Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Imeh Akpan

dblp:129/2127 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2013
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 1 first-author

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Ubiquitous computing and smart environments · 77% Collaborative and social computing · 23%

Topics — the 1 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Ubiquitous computing and smart environments › public displays
public interactive display
0.212013
Exploring the effects of space and place on engagement with an interactive installation · CHI 2013

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

field study · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2013 Exploring the effects of space and place on engagement with an interactive installation
abstract
Very little research has concurrently explored the influence of both physical space and social context (or place) on the way people engage with a public interactive display. We addressed this issue with a novel approach: studying how people engaged with the same interactive installation in ten situations with varying spatial and social properties. The main finding across these studies is that place trumps space: a conducive social context could overcome a poor physical space and encourage interaction; conversely, an inappropriate social context could inhibit interaction in spaces that might normally facilitate engagement. We discuss this finding in terms of the salience of the display within the space, the visibility of incidental interactions with the installation, the different understandings of place that people can have in the same location and the role of emergent champions and comperes in encouraging interaction.
Imeh Akpan, Paul Marshall, Jon Bird, Daniel Harrison
CHI1