We Dare You: A Lifecycle Study of a Substitutional Reality Installation in a Museum Space
December 03, 2020 Β· Declared Dead Β· π ACM Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage
"No code URL or promise found in abstract"
Evidence collected by the PWNC Scanner
Authors
Petros Ioannidis, Lina Eklund, Anders Sundnes LΓΈvlie
arXiv ID
2012.01792
Category
cs.HC: Human-Computer Interaction
Citations
10
Venue
ACM Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage
Last Checked
4 months ago
Abstract
In this article, we present a lifecycle study of We Dare You, a Substitutional Reality (SR) installation that combines visual and tactile stimuli. The installation is set up in a center for architecture, and invites visitors to explore its facade while playing with vertigo, in a visual Virtual Reality (VR) environment that replicates the surrounding physical space of the installation. Drawing on an ethnographic approach, including observations and interviews, we researched the exhibit from its opening, through the initial months plagued by technical problems, its subsequent success as a social and playful installation, on to its closure, due to COVID-19, and its subsequent reopening. Our findings explore the challenges caused by both the hybrid nature of the installation, as well as the visitor' playful use of the installation which made the experience social and performative - but also caused some problems. We also discuss the problems We Dare You faced in light of hygiene demands due to COVID-19. The analysis contrasts the design processes and expectations of stakeholders with the audience's playful appropriation, which led the stakeholders to see the installation as both a success and a failure. Evaluating the design and redesign through use on behalf of visitors, we argue that an approach that further opens up the post-production experience to a process of continuous redesign based on the user input - what has been termed "design-after-design" - could facilitate the design of similar experiences in the museum and heritage sector, supporting a participatory agenda in the design process, and helping to resolve the tension between stakeholders' expectations and visitors' playful appropriations.
Community Contributions
Found the code? Know the venue? Think something is wrong? Let us know!
π Similar Papers
In the same crypt β Human-Computer Interaction
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Improving fairness in machine learning systems: What do industry practitioners need?
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Identifying Stable Patterns over Time for Emotion Recognition from EEG
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Questioning the AI: Informing Design Practices for Explainable AI User Experiences
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Learning for Sensor-based Human Activity Recognition: Overview, Challenges and Opportunities
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Educational data mining and learning analytics: An updated survey
Died the same way β π» Ghosted
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Federated Learning: Strategies for Improving Communication Efficiency
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
In-Datacenter Performance Analysis of a Tensor Processing Unit
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted
Deep Convolutional Neural Networks for Computer-Aided Detection: CNN Architectures, Dataset Characteristics and Transfer Learning
R.I.P.
π»
Ghosted