Workshops - UbiComp

During the above discussion, user groups are dividedinto four categories, and the quantitative evaluation modelof group user experience for each kind of group has beenstudied separately. However, an actual user group could bemuch more complex, and a single user group may includeseveral independent and distinct subgroups, for instance, atourist group may comprise several subgroups of family andfriends. For such complex and mixed groups, the evaluationmodel will become much more complicated. Inspired by [1]in which a method for combining subgroups’ preferenceshave been proposed, we divide a mixed group into severalsubgroups and each subgroup falls into one of the fourgroup types previously defined. The experience of eachsubgroup is calculated separately and the overall experienceis acquired by aggregating each subgroup’s experience.Evaluation model of such user groups is defined asEG ( ) ( Gi) EG(i), (14)Giwith ( G i) represents the influence of subgroup G ito| Gi|the whole group and ( Gi) ( Gi) , where| G | ( G i)(0 ( G i) 1) is the weight of subgroup Gi.PROTOTYPE IMPLEMENTATION AND EXPERIMENTThe museum has proved to be an effective platform for thedemonstration and evaluation of innovative ubiquitouscomputing techniques, because of the inherent mobility ofpotential users, a wide diversity of attractive materials forpresentation, and the potentials of tourism and associatedmarkets [9].We have developed a prototype system of intelligentmuseum named iMuseum to evaluate ubiquitous computingtechniques [10]. It provides adaptive and personalizedservices, such as route navigation, exhibit recommendationand information presentation, on both the individual andgroup level. In iMuseum, the primary goal is to produce amultifaceted system that accompanies visitors andaugments their overall museum experience. In order tovalidate the evaluation model of group user experienceproposed in this paper, we designed an experiment based oniMuseum.Experimental DesignWe assume that a group of three visitors (Jim, Eva and Ben)are visiting the museum and this group may fall into one ofthree different categories, i.e. family, friends and tourists.They have visited ten exhibits (marked A-J) and theirratings have been given in Table 1, where blanks denotethat the visitor did not visit that exhibit. The ratings rangefrom 1 to 10, and a larger rating represents a betterexperience.According to group types, we have designed threedifferent scenes for our simulative visitors to mark theiroverall experience:Scene 1: Assume that Jim and Eva are husband andwife, and Ben is their child. The simulative visitors arerequired to give the perceived overall experience of thesethree persons respectively.Scene 2: Assume that Jim, Eva and Ben are peerfriends. The simulative visitors are required to give theperceived overall experience of these three personsrespectively.Scene 3: Assume that Jim, Eva and Ben are membersof a tourist group and they did not know each other beforethis tourism. The simulative visitors are required to give theperceived overall experience of these three personsrespectively.A B C D E F G H I JJim 8 7 6 7 4 3 7Eva 7 7 6 10 8 2 9Ben 9 8 8 10 6 8 9 8Table 1. Ratings by a group of three viewersExperimental Results and DiscussionAs a preliminary experiment, we did a survey on fifteensimulative visitors asking them to give their perceivedoverall experience of Jim, Eva and Ben respectivelycorresponding to the three scenes designed above. Theresult of the survey is showed in Table 2.Scene 1 Scene 2 Scene 3Jim Eva Ben Jim Eva Ben Jim Eva Ben8 9 9 8 8 9 7 8 98 9 10 7 8 8 7 8 86 7 8 6 6 7 5 6 78 8 9 8 8 8 6 7 87 7 9 6 7 8 7 7 87 7 8 6 8 8 9 8 98 8 9 7 8 9 8 9 98 9 9 7 8 9 7 8 87 7 8 7 8 9 7 7 87 8 9 7 8 9 7 8 88 9 9 7 8 9 6 7 98 9 9 7 8 8 5 7 88 8 9 8 8 8 7 8 87 8 9 7 8 9 7 6 86 7 8 7 8 9 7 7 87.4 8 8.8 7 7.8 8.5 6.8 7.4 8.224.2 23.3 22.4Table 2. Experimental data in the three scenes43