Project 1: User-feedback Experiment

As first practice element of this research, a public exercise was undertaken in an accessible Central London location⁵² to review the role of touch in examining museum objects for sighted people. The primary aim of this exercise was to study subjects’

reaction to tactile information as an interface to a visual exhibit. The route of the inquiry was this hypothesis that by forming a tactile interface to the original, additional representative tactile information can enhance the visual information when examining an exhibit. The main task involved in this exercise was to compare two hidden objects by touching them while observing the main object which was identical to one of the hidden objects.

What makes this work something more than just a controlled experiment is its treatment of the hired room in central London as a public exhibition setting, rather than just a research lab for selected individuals partake. In other words, the experiment did not engage with previously arranged research participants, but instead chose only random people that stopped by the exhibition room at different intervals on the day to inquire what the event was about.

As a result, 15 randomly-selected people participated in the study. The sample size was kept small in order to allow enough time for each participant to complete the tour of tasks. There were additional visitors who just wanted to find out about the project but did not wish to take part, or our time did not allow completing the tasks. Although positive and inquisitive, their comments are not included in this study.

5.1.1 Process

For this exercise, three hand-carved wooden sculptures were found where two of these objects were identical and the third was slightly different in contour, but in the same dimensions and material, with the exception of being polished. Although these differences were small, they were easily noticeable by sight, however not so obvious with touch alone. One of the two identical objects was displayed openly and defined as the main object (this was to represent an untouchable museum exhibit), and two other sculptures were placed in separate non-transparent bags. While the participants could see but not touch the main object, they were asked to identify which bag contained the

52 I hired a ground floor room with easy public access and see-through glass walls to enable transparent view for passer-bys to view the exercise and for participants not to feel in a controlled/closed environment.

object identical to the one they could see. This exercise was timed and photographically documented. To ensure confidentiality, participants were given the option not to reveal their identities. None of the participants wanted to give their names, however those who allowed us to photograph them during the experiment gave permission for these images to be published in this thesis.

Figure 5-1: The three objects used in user-feedback experiment

There were three stages to this exercise. The first stage involved asking the participants to guess the material and the temperature of the main object before handling either of the hidden objects in the bags. It was also necessary to inform them what the exercise was about and why they were not allowed to touch the main object (protected museum exhibit). The second stage was the tactual exploration stage which required the

following unobtrusive observations to be made:

… Do participants prefer standing still at the table, or walking around the main object while examining the hidden object(s)?

… How long (in minutes) does it take for each participant to recognise the (right or wrong) object and do they answer with confidence?

… What kind of distance do they keep from the object?

… Do they use either hands or just the one?

… Do they keep both of the hands inside the bag?

… Do they keep their eyes on the main object?

This was followed by the final stage which included a question & answer session where the participants were asked to evaluate their experience through pre-prepared

Figure 5-2: A participant interacts with the hidden objects at the User-feedback exercise

questionnaire and also to answer questions and confirm feelings/opinions with regards to the first stage of the exercise.

5.1.2 Final Stage Questions / Observations:

… Did the participants accurately guess the material?

… Did they roughly guess the surface temperature of the object?

… Were they surprised with the results?

Questions to participants:

(When a rating was required, 5 would be the “best” case.)

1) To what extent did you have a sense of touching the main object? (Rate on a 1-5 scale.)

2) Did you at any point during the experiment feel that the object you were watching has vanished and you were only interacting with the object in the bag? (Yes or no)

3) To what extent did you think touching the object was important in order to gather the texture information? (Rate on a 1-5 scale.)

4) To what extent did you think the hidden object was only an interface for the main object? (Rate on a 1-5 scale.)

Participants were asked to rate the following on a 1-5 scale:

… Information enhancement … Sense of freedom

… Importance of touch (in examining this object) … Ease of use / comfort (the overall system)

5.1.3 Results / Conclusions to the User-feedback Exercise

Throughout the study, all participants were observed as the users’ behavior was vital for the results.

Results: Numeral data to support qualitative feedback

… 12 out of 15 participants felt that the replica object was an interface to the main object.

… 7 out of 15 participants could not guess the material of the main object before touching the replicas.

… 8 out of 15 participants assumed that the main object’s temperature was warmer than it actually was⁵³.

… 12 out of 15 participants were able to identify the duplicate object.

Results: Observations

… 10 out of 15 participants picked up the objects, instead of examining them on the display table.

… 5 out of 15 participants chose to walk around the original object and observed it from different perspectives.

… 0 out of 15 participants touched both objects at the same time

The table below demonstrates the answers of the participants to the questions with scaling of 1 to 5, where 5 is the best case.

53 In order to make this temperature comparison, two blocks of different wood structures and a block of metal structure were supplied. Visitors were asked to touch those to confirm which one reflected their imagination of the temperature while looking at the original.

Table 5-1: Observation results of the User-feedback exercise

The results indicate that the addition of tactile feedback as a separate interface tool to a visual display can enhance the learning experience, and increase the accuracy of tactual perception, while the freedom of movement and the use of tactile interface can create the illusion of one-to-one contact with the object. This freedom of movement was not just limited to walking around the furniture and objects, but also to the freeform presentation of the objects. As it was observed that most of the participants preferred to pick up the replica object that was hidden in the bag and walk around the exhibit with it instead of staying at the examination desk, function of this feature will be researched into more detail⁵⁴.

It was clear that the users generally can have assumptions about the temperature and material information of the object, if visual was the only available interaction method.

In this exercise, a high percentage of users were wrong about the object’s tactual properties before touching the replica objects. The visual information was enhanced with the aid of the tactual interface (the hidden objects).

54 Because of this result, all the artworks in the Tactual Explorations project were presented as freeform objects for visitors to be able to pick up or control its height. It must be noted that chronologically in the research, the Tactual Explorations project was realised after this User-feedback exercise.

Number of people out of 15

Best