2.2 CARACTERÍSTICAS LITOESTRATIGRÁFICAS DEL ÁREA DE ESTUDIO ESTUDIO
2.2.2 Jurásico Inferior
2.2.2.2 ESQUEMA ESTRATIGRÁFICO PROPUESTO
For the display used in the Fair Numbers, use was made of two alternative visualisation materials: neon tape and neon Christmas baubles. These materials were chosen because they were colourful, lightweight and easy to attach to the canvas in various shapes. During the in-the-wild deployment it became apparent these materials had another affordance: they attracted people to the visualisation (see Figure 5.8). The tape’s and baubles’ textures and shapes proved to have a natural appeal, motivating people to approach the visualisation in order to touch the visualisation.
During the fair, two types of tangible interactions were observed: firstly, attendees who touched the visualisation merely because they were attracted to the textures and shapes. This group consisted primarily of kids, for whom the displayed data was generally not of interest; they just wanted to play. A number of people (both adults and kids) in this category expressed disappointment when they discovered there were no interactive components, with one passer-by asking “What does this do?”, and another passer-by saying “I expected [the baubles]
to light up”. Secondly, those who touched the visualisation while interpreting or talking
about the data. This group consisted only of adults. It appeared that these people did not expect any response from the objects they touched. Instead, they used the tangibility of the visualisations as an aid while thinking about the visualisation.
5.5
Discussion
The objective of this case study was to investigate engagement with an urban visualisation intervention in an event setting. Specifically, the study looked into three design aspects: the use of environment-related topics, off-the-shelf input technology, and regular visualisation
Figure 5.8: Passers-by looking at and touching the visualisation
updates. In the following sections, the role of these aspects will be discussed in detail, fol- lowed by a description of the types of engagement the intervention evoked, and the design and contextual factors that were found to affect this engagement.
FN RQ1: How does the use of environment-related topics affect engagement? The study revealed that the use of environment-related topics successfully supported the creation of an inclusive project – as all participants were able to understand and answer the questions. However, pre-existing associations with the topics, which some people related to nuisance regulations and monitoring by the council, were found to act as barriers to partici- pation that discouraged engagement. Especially the combination of the environment-related topics and the use of tablets as input technology was found to evoke these associations, as described below.
FN RQ2: How does the use of off-the-shelf input technology affect engagement? The use of tablets was intended to provide people with a familiar technology they could eas- ily interact with. While the tablets indeed successfully facilitated simple touch interactions,
allowing people to vote easily and quickly, they also proved to act as a barrier to participa- tion. As the tablets were held by researchers along the street, who actively approached atten- dees of the event, people associated their use with the activities commonly associated with salespeople and council monitoring. This highlights the care that needs to go into selecting appropriate input technology, to ensure inclusion while preventing negative associations. FN RQ3: How do regularly updated visualisation updates affect engagement? The regular updating of the visualisation was intended to create anticipation among atten- dees. The findings showed that, unlike during the Visualising Mill Road study, this did not result in regular revisitation of the visualisation. The temporary nature of the event, and the high number of other activities during the day, likely affected this.
5.5.1 Types of engagement
Similar to the Visualising Mill Road study, the Fair Numbers study showed that people experienced different stages of engagement with the situated input technology and public visualisation – from discovery to understanding, interaction, and sharing.
In the discovery stage, people noticed one of the four input devices, for example after being approached by one of the researchers, or the public visualisation. Following this, people approached the visualisation, to have a closer look. Unlike the Visualising Mill Road study, people were not regularly observed approaching the input devices, as it was typically the researcher who approached the attendees instead. Similarly, while some people returned to the visualisations, this did not appear to be common, and none of the attendees were observed returning to the input devices.
In the understanding stage, people observed others who submitted their opinions via the custom tablet applications, in order to learn more about how to participate. In addition, people read the questions displayed on the input technology, and the data displayed on the visualisation. In order to understand the data, some participants questioned the researchers, or others around them, about the project. While viewing the visualisation, people were also observed comparing the data collected at different times during the day. No observations were made of attendees reflecting on the topics of noise or crowdedness.
In the interaction stage, people submitted their perceptions of the event using the input technology. Furthermore, in this stage people touched the public visualisation.
(RE)DISCOVERY UNDERSTANDING INTERACTION SHARING NOTICING APPROACHING READING SUBMITTING CHAMPIONING DISCUSSING QUESTIONING INPUT COMPARING QUESTIONING NOTICING APPROACHING CHAMPIONING DISCUSSING READING OUTPUT RETURNING RETURNING REFLECTING REFLECTING OBSERVING OBSERVING PUBLISHING TOUCHING
Figure 5.9: Types of engagement with the input technology and output visualisations
In the sharing stage, people discussed the topics of crowdedness and noisiness with other attendees or the researchers. These conversations were typically brief. In contrast with the Visualising Mill Road study, no championing behaviour was observed during the event. Similarly, the project was not actively shared via traditional media or social media. Overall, the intervention did not evoke sharing behaviour.
5.5.2 Design and contextual factors
How different design and contextual factors were found to impact the four stages of engage- ment is described in detail in the following sections.
5.5.2.1 Discovery and rediscovery
PRESENTATION INCLUSIVITY
SOURCE CLARITY NUMBER OF ENTRY POINTS
FORM FACTOR
INPUT MECHANISM PLAYFULNESS
COUPLING TO INPUT UPDATE FREQUENCY
NUMBER OF ENTRY POINTS MATERIALITY INTERACTIVITY SIZE ENCODING REPRESENTATION POSITIONING PLACEMENT SOCIAL CONNECTEDNESS ESTABLISHED LEADERS PRESS SOCIAL MEDIA ROLE INITIATOR DISCOVERY
TOPIC INPUT OUTPUT LOCATION COMMUNITY OTHER
CROWDEDNESS
FAMILIARITY REGULARITY
Figure 5.10: Factors framework: factors relating to (re)discovery Number of entry points for input
The presence of four data collection locations ensured that many people came across at least one researcher while walking down the street. However, due to the crowdedness at the event, only a proportion of attendees could be approached by researchers. A higher num- ber of entry points would have likely ensured that more people would have discovered the project.
Input technology form factor
The selected form factor of the input devices, namely off-the-shelf tablets, did not promote discovery – as the colour and size of the technology did not stand out in the event setting.
As a result, the researchers had to take up an active role in encouraging engagement with the project. More noticeable technology would have likely improved discovery of the interven- tion.
Update frequency of output
While it was not a regular occurrence, some people were observed returning to the visu- alisation to view the recently added data; the systematic updating process promoted some revisitation.
Materiality of output
The tangible elements of the visualisation, the colourful baubles in particular, were found to catch the eye of passers-by, promoting discovery of the intervention.
Size of output
The size of the visualisation, which was displayed on a 30 meter by 2 meter canvas on the bridge, ensured that many passers-by noticed the intervention – despite the many other ac- tivities taking place. The length of the visualisations proved particularly effective, as it en- abled discovery across the bridge.
Placement
The distribution of the input technology along the street ensured that the intervention was accessible to all people who passed through the area. Similarly, the central placement of the visualisation successfully encouraged discovery throughout the day, as a large number of people crossed the bridge while attending the event.
Positioning
The positioning of the input technology in the hands of researchers meant that the technol- ogy was not highly visible. The researchers, therefore, took up an active role in approaching passers-by and positioning the tablet application in such a way that they could easily read the displayed information.
On the other hand, the positioning of the visualisation on a large vertical surface made it easy for passers-by to notice the visualisation while walking across the bridge.
Crowdedness of location
The event attracted thousands of people to the street. This made it possible for the re- searchers to approach many attendees. However, at the same time, the crowdedness made
it more difficult for people to discover the intervention on their own accord, as the crowds obstructed their view of both the input technology and the visualisations.
Regularity of location
On the whole, the presence of a large number of other activities at the event – such as food stalls, a parade, and live music – was found to make the intervention less noticeable – as all these activities attempted to attract people’s attention simultaneously.
5.5.2.2 Understanding
PRESENTATION INCLUSIVITY
SOURCE CLARITY NUMBER OF ENTRY POINTS
FORM FACTOR
INPUT MECHANISM PLAYFULNESS
COUPLING TO INPUT UPDATE FREQUENCY
NUMBER OF ENTRY POINTS MATERIALITY INTERACTIVITY SIZE ENCODING REPRESENTATION POSITIONING PLACEMENT SOCIAL CONNECTEDNESS ESTABLISHED LEADERS PRESS SOCIAL MEDIA ROLE INITIATOR UNDERSTANDING
TOPIC INPUT OUTPUT LOCATION COMMUNITY OTHER
CROWDEDNESS
FAMILIARITY REGULARITY
Figure 5.11: Factors framework: factors relating to understanding Inclusivity of topic
As both questions addressed the universal concepts of noisiness and crowdedness, they were easily understood by local residents as well as visitors.
Clarity of aim
While the topics were inclusive and understandable, they did not clearly communicate the overall aim of the intervention. As a result, the topics caused confusion amongst attendees,
who associated these questions with nuisance monitoring by the council. This association was further strengthened by the form factor of the input technology, as described below. Input technology form factor
The use of a tablet with a touch screen and custom voting application as an input device did not help understanding of the project, as attendees associated the use of this technology with salespeople – who regularly use tablet to encourage people to sell goods or services to passers-by. Alternative technology, that does not evoke such negative associations, would have likely helped communicate the overall aim of the project in a better way.
Coupling to input
The visualisation of the collected data was presented in a central location on the street, while the input technology was placed in other locations along the street. As a result, there was no clear coupling between the input and output, which left people who had not encountered the input technology with questions about the origin of the displayed data.
Representation of output
The representations chosen for the visualisation of sound and crowdedness levels, consisting of simple 3-level icons representing low, medium and high, were found to be understood by most people.
Positioning of input and output
The positioning of the voting tablets along the street, surrounded by other event and activ- ities, made it obvious that the questions specifically addressed the fair. In other words, the positioning supported understanding of the intervention.
5.5.2.3 Interaction Inclusivity of topics
The accessible questions made it possible for all attendees to read, understand, and answer the posed questions, regardless of whether they were familiar with the setting or not. Clarity of aim
The overall aim of the intervention was not clearly communicated through the posed ques- tions, and as a result some people associated the intervention with council monitoring. While the researchers were able to verbally clarify this aim, this required more active in- volvement of the researchers.
PRESENTATION INCLUSIVITY
SOURCE CLARITY NUMBER OF ENTRY POINTS
FORM FACTOR
INPUT MECHANISM PLAYFULNESS
COUPLING TO INPUT UPDATE FREQUENCY
NUMBER OF ENTRY POINTS MATERIALITY INTERACTIVITY SIZE ENCODING REPRESENTATION POSITIONING PLACEMENT SOCIAL CONNECTEDNESS ESTABLISHED LEADERS PRESS SOCIAL MEDIA ROLE INITIATOR INTERACTION
TOPIC INPUT OUTPUT LOCATION COMMUNITY OTHER
CROWDEDNESS
FAMILIARITY REGULARITY
Figure 5.12: Factors framework: factors relating to interaction
Form factor of input technology
For a number of attendees, the use off-the-shelf input technology was found to evoke as- sociations with salespeople, and as a result hindered understanding of and interactions with the project.
Input mechanism
For those who did engage with the technology, the simple input method provided by the custom applications enabled a quick and clear method of participation. The familiar look of buttons likely played a key role in this.
Materiality of output
The physicality of the tape and baubles with which the visualisation was created was found to attract tangible interactions. Children were regularly observed touching the visualisation in a playful manner. Furthermore, adults were observed touching the visualisation while
reading the visualisation or discussing the intervention with others, seemingly as part of interpreting the data.
Size of output
The large size of the visualisation enabled multiple people to touch the display at once, with- out interrupting one another.
Placement
The placement of the voting technology along the street facilitated interactions across the fair. The placement of the visualisation on the centrally located bridge also ensured that the output was highly accessible and noticeable.
Positioning
The positioning of the voting technology in the hands of researchers ensured that the input was mobile, which enabled researchers to take the technology to passers-by (see Role initia- tor). The positioning of visualisation on a vertical surface, the bridge wall, made it easy to see and reach, thus facilitating tangible interactions.
Role initiator
The researchers took up an active role, approaching people to encourage them to participate. This involvement was found to increase engagement, in particular interactions, as the input technology was largely unnoted otherwise.
5.5.2.4 Sharing
Size of output
The scale of the public visualisation enabled passers-by to point at the representations and to discuss them with people in their surroundings. The size made it possible for people to collectively view and interpret the visualisation.
Regularity of location
Due to the eventfulness of the fair, people were continuously presented with unusual ac- tivities and installations. As a result, the input and output received relatively low levels of attention, and few people actively engaged in sharing behaviours, such as championing or publishing.
PRESENTATION INCLUSIVITY
SOURCE CLARITY NUMBER OF ENTRY POINTS
FORM FACTOR
INPUT MECHANISM PLAYFULNESS
COUPLING TO INPUT UPDATE FREQUENCY
NUMBER OF ENTRY POINTS MATERIALITY INTERACTIVITY SIZE ENCODING REPRESENTATION POSITIONING PLACEMENT SOCIAL CONNECTEDNESS ESTABLISHED LEADERS PRESS SOCIAL MEDIA ROLE INITIATOR SHARING
TOPIC INPUT OUTPUT LOCATION COMMUNITY OTHER
CROWDEDNESS
FAMILIARITY REGULARITY
Figure 5.13: Factors framework: factors relating to sharing
5.6
Summary
This chapter described a one-day deployment at an event in Cambridge, during which a combination of tablets, sensors, and photographs was used to collect subjective and objective data on the noisiness and crowdedness of the community fair. This data was then displayed on a large public visualisation, positioned in a central location at the event. While the inter- vention was successful in engaging people in some ways – with, for example, many people submitting their votes, noticing, reading, and sometimes even touching the visualisation – elements of the design were also found to act as barriers to participation. The choice of input technology was found to evoke associations with marketing and monitoring by the council, which deterred some passers-by from participating. This finding emphasises the importance of selecting appropriate input technology. Furthermore, the study showed that ambigu- ous terms, such as ‘noise’, can provoke discourse, as also found in the Visualising Mill Road study. In addition, the findings revealed that revisitation of either the input or output was
uncommon, likely due to the temporary nature of the event and the many other activities taking place.
The next chapter describes the design, deployment, and evaluation of the VoxBox – an in- stallation built to collect and visualise survey-like data at events. Using the findings from the Fair Numbers study, this installation was purposely designed to attract attendees to it, rather than having to actively approach passers-by in order to encourage engagement.
Case Study III: VoxBox
6.1
Introduction
Collecting data about the demographics and perceptions of people attending events is tra- ditionally often done by conducting in-situ interviews or distributing surveys. In order to conduct interviews, organisers of events generally place several employees at strategic places at the event’s site. These people will then approach attendees and depending on whether they agree to participate or not, the attendees will then be asked a series of questions. The answers to these questions can provide details about the people attending the event, as well as their opinions of the event — which organisers can use to evaluate or improve the event. Similarly, paper surveys can be distributed at the event itself, or posted online — allowing people to provide feedback when and where it suits them. Such surveys are often conducted once the event has finished, to capture attendees conclusive thoughts about the experience. While the two data gathering methods of interviewing people and distributing surveys have their merits, including the rich information they can collect, there is a range of disadvantages to them as well. A primary concern when gathering such data is its representativeness: to what extend do the people who have agreed to participate represent the overall demographics of attendees? Reasons not to participate include the time-consuming nature of interviews, and the fact that interviewers tend to look similar to sales people (both often wearing com- pany clothes, badges and holding a clipboard) — which people tend to avoid. As a result, the data gathered via these interviews can be incomplete and unrepresentative. Due to the high costs of this approach, this is a very unwanted outcome. In the case of surveys, reasons
for not taking part can include the time-consuming nature of filling out a questionnaire or people forgetting about it once they have left the event. An additional reason people have little incentive to share their information, is that it often does not benefit them in any way — and the results of these data gathering practices are rarely shared with the people who took part.
As feedback about the event can be of great importance for the organisers, for whom fund- ing often relies on the number of attendees and attendees’ opinions of the event, there has been more and more exploration of alternative data gathering methods in recent years. The use of situated technology especially has been investigated as a way to replace interviews and