关于公共展示的交互式民意调查:研究野外的隐私要求

Matthias Baldauf, Stefan Suette, Peter Fröhlich, Ulrich L. Lehner
{"title":"关于公共展示的交互式民意调查:研究野外的隐私要求","authors":"Matthias Baldauf, Stefan Suette, Peter Fröhlich, Ulrich L. Lehner","doi":"10.1145/2628363.2634222","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Interactive opinion polls are a promising novel use case for public urban displays. However, voicing one's opinion at such a public installation poses special privacy requirements. In this paper, we introduce our ongoing work on investigating the roles of the interaction technique and the poll question in this novel context. We present a field study comparing three different voting techniques (public touch interface, personal smartphone by scanning a QR code, from remote through a short Web address) and three types of poll questions (general, personal, local). Overall, the results show that actively casting an opinion on a timely topic is highly appreciated by passers-by. The public voting opportunity through a touch screen is clearly preferred. Offering mobile or remote voting does not significantly increase the overall participation rate. The type of poll question has an impact on the number of participants but does not influence the preferred interaction modality.","PeriodicalId":74207,"journal":{"name":"MobileHCI : proceedings of the ... International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services. MobileHCI (Conference)","volume":"14 1","pages":"495-500"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2014-09-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"16","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Interactive opinion polls on public displays: studying privacy requirements in the wild\",\"authors\":\"Matthias Baldauf, Stefan Suette, Peter Fröhlich, Ulrich L. Lehner\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/2628363.2634222\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Interactive opinion polls are a promising novel use case for public urban displays. However, voicing one's opinion at such a public installation poses special privacy requirements. In this paper, we introduce our ongoing work on investigating the roles of the interaction technique and the poll question in this novel context. We present a field study comparing three different voting techniques (public touch interface, personal smartphone by scanning a QR code, from remote through a short Web address) and three types of poll questions (general, personal, local). Overall, the results show that actively casting an opinion on a timely topic is highly appreciated by passers-by. The public voting opportunity through a touch screen is clearly preferred. Offering mobile or remote voting does not significantly increase the overall participation rate. The type of poll question has an impact on the number of participants but does not influence the preferred interaction modality.\",\"PeriodicalId\":74207,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"MobileHCI : proceedings of the ... International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services. MobileHCI (Conference)\",\"volume\":\"14 1\",\"pages\":\"495-500\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2014-09-23\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"16\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"MobileHCI : proceedings of the ... International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services. MobileHCI (Conference)\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/2628363.2634222\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"MobileHCI : proceedings of the ... International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services. MobileHCI (Conference)","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/2628363.2634222","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 16

摘要

交互式民意调查是城市公共展示的一个很有前途的新用例。然而,在这样的公共设施上发表意见会有特殊的隐私要求。在本文中,我们介绍了我们正在进行的研究互动技术和民意调查问题在这种新环境中的作用的工作。我们提出了一项实地研究,比较了三种不同的投票技术(公共触摸界面,个人智能手机扫描二维码,从远程通过短网址)和三种类型的投票问题(一般,个人,本地)。总体而言,结果表明,在一个及时的话题上积极发表意见,会受到路人的高度赞赏。通过触摸屏的公众投票机会显然更受欢迎。提供移动或远程投票不会显著提高总体参与率。投票问题的类型对参与者的数量有影响,但不影响首选的交互方式。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Interactive opinion polls on public displays: studying privacy requirements in the wild
Interactive opinion polls are a promising novel use case for public urban displays. However, voicing one's opinion at such a public installation poses special privacy requirements. In this paper, we introduce our ongoing work on investigating the roles of the interaction technique and the poll question in this novel context. We present a field study comparing three different voting techniques (public touch interface, personal smartphone by scanning a QR code, from remote through a short Web address) and three types of poll questions (general, personal, local). Overall, the results show that actively casting an opinion on a timely topic is highly appreciated by passers-by. The public voting opportunity through a touch screen is clearly preferred. Offering mobile or remote voting does not significantly increase the overall participation rate. The type of poll question has an impact on the number of participants but does not influence the preferred interaction modality.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信