining (ASONAM’13). Niagara Falls, ON, Canada, 215–222. https://doi.org/10.1145/2492517.2492542

Digital Library

[71]

Anthony Tang, Mattias Finke, Michael Blackstock, Rock Leung, Meghan Deutscher, and Rodger Lea. 2008. Designing for bystanders: reflections on building a public digital forum. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 879–882. https://doi.org/10.1145/1357054.1357193

Digital Library

[72]

Eran Toch, Hadas Chassidim, and Tali Hatuka. 2020. Can you turn it off?: The spatial and social context of mobile disturbance. In Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction 4, CSCW2 (October 2020), 1–18. https://doi.org/10.1145/3415162

Digital Library

[73]

Mark Turner, Steve Love, and Mark Howell. 2008. Understanding emotions experienced when using a mobile phone in public: The social usability of mobile (cellular) telephones. Telematics and Informatics 25, 3 (August 2008), 201–215. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tele.2007.03.001

Digital Library

[74]

Viswanath Venkatesh, James Y.L. Thong, and Xin Xu. 2016. Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology: A synthesis and the road ahead. J. Assoc. Inf. Syst. 17, 5 (May 2016), 328–376. https://doi.org/10.17705/1jais.00428

[75]

Pia von Terzi, Stefan Tretter, Alarith Uhde, Marc Hassenzahl, and Sarah Diefenbach. 2021. Technology-mediated experiences and social context: Relevant needs in private vs. public interaction and the importance of others for positive affect. Frontiers in Psychology, 12, 718315 (September 2021). https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.2021.718315

[76]

Susann Wagenknecht. 2018. Beyond non-/use: The affected bystander and her escalation. New Media & Society 20, 7 (June 2017), 2235–2251. https://doi.org/10.1177/1461444817708775

[77]

David Watson, Lee Anna Clark, and Auke Tellegen. 1988. Development and validation of brief measures of positive and negative affect: the PANAS scales. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 54, 6 (June 1988), 1063–1070. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

[78]

Maximiliane Windl, Alexander Hiesinger, Robin Welsch, Albrecht Schmidt, and Sebastian S. Feger. 2022. SaferHome: Interactive Physical and Digital Smart Home Dashboards for Communicating Privacy Assessments to Owners and Bystanders. In Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction (HCI’2022). New Orleans, LA, 680–699. https://doi.org/10.1145/3567739

Digital Library

[79]

Niels Wouters, John Downs, Mitchell Harrop, Travis Cox, Eduardo Oliveira, Sarah Webber, 2016. Uncovering the honeypot effect: How audiences engage with public interactive systems. In Proceedings of the 2016 ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS’16). Brisbane, QLD, Australia, 5–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/2901790.2901796

Digital Library

Cited By

Neuhaus RRingfort-Felner RSadeghian SHassenzahl M(2024)To mimic reality or to go beyond? “Superpowers” in virtual reality, the experience of augmentation and its consequencesInternational Journal of Human-Computer Studies10.1016/j.ijhcs.2023.103165181:COnline publication date: 1-Jan-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2023.103165
von Terzi PDiefenbach S(2023)The Attendant Card Set: A Research and Design Tool to Consider Perspectives of Attendants versus Users When Co-Experiencing TechnologyMultimodal Technologies and Interaction10.3390/mti71101077:11(107)Online publication date: 18-Nov-2023
https://doi.org/10.3390/mti7110107
Uhde AZum Hoff THassenzahl M(2023)Beyond Hiding and Revealing: Exploring Effects of Visibility and Form of Interaction on the Witness ExperienceProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36042477:MHCI(1-23)Online publication date: 13-Sep-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3604247

Index Terms

The Attendant Perspective: Present Others in Public Technology Interactions
1. Human-centered computing
  1. Human computer interaction (HCI)
    1. Empirical studies in HCI
    2. HCI theory, concepts and models

Recommendations

Technology adoption in the public sector: an exploratory study of e-government in Malaysia
ICEGOV '07: Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Theory and practice of electronic governance

All around the world, the quest to improve government service delivery is becoming an important agenda for most governments. Information and Communications Technology (ICT) and the Internet in particular have opened new possibilities for the government ...
3D mobile interactions for public displays
SA '14: SIGGRAPH Asia 2014 Mobile Graphics and Interactive Applications

We propose the use of 3D mobile interactions as a way to give public displays viewers (users) new ways to collaborate among them with the public display. Getting and maintaining the user attention is one of the main struggles of public displays but ...
3D mobile interactions for public displays
SA '14: SIGGRAPH Asia 2014 Mobile Graphics and Interactive Applications

Public displays are becoming common in public spaces like bus stops, movie theatres and work places. Getting and maintaining the user attention is one of the main struggles of public displays [Müller, et al, 2010]. Therefore there is a need to ...

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

CHI '23: Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

April 2023

14911 pages

ISBN:9781450394215

DOI:10.1145/3544548

Editors:
Albrecht Schmidt
LMU Munich, Germany60028717
,
Kaisa Väänänen
Tampere University, Finland60011170
,
Tesh Goyal
Google Research, USA60006191
,
Per Ola Kristensson
University of Cambridge, UK60031101
,
Anicia Peters
University of Namibia, Namibia60072704
,
Stefanie Mueller
Massachusetts Institute of Technology, USA60022195
,
Julie R. Williamson
University of Glasgow, UK60001490
,
Max L. Wilson
University of Nottingham, UK60015138

Copyright © 2023 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

Sponsors

SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 19 April 2023

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Qualifiers

Research-article
Research
Refereed limited

Funding Sources

Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft

Conference

CHI '23

Sponsor:

SIGCHI

CHI '23: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

April 23 - 28, 2023

Hamburg, Germany

Acceptance Rates

Overall Acceptance Rate 6,199 of 26,314 submissions, 24%

Upcoming Conference

CHI '25

Sponsor:
sigchi

CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

April 26 - May 1, 2025

Yokohama , Japan

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

3
Total Citations
View Citations
386
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)154
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)16

Reflects downloads up to 22 Nov 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Neuhaus RRingfort-Felner RSadeghian SHassenzahl M(2024)To mimic reality or to go beyond? “Superpowers” in virtual reality, the experience of augmentation and its consequencesInternational Journal of Human-Computer Studies10.1016/j.ijhcs.2023.103165181:COnline publication date: 1-Jan-2024
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2023.103165
von Terzi PDiefenbach S(2023)The Attendant Card Set: A Research and Design Tool to Consider Perspectives of Attendants versus Users When Co-Experiencing TechnologyMultimodal Technologies and Interaction10.3390/mti71101077:11(107)Online publication date: 18-Nov-2023
https://doi.org/10.3390/mti7110107
Uhde AZum Hoff THassenzahl M(2023)Beyond Hiding and Revealing: Exploring Effects of Visibility and Form of Interaction on the Witness ExperienceProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36042477:MHCI(1-23)Online publication date: 13-Sep-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3604247

View Options

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Full Text

View this article in Full Text.

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View full text|Download PDF

View Table of Contents