Wonderful, thanks Marcus - I'll have a proper read but that kind of
backs up what seems like common sense.
I think labels (or whatever) that support multiple ways in seems a
deeply sensible idea. Ultimately all these technologies are basically
kinda like real-world URLs, just in a different guise..
cheers
Mike
_____________________________
*Mike Ellis *
Thirty8 Digital: a small but perfectly formed digital
agency:http://thirty8.co.uk <http://thirty8.co.uk/>
* My book: http://heritageweb.co.uk <http://heritageweb.co.uk/> *
Marcus Winter wrote:
> Hi Mike,
>
> We did a study recently involving NFC, QR codes, short URLs and found engagement across all of these very low.
>
> People seem to have developed "QR code blindness" similar to "display blindness" and "banner blindness" observed in other contexts. They just blank them out due to low expectations based on previous poor experience (advertisements, coupons, non-mobile websites etc.)
>
> On the other hand, QR codes are fairly well known and understood as "something to scan with your mobile" and scanners are freely available on all major platforms.
>
> This contrasts sharply with NFC tags. Most people don't recognise them, have never used them, are not sure if their phones support them or don't know how to enable NFC functionality in their phone settings. Apple does not support them - even their latest devices, which have an NFC antenna, only use them for mobile payments and have no API for custom uses.
>
> I could imagine that iBeacons have - at least at the moment - similar problems as they're currently mostly an i* technology. Also, they require Bluetooth to be turned on which many people don't for various reasons.
>
> URLs seem a reliable backup. Many people who are not sure about QR codes or NFC prefer to manually input the URL rather than faff about with settings or installing a scanner.
>
> What we took away from our study is that there are various reasons (some beyond technical) why people prefer certain access options, so it's best to support as many as possible. Also, it may be a good idea to decouple the technical utility of QR codes (robust, cheap and relatively well-known mechanism) from their misguided use to advertise interaction opportunities. We try this by making them less prominent and showing them as just one of many options for mobile interaction.
>
> Link to the study: http://itrg.brighton.ac.uk/ubinote/papers/PATCH_2015_Winter_et_al.pdf
>
> *** Some general HCI stuff on RFID / NFC / QR
>
> Mäkelä, K., Belt, S., Greenblatt, D. and Häkkilä, J. Mobile Interaction with Visual and RFID Tags - A Field Study on User Perceptions. In Proc. CHI 2007, 991-994. http://www.researchgate.net/profile/Jonna_Haekkilae/publication/221515934_Mobile_interaction_with_visual_and_RFID_tags_a_field_study_on_user_perceptions/links/00b7d525f051cc4c96000000.pdf
>
> Neill, E. O., Thompson, P., Garzonis, S. and Warr, A. Reach out and touch: using NFC and 2D barcodes for service discovery and interaction with mobile devices. In Proc. Pervasive 2007, 19-36. http://www.cs.bath.ac.uk/pervasive/publications/ReachOutandTouch.pdf
>
>
> Cheers, Marcus
>
>
> Marcus Winter
> +44 (0)1273 642476
> [log in to unmask]
> Interactive Technologies Research Group
> School of Computing, Engineering and Mathematics
> 602 Watts Building, University of Brighton, BN2 4GJ, United Kingdom
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Museums Computer Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Pugh, Jo
> Sent: 27 February 2015 10:57
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [MCG] NFC vs QR vs shortcode vs BLE vs....?
>
> I think, on the quiet, we do have a good handle on the user need. But let's rehearse it.
>
>
>
> The best museum content for visitors is layered content. Some visitors want more content, some want less. Some visitors are 7, some are 70. Some visitors would like a 'hidden histories' trail focusing on disability in the collection, some others want to know what Grayson Perry thinks about stuff.
>
>
>
> When we try to accomplish all of this with labelling at once, the result is a mess.
>
>
>
> Digital layering is, in theory, a far more preferable notion. Rich content about the object, tailored to what the visitor chooses. In digital space, this content can be unlimited.
>
>
>
> The question is, what is most frictionless way to help users access the contextual information they want and need when confronted with an object. (It's the same question every exhibition designer always asks).
>
>
>
> I like QR codes because they're a cheap and easy way to explore this idea. But they are very, very far from frictionless as Mike's handy chart showing all the pinch points shows.
>
>
>
> Perry has now done a good job of outlining some of the barriers with iBeacon. But I think we're able to articulate what we would like because we can list reasons why these technologies don't implement it.
>
>
>
> Jo
>
>
> __________________________________________________
>
> Jo Pugh
> Research Engineer | The National Archives / University of York tel. +44 (0)20 8392 5330 x2292 The National Archives, Kew, Richmond, Surrey TW9 4DU www.nationalarchives.gov.uk<http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/>
>
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Museums Computer Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Bonewell, Perry
> Sent: 27 February 2015 10:45
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: [MCG] NFC vs QR vs shortcode vs BLE vs....?
>
>
>
> Hi Mike,
>
>
>
> I guess what I'm getting at is that we don't seem to have a handle on smartphone use in galleries in the same way we do over web accessibility for instance (judging by the recent discussion on this forum at least).
>
>
>
> iBeacon seems to be very much in its infancy and to me at least it has some of the limitations, if not more, of QR:
>
>
>
> Do your visitors have Bluetooth switched on?
>
> Have they got your app installed?
>
> How are you going to persuade them to install it?
>
> Android implementation is currently much flakier than iOS - how to deal with that?
>
> What happens if the room is crowded (eg BLE signal strength tanks once bodies get in the way)?
>
> And so on
>
>
>
> By comparison QR is technically more straightforward to implement but requires more direct interaction by the user, but I think the consensus is people hardly ever use them.
>
>
>
> I suspect the main advantage of NFC or BLE (if mainstream) would be to facilitate some sort of interaction with visitors that doesn't require them to even look at their phone. Something that ticks along in the background but allows them to go home and enhance or augment their social media streams when they upload their photos, tweets and so on.
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
>
> From: Museums Computer Group [mailto:[log in to unmask]]<mailto:[mailto:[log in to unmask]]> On Behalf Of Mike Ellis
>
> Sent: 27 February 2015 10:09
>
> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
> Subject: Re: [MCG] NFC vs QR vs shortcode vs BLE vs....?
>
>
>
> Thanks Perry - I think this:
>
>
>
> What are users wanting when they walk into a museum with a smartphone in their pocket? What are their expectations?
>
>
>
> Aren't these the questions we should be asking first (bearing in mind that what users think they want and what they actually do tend to be two entirely different things)?
>
>
>
> Just maybe they want to keep the thing in their pocket and do something that takes them away from all the intrusive technology in their lives. Aren't museums diverting enough already?
>
>
>
>
>
> ..are really what I'm interested in too.
>
>
>
> As it happens we're running a little tech prototype with Bristol Museums called "Go Collect" which involves people being able to "collect"
>
> objects as they go around the museum using their smartphone - but then get the detail of what they've collected later on when they get home.
>
> It's kind of responding to your last point - when people are in museums maybe they should be spending more time with the objects..? But again - I have no idea if people will actually do it, or whether they're there trying to escape a screen...
>
>
>
> The original question wasn't actually prompted by this but by a meeting with a company who do NFC tech - and I was just wondering what the realities are vs what geeky types might _like_ to happen.
>
>
>
> tt
>
>
>
> Mike
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _____________________________
>
>
>
>
>
> *Mike Ellis *
>
>
>
> Thirty8 Digital: a small but perfectly formed digital agency:http://thirty8.co.uk<http://thirty8.co.uk/>
>
>
>
> * My book: http://heritageweb.co.uk<http://heritageweb.co.uk/> *
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Bonewell, Perry wrote:
>
>> Just to play devil's advocate on all this for a moment:
>
>
>> What came first, the technology (QR, NFC, iBeacon or whatever) or the desire by users to interact with museum displays/billboards/posters/TV ads using their mobile devices?
>
>
>> I can't help thinking the main imperative behind at least two of these technologies is mainly commercial (as in how to get customers to easily part with their cash).
>
>
>> This is not to say that other uses can't be found for technology beyond the original intention but I kind of wonder if as people interested in technology we're falling into the same trap we grumble that our marketing teams and department managers fall into with apps: "look at this cool stuff everyone is talking about, how can we shoe horn it into our service" as opposed to "we have a problem that needs solving, this technology over here appears to address our needs"
>
>
>> What are users wanting when they walk into a museum with a smartphone in their pocket? What are their expectations?
>
>
>> Aren't these the questions we should be asking first (bearing in mind that what users think they want and what they actually do tend to be two entirely different things)?
>
>
>> Just maybe they want to keep the thing in their pocket and do something that takes them away from all the intrusive technology in their lives. Aren't museums diverting enough already?
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>
>> From: Museums Computer Group
>> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]<mailto:[mailto:[log in to unmask]]> On
>> Behalf Of
>
>> Mike Ellis
>
>> Sent: 27 February 2015 09:12
>
>> To: [log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>
>
>> Subject: Re: [MCG] NFC vs QR vs shortcode vs BLE vs....?
>
>
>> I totally made that up - just looked at the report we did and actually QR out-performed short urls - which is interesting - but most striking is the fact that very few people followed up on the call to action at all..
>
>
>> Mike
>
>
>
>
>> _____________________________
>
>
>
>> *Mike Ellis *
>
>
>> Thirty8 Digital: a small but perfectly formed digital
>
>> agency:http://thirty8.co.uk<http://thirty8.co.uk/>
>
>
>> * My book:
>> http://heritageweb.co.uk<http://heritageweb.co.uk/<http://heritageweb.
>> co.uk%3chttp:/heritageweb.co.uk/>> *
>
>
>
>
>> Mike Ellis wrote:
>
>>> Thanks Richard, that's a useful bunch of thoughts.
>
>
>>> Did any of your work involve how many people actually engage with
>
>>> these solutions? As a percentage say of footfall or web visits?
>
>
>>> Actual analytics in this area seem very sparse and I'm trying to work
>
>>> out if that's because in reality no-one actually uses stuff like this
>
>>> or because no-one writes it up.
>
>
>>> We did some work with a big heritage client in Bath a while back
>
>>> where we used QR next to short urls as part of a big bus-back / train
>
>>> station / bus stop poster campaign - our findings basically showed
>
>>> that shorturls performed slightly better than QR but that overall
>
>>> very few people actually engaged with the content at all. In this
>
>>> particular instance they were also given a code to get 10% off entry
>
>>> to the attraction, so even with an incentive the click rates were
>
>>> very small.
>
>
>>> Anyone else got any insights into this stuff? It's very easy to get
>
>>> excited about the tech possibilities but if no-one is actually
>
>>> wanting the content then we should probably reconsider.
>
>
>>> Andy - what kind of click-through rates do you see on QRPedia?
>
>
>>> Mike
>
>
>
>
>>> _____________________________
>
>
>
>>> *Mike Ellis *
>
>
>>> Thirty8 Digital: a small but perfectly formed digital
>
>
>>> agency:http://thirty8.co.uk<http://thirty8.co.uk/>
>
>
>>> * My book:
>>> http://heritageweb.co.uk<http://heritageweb.co.uk/<http://heritageweb
>>> .co.uk%3chttp:/heritageweb.co.uk/>> *
>
>
>
>
>>> Richard Malloy wrote:
>
>>>> Hi Mike
>
>
>>>> We've developed a beacon based CMS platform and app, and before
>
>>>> getting to this stage we undertook user testing within a art gallery
>
>>>> with QR codes vs presentation cards vs Beacons.
>
>
>>>> You could argue that we have the complete system (CMS, app and
>
>>>> beacons) which is an unfair comparison to the QR Codes, but we could
>
>>>> have easily retasked our CMS to generate QR Codes and our app to
>
>>>> read them. However there were the several factors that we encountered:
>
>
>>>> *Quality of display*
>
>
>>>> QR codes need to printed. We looked at the professionally printed
>
>>>> codes vs in house printed vs beacons.
>
>
>>>> - If your exhibit changes that QRC sign cannot be reused, you
>>>> have to
>
>>>> generate a new. This will incur a cost and print time.
>
>>>> - Inhouse QRC looked unprofessional (laser / bubble jet does
>>>> not have
>
>>>> the quality of a printers)
>
>>>> - We observed more users scanning the professionally printed
>>>> QRC than
>
>>>> the inhouse one.
>
>>>> - Beacons can be hidden out of site and it could be easily
>>>> re-assigned
>
>>>> (with our CMS) if the display changes. Content is pushed to a
>>>> users device
>
>>>> as soon as they come into proximity,
>
>>>> - 92% of users questioned said they prefer the beacons solution
>>>> as they
>
>>>> didn't have to do anything - content was pushed to them.
>
>
>>>> *Size of QRC*
>
>
>>>> How large do you print the QRC out? This was a constant question.
>
>
>>>> - Too small:
>
>>>> - Users had to get up really close to scan - which was often a
>>>> barrier
>
>>>> - Risk of getting too close and damaging display/artwork
>
>>>> - Too large:
>
>>>> - Over-powered the display
>
>>>> - Looked tacky
>
>>>> - Just because it was bigger didn't mean we could scan it from
>>>> further
>
>>>> away and the size of the QRC made no difference to the number
>>>> of visitors
>
>>>> who would scan.
>
>
>>>> *Accessibility& engagement*
>
>
>>>> We observed a crowd around a display having to queue in order to
>
>>>> scan the code.
>
>
>>>> Several member of that group gave up waiting and became
>
>>>> disinterested. We asked those users why they walked away and the
>
>>>> general feedback was;
>
>
>>>> - having to wait for others to finish scanning
>
>>>> - too many people around that one display in close proximity -
>>>> they felt
>
>>>> they where pushing and shoving each other just to scan the code.
>
>
>>>> We also encountered a chap who had 2 walking sticks who struggled to
>
>>>> hold his phone at the angle needed to scan the code - not great for
>
>>>> accessibility.
>
>
>>>> This also then made us aware of users in wheel chairs, although none
>
>>>> attended, if the QRC have been positioned too high or in a tight
>
>>>> space, those user may not have been to access the area or been able
>
>>>> to reach the QRC to scan.
>
>
>>>> With beacons they transmit, so anyone within that proximity can get
>
>>>> the information sent to them - you don't have to get up an close.
>
>
>>>> *Usability*
>
>
>>>> Of the organisations that we spoke to who had implemented QR codes
>
>>>> did so with free software. They would publish content on their
>
>>>> website, copy that URL to the free software, generated the code and print it.
>
>
>>>> Users would then have to download and/or open a QR code reading
>
>>>> software app, scan the code, wait for the code to ping back with the
>
>>>> URL, then take them to the phone's browser to then load the content.
>
>
>>>> The majority of the time, it would have been just as easy to type in
>
>>>> a dedicated url rather than do all of the above, but many CMS
>
>>>> systems do not publish search friendly URLs, making QRC previously the only option.
>
>
>>>> We even found that with one organisation they would do the above,
>
>>>> but their site was not responsive! So after all that, the user still
>
>>>> couldn't access the content.
>
>
>>>> In general, beacons and QRC are just the physical triggers to
>
>>>> content. Its how the content is structured and how that is accessed.
>
>
>>>> Beacons are lot better than QRC as you don't need to get close, you
>
>>>> don't need to scan, you don't need to generate the QRC or print it
>
>>>> or mount it and so on.
>
>
>>>> There was a lot that we discovered undertaking the pilots and I
>
>>>> could write a lot more - but perhaps save that for phone call if you
>
>>>> wanted to know more.
>
>
>>>> Thanks
>
>
>>>> Richard
>
>
>
>>>> On 26 February 2015 at 10:58, Mike Ellis<[log in to unmask]<mailto:[log in to unmask]>> wrote:
>
>
>>>>> Hey all
>
>
>>>>> Has anyone done / know of any studies (or have any thoughts) about
>
>>>>> comparisons between the take up / usage of on-gallery "find out
>
>>>>> more about this object" solutions?
>
>
>>>>> Do people want to find out more? Do they scan? How?
>
>
>>>>> cheers!
>
>
>>>>> Mike
>
>
>
>
>>>>> _____________________________
>
>
>
>>>>> *Mike Ellis *
>
>
>>>>> Thirty8 Digital: a small but perfectly formed digital agency:
>
>>>>> http://thirty8.co.uk<http://thirty8.co.uk/<http://thirty8.co.uk%3ch
>>>>> ttp:/thirty8.co.uk/>>
>
>
>>>>> * My book:http://heritageweb.co.uk<http://heritageweb.co.uk/> *
>
>
>
>>>>> ****************************************************************
>
>>>>> website:http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
>
>>>>> Twitter:http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
>
>>>>> Facebook:http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
>
>>>>> [un]subscribe:http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
>
>>>>> ****************************************************************
>
>
>>>> ****************************************************************
>
>>>> website:http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
>
>>>> Twitter:http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
>
>>>> Facebook:http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
>
>>>> [un]subscribe:http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
>
>>>> ****************************************************************
>
>
>> ****************************************************************
>
>> website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
>
>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
>
>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
>
>> [un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
>
>> ****************************************************************
>
>> This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and may also be
>
>> legally privileged. They are intended solely for the intended
>
>> addressee. If you are not the addressee please e-mail it back to the
>
>> sender and then immediately, permanently delete it. Do not read,
>
>> print, re-transmit, store or act in reliance on it. This e-mail may be
>
>> monitored by Bolton Council in accordance with current regulations.
>
>> This footnote also confirms that this e-mail message has been swept
>
>> for the presence of computer viruses currently known to Bolton
>
>> Council. However, the recipient is responsible for virus-checking
>
>> before opening this message and any attachment. Unless expressly
>
>> stated to the contrary, any views expressed in this message are those
>
>> of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of
>
>> Bolton Council. http://www.bolton.gov.uk
>
>
>> ****************************************************************
>
>> website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
>
>> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
>
>> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
>
>> [un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
>
>> ****************************************************************
>
>
>
> ****************************************************************
>
> website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
>
> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
>
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
>
> [un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
>
> ****************************************************************
>
> This e-mail and any attached files are confidential and may also be legally privileged. They are intended solely for the intended addressee. If you are not the addressee please e-mail it back to the sender and then immediately, permanently delete it. Do not read, print, re-transmit, store or act in reliance on it. This e-mail may be monitored by Bolton Council in accordance with current regulations. This footnote also confirms that this e-mail message has been swept for the presence of computer viruses currently known to Bolton Council. However, the recipient is responsible for virus-checking before opening this message and any attachment. Unless expressly stated to the contrary, any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender and may not necessarily reflect the views of Bolton Council. http://www.bolton.gov.uk
>
>
>
> ****************************************************************
>
> website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
>
> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
>
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
>
> [un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
>
> ****************************************************************
>
>
>
> This email was scanned by the Government Secure Intranet anti-virus service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) In case of problems, please call your organisations IT Helpdesk.
>
> Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or recorded for legal purposes.
> Please don't print this e-mail unless you really need to.
>
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> National Archives Disclaimer
>
> This email and any files transmitted with it are intended solely for the use of the
> individual(s) to whom they are addressed. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete the email.
> Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message and attachments that do not relate to the official business of The National Archives are neither given nor endorsed by it.
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> ****************************************************************
> website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
> [un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
> ****************************************************************
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by MessageLabs' Email Security System on behalf of the University of Brighton.
> For more information see http://www.brighton.ac.uk/is/spam/
> ___________________________________________________________
>
> ___________________________________________________________
> This email has been scanned by MessageLabs' Email Security
> System on behalf of the University of Brighton.
> For more information see http://www.brighton.ac.uk/is/spam/
> ___________________________________________________________
>
> ****************************************************************
> website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
> Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
> Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
> [un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
> ****************************************************************
****************************************************************
website: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/
Twitter: http://www.twitter.com/ukmcg
Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/museumscomputergroup
[un]subscribe: http://museumscomputergroup.org.uk/email-list/
****************************************************************
|
