DESIGN IN THE DESIGN OF ART PROTECTION SYSTEMS
February 14, 2020
Thomas Sierink
S1822284
University of Twente
BSc Creative Technology
Supervisor: Dr. Ir. Edwin Dertien
Critical observer: Dr. Ir. Erik Faber
Preface 7
Abstract 9
1 Introduction 11
1.1 Background . . . 12
1.2 Problem description . . . 12
1.3 Constraint . . . 12
1.4 Overview . . . 12
1.5 Research (sub-)questions . . . 13
1.6 Outline . . . 13
2 State of the Art 15 2.1 Art security and vandalism . . . 15
2.1.1 Vandalism . . . 15
2.1.2 Causes of vandalism . . . 16
2.2 Experience design . . . 18
2.2.1 Gamification . . . 18
2.2.2 The rise of gamification (1973-2009) . . . 19
2.2.3 Current gamification (2010-present) . . . 20
2.2.4 Connecting gamification and vandalism . . . 21
2.3 Technological connection with art . . . 22
2.3.1 QR-codes . . . 23
2.3.2 NFC-tags . . . 23
2.3.3 Current art security technology . . . 23
2.3.4 More on Art Salvage . . . 26
2.4 Conclusion on the state of the art . . . 27
3 Methods and techniques 29
3.1 Creative Technology design process . . . 29
3.2 Brainstorms . . . 31
3.3 Expert interviews . . . 31
3.4 Requirement analysis . . . 31
3.4.1 MoSCoW method . . . 31
4 Ideation 33 4.1 Fundation of ideation . . . 33
4.1.1 User groups . . . 33
4.2 Initial concepts . . . 34
4.3 Concept functionalities . . . 37
4.3.1 Establishing a connection . . . 37
4.3.2 Obtaining information and context . . . 37
4.3.3 Gamification and interaction . . . 38
4.3.4 Community involvement . . . 40
4.3.5 Spontaneity . . . 40
4.4 Selecting final concept . . . 41
5 Specification 43 5.1 Requirement details . . . 43
5.2 final design . . . 44
6 Realization 49 6.1 Case: Statue of Flipje in Tiel . . . 49
6.1.1 Analysis of case . . . 50
6.1.2 Survey . . . 52
6.2 Final design . . . 54
6.2.1 Attracting user . . . 54
6.2.2 Accessing service . . . 55
6.2.3 Consent . . . 55
6.2.4 Security . . . 56
6.2.5 Gamification . . . 56
6.2.6 Requesting user feedback and ending interaction . . . 57
6.3 Practical implications . . . 60
6.3.1 Realization of app . . . 61
7 Evaluation 65
7.1 Expert and client feedback . . . 65
7.2 Requirement review . . . 66
7.3 Ethical considerations . . . 67
8 Discussion and conclusion 69 8.1 Conclusion . . . 69
8.2 Reflection on project . . . 70
8.3 Recommendations . . . 71
9 Appendices 73 9.1 Appendix A: Expert evaluations . . . 73
9.1.1 Expert evaluation I . . . 73
9.1.2 Expert evaluation II . . . 75
9.1.3 Client evaluation . . . 77
9.2 Appendix B: Ethical review . . . 78
9.3 Appendix C: Raw brainstorm . . . 83
9.4 Appendix D: Complete survey and results . . . 89
Appendices 92
Bibliography 93
As stated on the title page, this thesis is written concerning the research on the role of gamification in the protection of art works. This bachelor thesis has been written for the graduation of my bachelor Creative Technology at the University of Twente. The thesis has been written and conducted from September 2019 to Februari 2020 led by supervisor Dr. Ir. E.C. Dertien and critical observer Dr. Ir. E.J. Faber.
I would like to thank both Edwin Dertien and Erik Faber for their constructive feedback and inspiration. Also, I would like to thank Piet van Dalen, co-founder of Art Salvage, the company that provided me with this graduation project.
Last but not least, I would like to thank my friends and family for their feedback and help. Writing a graduation thesis is done individually, but not alone.
Thomas Sierink
February 7, 2020, Enschede
Annually, hundreds of artworks are stolen in Belgium alone. Museums and especially municipalities face large restoration costs. Art security companies like the one connected to this graduation project, Art Salvage, focus on detecting vandalism and notifying those who are responsible for the artwork. However, there is no component of prevention.
Prevention can add a great amount of value to art security products. Going into this graduation project, there already was a pre-notion of applying gamification as a tool.
Gamification is also theorized to reduce the causes of vandalism in the first place: bore- dom, the need to proof oneself, and frustration.
The research question states: How may art protection systems be designed with use of gamification and experience design? Together with the client, a solution was developed based on requirements that were determined by the advice of culture policy experts, case specifics, and vandalism and gamification related literature. The key requirements found are: containing gamification, containing community building aspects, and having a low- threshold start of interaction. The proposed solution to the problem statement contains a crowd-sourced photo update feature on which the alarm triggers can be compared to the most recent picture taken. This reduces errors in detection, and strengthens a community's bond with the artwork: together they protect the art and feel responsible for it. This in turn could reduce vandalism itself. Also by integrating a gamification component, the community is motivated to return more often with the statue.
Evaluating the solution by interviews with experts and the client, the solution seems very promising in theory. However, the general opinion is that is still will need to proof itself in practice, as conditions then are never ideal.
Introduction
First, the playing field is presented. This gives a clear overview of what factors are at play, what is already known, and what is not. To start, a famous quote:
“all that of value is defenseless”
A famous extract from the poet Lucebert, Lubertus Swaanswijk, translated from Dutch.
It speaks for itself, anything that has some worth will not be able to protect itself, due to its worthful nature. The line that follows it is less famous however:
“grows rich from touchability.”
It get its value precisely because of the fact that despite it can be touched and therefore possibly be mistreated, it is not. Or should it be touched? This is the discussion that surrounds this project mostly. Artworks need protection to retain their worth, but gain worth by being close and interactive.
1.1 B ACKGROUND
In Belgium, annually 200 pieces of art are stolen. Only 5 to 10 percent of all art theft is recovered, leading to large costs (VRT, 2018). The art is owned by mostly municipalities or museums who would like to protect their belongings. For the security of art, they ask the help of companies like Art Salvage, the company connected to this graduation project.
Art Salvage is active in both the Netherlands and Belgium, providing their art security service in the form of several sensors and alarms. (Art Salvage, 2019) The client will be more specifically discussed in Section 2.3.4.
1.2 P ROBLEM DESCRIPTION
This graduation project focuses on adding new features to Art Salvages products, espe- cially for sculpture application. The current system is not actively preventing vandalism, and is by third parties found to be having a too low product value. In adding features, it has been suggested that providing context and information concerning the art and thus increasing awareness and involvement would be very helpful in security.
1.3 C ONSTRAINT
From the direct start, it has been decided to constrain the project in the frame of gami- fication, and more in general experience design. As the question was posed very broadly, this will give a better grip during the process. The method of gamification is expected to reach a larger personal involvement and interest in the sculptures. The aim of incor- porating gamification is to add more value and efficiency to an art security system and to contribute to the security of an artwork.
1.4 O VERVIEW
Figure 1.1 shows the relationships of subjects at play. As will be discussed, to improve the security of art, social aspects of the individual and/or group needs to be changed or influenced in a constructive, beneficial way. The chosen, and later on motivated, method to have a grip on social aspects is gamification. This gamification is supported by some technology, which will be determined in a later chapter. To close the loop: the security of the art dictates how and what technology is applicable. The vision of the artist could
Figure 1.1: Components to be discussed and their relations
play a role at what technology can be applied, just like the context of the artwork can be an influence. All the details and constraints of gamification, the social aspects and art security will be discussed in this chapter. Technology will be touched on later, as the technology serves the set purposes.
1.5 R ESEARCH ( SUB -) QUESTIONS
All considered, the research question is raised:
How may art protection systems be designed with use of gamification and experience design?
This question is further divided into the sub-questions:
• What types of vandalism has art to be protected from?
• Which method is currently used for art protection?
• What is the role of experience design and the community in protecting against vandalism?
• How can designing an experience reduce vandalism to art in public space?
1.6 O UTLINE
The chapters that are to be discussed are in order:
• State of the Art
In this chapter, all relevant research, literature and developments are considered.
This chapter will be very relevant in discussing the sub-research questions.
• Methods and techniques
Here, the design methods and design techniques used to perform the next chapters are mentioned and explained.
• Ideation
In this section, the design process is started. Problem definition and relevant infor- mation are collected and ideas are generated.
• Specification
The specification chapter focuses on the further developing of ideas and are selected with use of evaluation and feedback.
• Realization
In this chapter, a single idea is developed and worked out. In an iterative process, feedback is continuously incorporated to alter the design.
• Evaluation
In the evaluation chapter, several techniques are applied to determine to what extent the proposed solution is the correct solution, or rather a correct solution.
• Discussion and conclusion
In the final chapter, the (sub-)research questions will be answered. In the discussion, comments on the process and conclusion are made, and recommendations for the future are mentioned.
State of the Art
In Chapter 2, all relevant research, literature and developments in the playing field are considered. First, the act of vandalism itself is discussed, to obtain a clear view on what is most relevant and important to respond against. Then, an overview of gamification is included and ways it could be of help in the posed situation. Lastly, technologies will be presented that are currently or will be of help in this project.
2.1 A RT SECURITY AND VANDALISM 2.1.1 Vandalism
Art vandalism has been of all times. The earliest known written source originates from the invasion of Rome in 455 by the East Germanic tribe of Vandals, and thus coining the term vandal, This resulted in destruction of numerous artworks, and was quickly adopted across Europe. (Miles, 2010)
More commonly, the term vandalism is used when objects are damaged. This can be used in two categories: intentionally or unintentionally, by the owner or by others. These two variables can be combined in any way, and some examples of these will be shown, in the context of art vandalism.
• Intentional by owner
Banksy, a famous yet anonymous English artist, destroyed a painting of his own.
He did this by running it through a shredding machine, right after it had been sold by the amount of 1.2 million Euros. Banksy defended the stunt with a quote from Picasso: The urge to destroy is also a creative urge. (Banksy, 2018)
• Unintentional by owner
An artist could destroy his own art by accident too. It may be damaged during transport, be forgotten about and get weathered over time, or be subject to a personal mistake.
• Intentional by other people
As vandalism is defined by the Cambridge Dictionary: the crime of intentionally damaging property belonging to other people. This includes examples like the taking down of the Durham Confederate statue, done by protesters who did not agree with what the statue stood for. The removals were driven by the belief that the monuments glorify white supremacy and memorialize a treasonous government whose founding principle was the perpetuation and expansion of slavery. (Drum, 2017; Fox, 2017)
• Unintentional by other people
A very common example is when people use the flash when making a picture of artworks. This can damage fragile pieces because of the harsh light. Another example: In January2010, a woman accidentally fell into L’acteur, a 1904 painting by Pablo Picasso from 1904 in the New York Metropolitan Museum of Art. The estimated costs of the event were 130 million Dollars (CNN, 2010).
All of these forms are in this project recognized as vandalism, but more generally, the
’intentional vandalism performed by other people’ meaning will be applied. Just as there are multiple ways in which vandalism can be performed, there are several causes of vandalism. Knowing these can help determine what causes are most important to tackle.
2.1.2 Causes of vandalism
There are a lot of different typologies of causes for vandalism. As shown below, theft is defined as a form of vandalism. Firstly, Cohen (1973) presents five conceptual types of vandalism. Acquisitive vandalism (looting, including theft), tactical/ideological vandal- ism (aiming to get attention to oneself or an issue), vindictive vandalism (revenge), play vandalism (to fight boredom), and malicious vandalism (getting rid of e.g. frustration or anger).
Weinmayer (1969) on the contrary, states that there are not five but seven descriptive types. Vandalism of overuse, conflict vandalism, curiosity vandalism, leverage vandal- ism, deleterious vandalism, irresistible temptation vandalism, and no-other-way-to-do-it
vandalism. These types of vandalism are less formal, but easier to grasp. Lastly, Thaw thinks vandalism is simpler to categorize. According to him, vandalism is either hostility- directed, out of thoughtlessness or out of carelessness (Thaw, 1976).
Considering all these ways of categorizing vandalism, Cohen presents the most specific and the most fit for this literature review. It covers more types than Thaws does as Thaws method is only a summary of Cohens typology, and it is generally better received in the psychological community than Weinmayers.
Applying this to art, this means that acquisitive vandalism is done to art for its physical value, and tactical or ideological vandalism out of disagreement with the arts meaning or context in a principle way. Vindictive vandalism will find place when a vandal wants to make the environment or artist pay for the situation the vandal is in, and play vandalism gets applied when the vandal is bored and finds the art in someway attractive to damage. Lastly, malicious vandalism will happen when the person is aggressive and frustrated towards the art from a personal standpoint. The answer to preventing this should ideally solve these five conceptual types of vandalism, or more realistically, solve the most common types.
Individual vandalism
To find what variety of vandalism is most important to tackle, it is valuable to have a look at the prevalence of the types. According to the Dutch Central Bureau of Statistics, 75% of all vandalism related crimes are done by civilians between 12 and 24 years old (CBS, 2019). Also, Dutch police states that the youngest group, aged 10-12, are mostly performing a form of play vandalism (Politie Nederland, 2019). The damage is not nec- essarily done on purpose. To vandals aged 12 to 16, it is about prestige. This means it is some form of tactical vandalism. For the oldest age group, above 16, the cause is mostly due to frustration, malicious vandalism. For more detailed and reliable information, more sources need to be found. Not many scientific sources are available, but some reliable government sources can be of help.
Group vandalism
From a collective's perspective, some of the causes of vandalism may be amplified or passed on to others. However, an offender carries the influence of his or her friends even when offending alone (Hochstetler et al., 2002). Therefore, it makes sense to first deal with individual motivations of vandalism. Nonetheless, the group, or rather a community
or society, can most definitely offer a social check, to influence the individual. Though not much research is done, some research might still be of help. For example, the so- cial disorganization theory states that the worse the organization of a community is, the more crime will come from the members of this community (Kubrin & Weitzer, 2003).
Because of the low level of social cohesion, there is a lessened sense of common respon- sibility too. This sparks more criminality, and with that, more vandalism. Following a different perspective, Hughes and Edwards mention that the higher the socio-economic status (SES), the higher the interaction in a community (Morgan, 2004). Also, it is men- tioned that “Residents of communities where a large proportion of residents know and interact with community members appear to be more likely to engage in surveillance, develop movement-governing rules, and intervene in local disturbances regardless of how frequently they interact (excluding extremely infrequent interaction).” (p.697) This is due to larger homogeneity in areas with a higher average SES. How counter-intuitive this may sound, low SES neighborhoods appear to be more community driven. As there are not many sources relating social cohesion in a community, experts in culture policy have been interviewed.
Concludingly, the primary age group is quite young and thus performs three main types of vandalism are play, malicious and tactical vandalism. In a group, the social disorganization and cohesion can play a role in the criminalization in the community. In the next section, gamification’s response to these issues will be explored.
2.2 E XPERIENCE DESIGN
Before getting specific on gamification, it is helpful to first widen the view of this gradua- tion project and touch upon experience design first, as gamification is a type of experience design. Experience design in this context is designing user experience. Defining user ex- perience, the ISO states: It is a person’s perceptions and responses that result from the use or anticipated use of a product, system or service. There are several methods of designing user experiences, one of which being gamification.
2.2.1 Gamification
Generally, there is a broad consensus on the definition of gamification, with a variety of minor nuances. Globally, gamification is an informal umbrella term for the use of video game elements in non-gaming systems to improve user experience (UX) and user
engagement (Hamari, 2013). Adding to that, Huotari & Hamari (2012) state that gam- ification can be defined as a process of enhancing services with game-like affordances in order to invoke gameful experiences and further behavioral outcomes. They highlight the importance of gamification in causing the same psychological experiences as games would. In the same thought, Deterding et al. (2011) write that indeed the affordances implemented in gamification have to be the same as the ones used in games, regardless of the outcomes. With these sources, it may be concluded that gamification is the method of implementing game-like features in non-gaming environments. These features include especially affordance-like aspects.
All aspects that are practiced in gamification can be used for multiple purposes and areas of daily life. Logically, this means there are numerous uses of gamification. The three largest application areas are (m)Health (Miller et al., 2014), education (Dicheva et al., 2015), and marketing (Conaway & Garay, 2014). For these uses, gamification is applied because these sectors need their service to be engaging to attract attention or increase joy, offer motivation, or a combination of these.
2.2.2 The rise of gamification (1973-2009)
The gamification of the present has come a long way. Several small developments have led to the ubiquity of gamification today. Presenting these events chronologically makes this clear.
The years 1973 to 1999:
• 1973: The Game of Work was written by Charles A Coonradt to address the issue of flagging productivity in the US.
• 1978: Roy Trubshaw and Richard Bartle develop MUD1, the first Multi-user Dun- geon game. Though its text-based interface was unimpressive by todays standards, it lit the fuse for the explosion of social online gaming.
• 1981: AAdvantage, the worlds first frequent flier program is released by Ameri- can Airlines. The initiative tried to gain customer loyalty by offering rewards for frequently flying a model still prominently present today in coffee shops or barbers.
• 1999: More and more people are starting to recognise the power of game enjoyment.
Stephen W. Draper releases a paper stating that user enjoyment should be a big requirement of software design.
The 2000s:
• 2002: While designing a game-like UI for commercial electronic devices, (ATMs, vending machines, mobile phones) Nick Pelling coins the deliberately ugly word, gamification. Now finally with a name, the history of gamification truly commences.
Also in 2002, The Serious Gaming Initiative (a project of the Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars) is founded.
• 2008: In a blog article discussing his stay at the Social Gaming Summit, Bret Terrill is documented for talking about the term gamification for the first time: In conversations, one of the biggest topics is the gamification of the web. The basic idea is taking game mechanics and applying to other web properties to increase engagement.
2.2.3 Current gamification (2010-present)
• 2010: Jane McGonigal delivers a TED Talk, Gaming Can Make a Better World, in which she prophesies a game-based paradise: When I look forward to the next decade, I know two things for sure: that we can make any future we can imagine, and we can play any games we want, so I say: Let the world-changing games begin.
• 2013: Amazon upgrades its FreeTime parental guidance system on Kindle devices to let parents reward their children for reaching educational goals.
• 2014: With a large percentage of gamification initiatives not having the desired impact, a slew of articles like this one appear declaring the end of gamification as a business strategy. We found that gamification is indeed very useful to engage audiences, but its not necessarily the thing that drives the actual conversion and the actual revenue. Petar Karafezov, senior manager, digital marketing EMEA, Adobe
• 2016: Pokemon Go is one of the most successful applications of gamification with over 800 million downloads. People who would normally turn their noses up at badge collection were out patrolling the streets searching for rare pokemon! Poke- mon Go is one of the most successful apps of all time. It broke records:
– Highest-grossing app mobile game in its first month – Most downloads in its first month for a mobile game
– Most international charts topped simultaneously – Fastest time to gross 100 million dollars
Experts agree: Pokemon Gos success was driven in large part by the addictive nature of game mechanics.
• 2017: this was the year that Gamification Europe exploded onto the scene. For the first time, hundreds of passionate gamification supporters were coming together to share ideas and strategies. Add to that, the World Government Summit put together a strategy for applying gamification in education. These two events mark the beginnings of game mechanics being applied more broadly. 2017 could be seen as the year that gamification goes from being a novel concept to a tool that designers across the world are using, without even realising it.
• 2018: What makes 2018 stand out is that a lot of apps include gamification in some way. Gamification is no longer just found on language learning and exercise apps, but meditation, to-do lists, job applications, litter picking, wildlife spotting, you name it theres a gamified app for it. Its much harder to spot gamification these days. Not because theres less of it but because theres just so much of it.
Gamification is everywhere. Even more intriguing, its now got lots of different names, from behavioural design to engagement-focused experience.
2.2.4 Connecting gamification and vandalism
In this part, research will be mentioned where the causes of vandalism or the motivations of vandals are addressed with use of gamification.
Individual gamification
As mentioned in 2.1.2 on the personal motivations of vandalism, the main causes of indi- vidual vandalism are boredom, frustration, and the need to express ideological statements.
Proponents of gamification often state that the most important advantage of games is to engage players in effortless learning by creating the right level of engagement, just between boredom and frustration (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Another less frequently used approach of gamification is when games try to assess learners’ emotions and respond to them. This is typically used to also address boredom and frustration (Craig et al., 2004; Lehman et al., 2012). Thus, gamification can definitely address some of the main motivations of vandalism by an individual.
Group gamification
The causes of vandalism by a group, or rather the preventing or not preventing of van- dalism by a group, as mentioned in 2.1.2, are more complex. It is about the organization of a group, for example. The worse a community is organized, the higher the crime rates seem to be. There might be solutions in gamification, as researchers from the University of Gent have shown. They thought of ZWERM: stimulating urban neighborhood self- organization through gamification (Coenen et al., 2013). They wanted to get people to know each other and to undertake action together that was beneficial for the collective.
It is through these actions that self-organization can be supported. ZWERM offers an online platform where neighborhood members can interact and check-in at certain loca- tions in the neighborhood to score points. The ZWERM trial was overall evaluated by participants as positive and as contributing to the social cohesion in the neighborhood.
Another part of addressing a community in gamification, is that it works beneficial for the experience of the individual too.
Lounis et al. (2014) found that in a gamified service the ability of participants to collaborate with other participants in a community setting towards the pursuit of common goals presents a statistically significant difference in the experienced fun, in comparison to individual pursuit of goals due to the lack of community (p.10). Apart from practical tests, there is no to little scientific research done in this field.
2.3 T ECHNOLOGICAL CONNECTION WITH ART
In order to establish a technological connection, or at least to grant access to a functional app or website, several technologies need to be explored. This would be accessed through the user’s smartphone, as it is the one piece of technology a majority of people carry around which is capable of visiting websites or using apps.
Logically, in order to get into an app, the app should be downloaded on the user’s device first. That is why the system and interaction find place on a website. A website is accessible through a URL. This URL, "Uniform Resource Locator", is the address of the website and can be left as it is, as a textual internet address, or be condensed and encoded into other media. The two most common are QR-codes and NFC-tags. This means these technologies were pre-selected, as these are the most common, ubiquitous tools.
Other ways of establishing a connection is using wireless data transmission, using WiFI
or Bluetooth, for example. These methods are not in the scope of this project, since they are active technologies, always requiring power and have an increased difficulty to work with and to keep running.
2.3.1 QR-codes
A QR-code or "Quick Response code" is a two-dimensional array, a barcode matrix. It encodes information by filling the squares in the matrix either black or white. Usually, three of the four corners are reserved to show a square shape, which helps in tracking and reading the code from a different perspective or angle (Dense Wave, 2014). For example, the shown QR-code contains the encoded message "Hello World!"
Figure 2.1: QR-code with the message "Hello World!"
2.3.2 NFC-tags
NFC technology, Near Field Communication, also encodes different types of informa- tion, based on RFID-technology. RFID or Radio-frequency identification transmits data through radio waves, or rather it does this passively. When encountering an electromag- netic field sent out by the scanning device, it reacts and alters the field (NFC-Nederland, 2019). This change is then detected by the scanning side. Usually the logo indicates the possibility to scan a NFC-tag.
The technique is found in several card-scanning applications, like wireless payment and public transport access. This contact-less icon is often shown as a wave icon.
2.3.3 Current art security technology
The art security of the present is very much directed from a technological standpoint.
Most of the security is sensor based, which in turn set off an alarm. The sensors are mainly based on categories such as movement, conductance, or visual information.
Figure 2.2: NFC-logo
Figure 2.3: Indication of wireless possibilities.
Movement can be measured using an accelerometer or a strain gauge. The accelerom- eter is probably the most well known sensor used for the detection of movement. It works on the basis of mass inertia, where a known mass is put onto a lever. When the sensor is subjected to an acceleration, the mass inertia moves the lever into the opposite direction of the movement and activates the sensor. A strain gauge works on the same principle of mass inertia like the accelerometer, except the detection is now based on the difference in electrical resistance when the sensor changes shape. The coiled design of the sensor is subjective to any forces acting on it, deforming the coil. When the sensor changes shape due to pressure or force originating from acceleration, a different electrical resis- tance is measured which activates the sensor, initiating a cascade of additional actions (e.g. activating an alarm).
Conductance is also a powerful tool for security as it is invisible and unable to be sensed by the person touching the conducting surface. A sensor attached to the conductive metal of a metallic statue can detect any differences in conductivity. A person touching it acts as a new ground. A multitude of sensors can even be implemented to be able to map where the person is touching the statue.
Security by visual apparatus is the most obvious and most implemented form of security in any sector. From police stations to the homes of individuals, cameras seem to be the most reliable and comforting fashion of security. Not only is it able to spot anything that is happening at any moment, it is even able to be hooked onto an automated system which can send out an alert when a set of pixel changes is detected. Moreover, movement
detecting security systems based on lasers or sound are also commonly found in consumer homes or areas of significance. These systems rely on the time of flight (TOF) principle of their propelled signal. In the case of light, a laser is shortly fired which reflects off an object, where the interval of fire and receiving the reflected laser beam is measured. In a non moving environment, this interval will be constant. However, when another object is in the trajectory of the laser beam, the moment of reflection will appear sooner and therefore the measured interval (TOF) will decrease. When this change in interval is measured, the sensor activates the alarm.
The same principle of TOF is true for audial devices, as mentioned before. Instead of firing a beam of light, a short ultrasound signal will be fired. Sound waves are similarly able to reflect off objects resulting in a certain TOF. Any disturbance in this TOF will set off an alarm.
Next to that, more advanced technology is used too, mainly in musea. RFID (Radio- Frequency IDentification) chips for example, give off a unique magnetic field when exposed to one themselves. This is scanned by the triggering party. Since the RFIDs are only triggered from a certain distance, the scanner will sense when a chip has passed it. This is neatly visualized in figure 2.4.
Figure 2.4: RFID’s basic workings
From this section, the most important information that mainly sensors based on TOF or visual sensing are meaningless. A movement or presence of something externally will not
be of aid in detecting vandalism done "internally", to the art work itself. Only sensors involving the interaction with the art itself, physically, can be of help.
It is also interesting to dive further into the case of Art Salvage as an art security company.
2.3.4 More on Art Salvage
As stated in the introduction, the company of Art Salvage with founder Piet van Dalen have offered this graduation project to help develop an addition to a product of theirs.
The most developed product is the SCALP X, visible in figure 2.5 (Art Salvage, 2019).
This sensor reacts to vibrations and notifies people responsible for the art work by e-mail or text message.
Figure 2.5: The SCALP X sensor (Art Salvage, 2019)
An issue that arises is that some triggers are not caused by an act of vandalism, but by a harmless interaction with the art. This is called a type I error, detecting vandalism while it is not.Also type II errors go unnoticed at times. When an artwork is vandalized with (spray) paint, the statue will barely vibrate and will therefore not set off the alarm.
The final issue that Art Salvage faces is that some customers think that the product has a too low product value. "It is just an alarm", they think. They consider it to be too one-dimensional, containing too little functionality to be worth investing in.
2.4 C ONCLUSION ON THE STATE OF THE ART
Taking all into consideration, vandalism may be categorized into several ways, according to several people. Cohen’s way of classifying vandalism will be used. The play, malicious and tactical vandalism types are most important to tackle, as these are most prevalent in the most prevalent vandal group. Social checks can be of help to make members of a community more aware of the impact that vandalism can have, and how they can solve this, together. Current art security technologies are solely based on detecting and or notifying, rather than on prevention. All kinds of sensors have been devised to aid (art) security, but non of these prevent the act of vandalism, only some can detect.
According to the literature, gamification can address, make use and or solve the above mentioned when performed in the correct way. Next to that, features that will be taken from this chapter to the next chapters are the following features: providing of context, interaction and gamification, community involvement, and spontaneity.
Methods and techniques
Several methods techniques were applied within this graduation project. First, the de- sign process is elaborated on. Then, ways of generating ideas and evaluating these are presented.
3.1 C REATIVE T ECHNOLOGY DESIGN PROCESS
For the study of Creative Technology, a design process had been proposed by Mader &
Eggink (2014). This method will guide the research past several stages. These are:
• Ideation
The first step in the design process is to define a problem definition, the acquisition of relevant information and generate ideas with similar approaches. The result of this phase is a further worked out project idea, alongside with problem requirements.
Ideas on experience and interaction are also part of the result.
• Specification
During the specification phase, a number of prototypes are developed to discover and determine the design space, and a short evaluation and feedback loop is ap- plied to iterate on this specification. For this specific graduation projects, these prototypes will not be made physical, and will rather be well developed ideation concepts.
• Realization
With a clearer product specification, the realization process starts. The realization, like the other phases, is an iterative process in itself where feedback is continuously
incorporated in the design. The goal is to design a final prototype, integrating all requirements.
• Evaluation
During the evaluation, the degree of completing the set requirements is determined by setting up a survey, judging the previously prioritized requirements and the judgement of the client.
Other aspects of the design process are important. Iteration is applied everywhere in the process. Continuously, feedback and other ideas are incorporated or re-thought of. Also, predominantly the ideation and specification phases have a diverging and converging nature. Ideas or concepts are generated, worked out and some are selected.
Figure 3.1: The Creative Technology design process
3.2 B RAINSTORMS
During the ideation and specification several time constrained brainstorms will be per- formed. This is done to come up with a large amount of ideas in a short time, to thereafter eliminate most of them, and continue the brainstorm on the remaining ideas.
Time constraint among others facilitates creativity. (Haught-Tromp, 2017)
3.3 E XPERT INTERVIEWS
To gain better insights in the subject matter, several experts in the subject area will be interviewed. These interviews will be mainly semi-structured interviews. Semi-structured interviews are performed conversationally with one interviewee at a time. It employs a mixture of closed- and open-ended questions, often accompanied by follow-up questions on the why or how. The dialogue can meander around the topics on the agenda, rather than adhering to fixed questions as in a standardized survey, and may delve into totally unforeseen issues (Rose, 1994).
3.4 R EQUIREMENT ANALYSIS 3.4.1 MoSCoW method
After having discovered some requirements using the methods mentioned above, they will be ranked using a prioritization method called MoSCoW. This links to the categories where the requirements can be placed under: Must have, Should have, Could have, and Wont have. (Waters, 2009) This way of setting priorities will help in the evaluation as well, determining the importance of features and evaluating to what extent they have or have not been included.
Ideation
In the Ideation chapter, ideas are generated based on pre-selected functionalities. These are ideated upon before selecting one and continuing with specification. First, in 4.1 several concepts are developed based on the functionalities. Also the requirements them- selves will be explained more clearly, to the extent of what role they will play for the project solution.
4.1 F UNDATION OF IDEATION 4.1.1 User groups
Several characteristics can be identified when thinking of user groups. In table 4.1, several types of potential users are compared by properties they have or do not have.
Judging by the user characteristics, the users can be distributed over three groups: Ideal users, neutral users, and not-ideal users, where ideal means that it will have either the most impact on the users, or the most positive impact on the project outcome.
In the first group, ideal users are: Local youth, and tourists. These groups can either benefit themselves from the system, or the users suit the system especially.
The second group consists out of neutral users. These could benefit but also could not benefit from the system, and vice versa, the system from the users. The user groups in this separation are: one-time passerbyers, people exercising, people walking dogs, and people running errands.
The third group, the non-ideal users group, consists out of people who would not gain much using the system, nor would the system gain from them. Commuters especially would not even be able to use the system due to their situation.
Table 4.1: User characteristics
Types of potential users Commu-
ter (car / public
trans- port)
Commu- ter (bike / pedes- trian)
Local people
run- ning er- rands
people walk-
ing dogs
People exercis-
ing
Local youth
Tourists One- time visitors
Properties
Usual passer-
byer
++ ++ + ++ ++ ++ – –
Aware of art
- - - – + +-
Interested in art
+- +- +- +- +- – + +-
Busy ++ + +- - +- – - -
Spare time
– – +- + + ++ ++ +-
Technical capa- bilities
? ? ? ? ? ++ ? ?
Phone at hand
– +- +- ++ + ++ ++ ++
Likely- hood to van-
dalize
– - +- +- +- + - +-
4.2 I NITIAL CONCEPTS
Five concepts of different levels of complexity and additions were proposed to Art Salvage.
These concepts were developed by incrementing the amount of functionalities that these contain. The functionalities have followed from the research in the state of the art. What functionalities the concepts would have, was determined with the following table.
Functionalities Providing
context
Interaction and gamification
(digital)
Community involvement
Interaction and gamification
(physical)
Spontaneity
ConceptNo.
1 X
2 X X
3 X X X
4 X - X X
5 X - X X X
Table 4.2: Concept functionality selection
The functionalities were proposed by experts and the client and come forth from the conclusion in the state of the art, Section 2.4 . The concepts are elaborated below:
1. Functionalities: Providing context:
Example implementation: NFC-tag to scan, get forwarded to page that provides information by database.
Example situation: Two cyclists pass a statue, notice it and find out that they can get more information about the art by scanning the tag with their phone. The website that shows up on their device, and provides context.
2. Functionalities: Providing context and digital interaction and gamification
Example implementation: NFC-tag to scan, get to play a small game that teaches about context.
Example situation: A bored child passes an artwork, wondering what he might think of it or do with it. He notices the tag, scans it with his phone, and gets surprised by a game that is engaging and at the same time provides information about the art.
3. Functionalities: Providing context, digital interaction and gamification, and com- munity involvement
Example implementation: NFC-tag to scan, get to play a small game that teaches about context. Share your results with others, or play together with others for extra high scores etc.
Example situation: A bored child passes an artwork, wondering what he might think of it or do with it. He notices the tag, scans it with his phone, and gets surprised by a game that is engaging and at the same time provides information about the art. The game mentions that when you are playing with multiple persons, your score gets multiplied. He calls his friend, and together they learn about the art while playing a fun game.
4. Functionalities: Providing context, physical interaction and gamification, and com- munity involvement
Example implementation: Installation contains physical elements that can be inter- acted with as part of a game, while providing information and context about the art.
Example situation: A bored child passes an artwork, wondering what he might think of it or do with it. He notices the tag, scans it with his phone, and gets surprised by a game that is engaging and at the same time provides information about the art. The game includes physical elements, like visual and auditory clues.
These increase the engagement.
5. Functionalities: Providing context, physical interaction and gamification, commu- nity involvement and spontaneity
Example implementation: Statue reacts to people passing by, visitors can connect via Bluetooth to start and control the game. Results and effects after and/or during the game.
Example situation: A bored child passes an artwork, and the artwork draws attention to itself. The visitor does not make the first step as the art initiates the contact. The tag gets mentioned, is scanned with the phone, and a game starts that is engaging and at the same time provides information about the art. The game includes physical elements, like visual and auditory clues.
4.3 C ONCEPT FUNCTIONALITIES
In this chapter, the use of concept functionalities will be motivated and examples of possible implementations of this functionality will be presented.
4.3.1 Establishing a connection
MotivationInstead of having to install an app, the overall effort in interacting with an installation like an artwork drops when the content is reached by scanning a NFC-tag or connecting to a network. The decrease in the effort, or possibly perceived effort too, is of high importance when reaching many people with many different interests. The less mental or physical effort is needed, the sooner a subject will try to interact with the artwork.
(Bain, 1950)
Possible implementations
There are several ways in which a smartphone can obtain information without the user actively controlling the phone. By scanning an NFC tag, information will be received by the device. For instance, this could be the URL to a webpage that will be opened, or a small file. According to the company of NFC (NFC-Nederland, 2019), NFC is not well suited for sharing large files. The bit rate, the amount of data per second, is 424 kbit/s maximum. More commonly, the bit rates are either 106 kbit/s or 212 kbit/s as there is only one lesser used type of tag with the high bit rate (Forum, 2019). For higher speeds, NFC can ensure that a bluetooth connection is more easily established. By using a bluetooth network, interaction is faster and smoother as the bit rate is higher: 2.1 Mbit/s.
4.3.2 Obtaining information and context
MotivationHaving scanned the tag or connected to a network, data will be transferred. For example, a page could be opened on the users device. This web page informs the user about the background of the art, and offers context with it. From expert interviews talks with the client, it has been concluded that the appropriate amount of information available to the users is very important in preventing any vandalism.
Possible implementations
There are several ways in which information and context can be showed. The most straightforward option is plain text, describing who the author is, what the artworks meaning is, and what the physical properties of it is. This can be done by displaying the information on a device, or by conveying the message in an auditory way.
4.3.3 Gamification and interaction
MotivationAnother functionality useful to incorporate into the system is a game, or some gamifica- tion elements. Due to the low average age of the vandals, this will increase the engagement.
Besides that, playing games helps you learn better and faster (Hamari et al., 2016). This comes at play when the context about the artwork is presented to the users.
Possible implementations
During a brainstorm, the following conceptual games or types of gamification have been thought of. Scans of this can be found in Appendix C.
For several types of art:
Types of outdoor art, single pieces
• Abstract
What do you see in this sculpture?
– Visitors can vote and give additions to what can be voted on, on what they think the art resembles. They can add what meaning it has to them.
– Visitors can vote and give additions to what can be voted on, on what they think the art resembles. They can add what meaning it has to them.
• Scenery
– Users can step into the scenery that is resembled in the art by using augmented or virtual reality. By stepping into the art, the message is more strongly conveyed, and visitors are more engaged.
– To help them imagine what it would be like for the visitor to physically be in the scene, they can send in a picture of themselves, reminiscent to the cardboard stands with face cut outs in them.
– A small quiz can be held for users to guess where the scenery might be ge- ographically, testing their knowledge and possible learning them something new.
• Portrait
– Visiting a portrait on the shown persons birthday gives a special function, like an "easter egg".
– Start a conversation! Ask pre-set questions and let the statue respond to them, and tell his own story. People might relate to his story and find it more convincing to hear it from first hand. Possible addition could be in AR/VR, for a more immersive experience.
– Find out what you and the portrait person have in common, to tighten the connection of the community with the statue. A historical leading figure in the neighborhood might have gone through the same as the inhabitants of the present.
• Item
– Change the item in appearance, non-real time change the color, size and shape of the object.
– What do you think it stands for in this neighborhood? Help people discover why art is relevant to them in their direct environment.
• Group Pieces
– Collect all the art! Make selfies with all the art pieces.
– First visit all sculptures. After ticking off every one of them, and learning about each, complete a small quiz at the start/end of the route!
• General
A badge collecting system also came up during the brainstorming. It focuses primar- ily on regular passerbyers of the concerning art. The idea is that this broad target group can check in at the art. Every time they check in, they get more information about the artwork. When checking in, badges can be collecting as milestones or objectives.
4.3.4 Community involvement
MotivationAs stated in section 2.X.X, the role of a community plays a large role in the prevention of vandalism. Hughes and Edwards state that the better the community interacts, the more likely they are to engage in surveillance, for example. Real life examples can be digitized too. Digital communities are getting increasingly popular, according to market- ing channels online. Digital communities make their members feel more connected to the brand and the subject.
Possible implementations
Several aspects can be applied to fit the requirement of community involvement. For example, users could share their high scores in the game with others, motivating them to do an even better job due to a sense of competition (DiMenichi, 2015). Another option to increase community involvement is a less competitive, and rather constructive setting.
Users can be motivated to ask people they know or do not know and play the game together with them. By rewarding users that play in groups more than individual users, the sense of community can be increased as well.
An example of digitized community feedback is a guestbook. Generally, a guestbook is an open, public place where users can leave whatever message they want to. Digitally but also physically, it is generally not moderated or censored. This form of interaction is strictly seen not interaction, as it is very much one-directional communication. Guest- books are not the place to get feedback on your message. However, it is a place where people can leave their mark or tag on the art, and therefore feel connected to it. Not only textual but also visual messages or tags can be part of a guestbook, digital or analog.
4.3.5 Spontaneity
MotivationAnother attempt in lowering the effort needed to start the experience between the user and the artwork is to make the artwork take the first step. As mentioned in 3.1.1, the effort should be as low as possible to ensure a high engagement per person, and to get the maximal effect in the decrease of vandalism eventually. Next to that, it is of essence that passerbyers know that the artwork allows interaction in the first place.
Possible implementations
It could attract the attention of the user with visual or auditory cues. For example, turning on a light or playing a sound. This means that the artwork could also speak to the potential users. Some particular lighting, blinking or moving, can attract a potential user or indicate the interactive possibilities.
4.4 S ELECTING FINAL CONCEPT
After discussing and receiving feedback from the client, it has been decided that the general idea of concept 5 will be developed further. This will be done in the following chapter, Specification.
Specification
In the specification chapter, the concept selected from the ideation will be made more concrete and specific. Functionalities are prioritized and a final design will be developed.
5.1 R EQUIREMENT DETAILS
Starting the specification phase, the requirements must be made clear, as these are fur- ther built upon. These can be defined in a table based on the MoSCoW technique, as mentioned in Chapter 3. The requirements are found from the expert interviews, state of the art research, and feedback from the ideation phase. These are then labeled in level of priority.
Out of the state of the art, the following possible requirements were found:
• The added interactive layer being able to explain its context and meaning.
• The added interactive layer being able to relate the art to its surroundings, physi- cally.
• The added interactive layer contains technology that lowers the user’s effort to start the interaction.
• The added interactive layer contains gamification that contains affordance-like as- pects, awarding the user.
• A learning aspect is present in the gamification.
• The added interactive layer brings a community-building aspect to the table.
Interviews with culture experts were held. Ellen Breukers-Kraaijenvanger is policy advisor concerning art in Enschede, and Jacintha Blom is culture coach in Enschede, connecting artists and the municipality. These interviews were held early in the design process, which unfortunately lead to a lack of a referable transcription of these. During the interviews, the following possible requirements were found:
• Surrounding environment should be heard, their feedback processed.
• The visitors know the meaning of the statue.
In talks with the client, the following possible requirements were found:
• The visitors of the art are made aware of the meaning of the art.
• Learning with use of gamification.
Several requirements overlap. Condensing these and labeling them using the MoSCoW method, results in the following table.
5.2 FINAL DESIGN
The final design is separated into six stages in total to aid specificity.This way, every requirement can have its own step in the interaction. Other steps are have occured out of other necessities, for instance the third step. These stages are fixed, and the options in them may vary, according to the case specifications. In order, these phases are:
1. Attracting user
The first phase is getting the user close to the installation. This first step is key, as it will decide whether the potential vandal will be informed about the statue, or won’t be influenced whatsoever.
2. Accessing service
The next phase is about getting the user to access the system. This can be done in several ways, as said in Chapter 2.2 .
3. Consent
A very important, specific step in the process is asking for a user’s consent. As user data is saved, their permission is very much necessary. This will be further discussed in the ethical assessment.
Table 5.1: MoSCoW priority table
Nr. Requirement MoSCoW priority
1 The added interactive layer being able to explain its context and meaning.
Must, a large source of vandalism is frus- tration and misinformation.
2 The added interactive layer being able to relate the art to its surroundings, physi- cally.
Could, the solution will not be less effec- tive without it, but it would be a helpful addition.
3 The added interactive layer contains technology that triggers the interaction to initiate.
Should. As mentioned in the state of the art, the lower the effort to start the inter- action, the more often it will happen.
4 The added interactive layer contains gamification that contains affordance- like aspects.
Must, as found in the state of the art. Mo- tivating persons with use of gamification and rewards has proved to be very func- tional.
5 A learning aspect is present in the gami- fication.
Should, it is valuable to educate about art. This might help the community understand the art’s importance in the neighborhood.
6 The added interactive layer brings a community-building aspect to the table.
Could. A separate community-building aspect can be implemented, but when designing the solution, the other aspects as a whole are intended to increase the social check already.
4. Security
The first part of the interaction is a check-in system. Out of the brainstorm, this has been selected as the most fit and all-round feature. Visitors can check-in their visit and get rewards for these, mentioned in the next step. The check-in system wishes to create a habit for the users to visit the art regularly. The gamification aspect that engages the user keeps them visiting and experience more of the second step of interaction.
Next to that, another very large feature that did not get included in the ideation phase was to have visitors take pictures of the artwork. This then helps Art Salvage to keep track of the actual context of vandalism. When an alarm is triggered, possibly by accident, a recent image could be of help. When an alarm has not been
triggered but has been vandalized by graffiti or paint, pictures of the art could play a big role.
5. Gamification
The second step of the interaction process has several options to choose from, to be more flexible in what the visitor’s needs are, and what the general context is of the artwork(s). Checking in is only possible within a set perimeter around the artwork, making sure there is no cheating or fooling the system.
Three options have been selected that can be used separately or together. These are:
• Receiving information about the art
Every time the visitor checks in at the artwork, they would receive a single piece of information. This can be done in several ways. Progressively, where the second piece builds on the first, or more randomly like a puzzle, where the parts of information need to be "stuck" together.
• Guestbook
Leaving their experiences in a guestbook with multiple options, written or otherwise visual messages, people can use the guestbook to communicate how they feel. Interaction between visitors is optional, it would be possible to create a tighter connection between admirers of the artwork.
on that, a discussion forum is a possible concept too. Having visitors ask what is unclear to them, helping other people and expressing their frustration before they can project it on the physical artwork could useful to some extend.
• Playing a physical game
The last option withing the second interaction phase is to encourage - espe- cially the younger audience - to play a game close to the artwork. As men- tioned in the state of the art, the demographic group responsible the most for vandalism is the group until 20 years old. The type of vandalism expressed is predominantly play vandalism. By distracting the younger visitors and en- couraging them to play a small game, ranking their high scores, the risk of them feeling bored and not being engaged is lowered.
6. Requesting user feedback and ending interaction
The final step of the interaction is requesting the user to give feedback and to close off the interaction. Leaving feedback is of major importance as it is the only way of the designers or administrators to know what the general feel of the visitors is about the system.
As stated in the state of the art, Art Salvage has an alertion list that warns people responsible for the art work when its alarm gets triggered. A possibility can be included for visitors that live nearby. When they are able to sign up for the list, the extra responsibility they feel and give off to their surroundings, could be of big impact in the safety and protection of the concerning artwork.
During interaction, the steps will follow consecutively, one after the other, except for steps four and five. As can be seen in figure 5.1. These parts of the interaction can be interwoven, having gamification aspects to play a role in improving security, for example.
Figure 5.1: Six interaction steps
Now with a specified interaction framework, containing six detailed steps, the specification is wrapped up. All requirements have been incorporated in an idea and will be realized in chapter 6.
Realization
In this chapter, final properties will be determined with use of a case, provided by Art Salvage (6.1 and 6.1.1), results of a survey (6.1.2) and the requirements listed earlier in the specification phase, Chapter 5. These are then realized into a conceptual app.
6.1 C ASE : S TATUE OF F LIPJE IN T IEL
To apply the findings of the previous chapters, Art Salvage proposed to use the statue of
"Flipje", placed in the city center of the Dutch city of Tiel.
The bronze statue is made by Else Ringalda, and given to the city in 1993 by Stichting Jan Nieuwenhuyzen. The character of Flipje is nationally known as the comic figure connected to jam factory De Betuwe, in Tiel. He featured in his own comics from 1935 until 1953, and customers could collect Flipje-themed products.
Flipje’s name originates anecdotally from the director of the marketing bureau of De Betuwe. After a long meeting he would have claimed desperately: "Why not call him Flip!". It leaves little to the imagination why Philip van Alfen suggested this name.
Having such nostalgic potential, he remains in the minds of the Dutch people, and so statues have been erected, and Flipje even has a dedicated museum.
Together with other statues in the public space of the municipality of Tiel, the statue of Flipje is secured with the system SCALP. SCALP is triggered by vibrations, suggesting there might be a case of theft or vandalism. When the system detects vibrations, an alarm signal of 110 dB is activated, and text messages are sent to a selected network.
This consists out of the municipality, police and civilians living nearby the statue.
The statue of Flipje needs extra attention, considering the frequency of passerbyers touch-
ing or climbing the artwork. It is not desirable for the system to be triggered with every touch and vibration. Besides that, the statue gets dressed in different outfits with every celebration and holiday (figure 6.1).
6.1.1 Analysis of case
Several important features are to be recognized in this case. These identified properties will later in this chapter be used to base design choices on, and determine what strategy to apply.
1. The figure of Flipje is an icon for the city of Tiel. The factory of De Betuwe brought a lot of jobs and fame to the average city. Although there are not much research for this, but as the Tiel’s tourist website states: "Who says Tiel, says Flipje." in Tiel (2017) For the inhabitants of Tiel, the figure is not just another statue. parties,
dresses, woven into the city’s identity
2. The placement of the artwork plays a role. With the statue being in the city center, a lot of people walk around it. This has two effects. Because of the amount of people near the statue at a given time, there is a large social check. Not many people would consider vandalizing an artwork in plain sight. Also, due to being in the city center instead of a people’s neighborhood, there is a great amount of people not feeling connected to the statue. Most visitors are in the city for some errand or other appointments, and are not open for a visit to an artwork.
3. The history surrounding the statue is substantial. This gives room for a creative solution, a more fitting interaction.
4. The statue of Flipje is also ultimately child-friendly. Being a comic figure in nature, the figure is attractive and approachable for the younger audience.
5. Being such a symbol of Tiel, the statue of Flipje draws the attention of tourists.
This makes it an important point of interest, upon which could be elaborated.
(a) Flipje as a sailor (b) Flipje in a funny costume
(c) Flipje as a joker (d) Flipje as a cyclist
Figure 6.1: Several outfits of Flipje. Retrieved from Winkelen in Tiel. in Tiel (2017)
6.1.2 Survey
To also help decide what options to use, a survey has been conducted with 31 respon- dents. The survey and its results can be found in 9.4 Appendix C. The respondents were presented video prototypes and phone mock-ups to base their decisions on. The following page shows examples of two of these. It also depicts two screenshots from the twelve videos they have been shown. Respondents could pick their most favorite type of interaction within several steps of the interaction.
(a) Screenshot from a clip (b) Screenshot from a clip
(c) Example of a phone mock-up (d) Example of a phone mock-up Figure 6.2: Examples of what the respondents were shown.
In the following chapters, the options the respondents could decide on are further discussed.
6.2 F INAL DESIGN 6.2.1 Attracting user
The first step is to get the people walking past Flipje in Tiel to interact with the art. As stated in the aforementioned point 2, a large share of the inhabitants of Tiel are not in the city center to visit Flipje, and are possibly not open to any art visit.
There have been three options chosen to be applicable to draw the attention of the user:
• Option 1: Written text
• Option 2: Visual and auditory clues
• Option 3: Spoken text
In a survey, 31 respondents were asked which of these they preferred the most with help of video prototypes. The results of the survey concerning this step are the following:
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 0
5 10 15 20
11
20
9
Numberofvotes
Figure 6.3: Results of the survey on step 1.
With these results, option 2 would seem to be the best choice. Also considering the case:
the written text would possibly not be noticed by the more busy people walking around in the center. The spoken information might get drown in the crowd.
Therefore, the case specific solution will be making use of visual and auditory clues to attract the attention of people walking (near) by.
6.2.2 Accessing service
As in step 1, it needs to be decided whether instructions to connect with the system are given in:
• Option 1: Written text
• Option 2: Visual and auditory clues
• Option 3: Spoken text
The survey results are visible in figure 6.4:
Option 1 Option 2 Option 3 0
5 10 15
7
4
7
17 16 16
5
8
11
Numberofvotes
URL QR-code NFC-tag Figure 6.4: Results of the survey on step 3.
Overall, the QR-code is found to be the most useful to the respondents. Next to that, considering the efficiency of a QR-code compared to a URL, a QR-code is much more desirable. The effort needed to type in a URL versus scanning a QR-code is much higher.
Next to that, the ability to scan NFC-tags is not included in all phones. For example, in 2016, only 34,3% of smartphones in France in 2016 were NFC-enabled. Statista (2016, 2017)
Therefore the case-specific solution will be using a QR-code to reach the online system.
6.2.3 Consent
As mentioned in chapter 5, consent should be given when location history and other private data is saved to a user’s account. There was no question regarding this step
