Misuse of multimedia systems
Place: westfield shopping center, san francisco
Design problem: the large floor map of the mall in the information kiosk is a large touch screen. It is placed next to a static listing of businesses and locations. Touching the map removes the mall floorplan and replaces it with a dialog box offering a variety of services such as searching for a brand or store name. However public information kiosks are often used simultaneously by multiple customers. In the current design if one person touches the screen, no other customer is able to get their questions answered until the first has completed their interaction. When I first saw the kiosk there was a crowd of people standing around it - not in amazement - but with irritated looks waiting for an elderly shopper to finish using the device. Most walked off without getting the information they wanted.
Proposed solutions: the potential for mall kiosk systems is high. They can show you how to get to a store from your current location, or let you search for a specific product and see if it in stock or compare prices (this kiosk did not do this). However they must support multiple users at the same time, be at least as efficient as the old paper posters for common tasks (e.g. Browsing stores in a category), and they should ultimately make the shopping experience better - not more frustrating. Multiple smaller kiosks would help, as would side by side paper and digital kiosks, so that the paper could be used while the digital one was busy.
The two photos demonstrate the new unusable touch screen and the old usable printed poster (located in different parts of the mall).
posted by axup @ 4:36 PM
7 comments
7 Comments:
Hi!
I was the one who made this software.
I like your suggestion of multiple users being able to use this kiosk, and I totally agree. Now the task is to convince the money providers to pay for the extra screens :)
After the buzz dies out though, one screen seems to do ok on an ongoing basis here in Australia. Much different from San Fran though I'm sure.
Thanks for weighing in! I do understand the practical considerations of budgets and time and such. However, I think it's interesting to note that the shoppers would actually be better off without this piece of technology in that mall (the paper was more usable). Why is the paper (only one sheet) so much more usable and cheaper and able to be used by multiple users when the hi-tech one can't? I would argue that a single touch (i.e. single user) interface is an inappropriate technology choice for a mall environment. Of course if the mall wants to pay you to build the wrong solution then why not? ;) Ultimately I think requiring that they put the paper version next to the interactive one would help you get the best of both worlds.
I agree about the multi user applications of the paper version. Is the solution there to have more of these screens then? More users can use them then, and actually be able to find the shop they want to without ploughing though hundreds of line of small text then deciphering the map grid.
The reason for removing the static paper maps was to enable to establish this technology as standard. If there is more demand for its usage then currently available then great, get more kiosks out there :) thanks for the feedback!
Well, to be blunt, if the goal is "to establish this technology as standard" then it is likely to fail as a standard, since it doesn't work very well. Scenario: you have the paper and digital versions side by side. Adventurous types play with the digital version. When it's busy, other people can use the paper version. Slowly, more and more people try out the digital version without getting frustrated by having to wait in line for it. Then you have slow positive adoption of the digital alternative and justification for adding multiple digital screens. Compare this to the frustrating experience with the new technology currently being had.
But ultimately I think the point is being missed that the kiosk is a technology designed for single users being used in a heavily multi-user environment. It is also a technology designed for extended use (a minute or two), where traditionally users of signage spend maybe 10 seconds there. It's breaking the pre-established norms of sign usage. The tech-heavy-solution is to have a big interactive wall display. Any user that come up can touch it, and have an interface appear in front of them. It can handle atleast 5 simultaneous users (maybe need a few more as the novelty of the interaction will cause people to use it longer than the old paper posters). Each can interact with their portion of the display without waiting in line, and have a distinctly more rewarding experience.
But without the tech available and at the right price, I think you should really be advocating a dual interface solution: paper combined with digital for both advanced single-user interaction and effective multi-user interaction.
Thanks for the discussion. I like feeling that I'm impacting the world positively occasionally. ;)
To say that "it is likely to fail as a standard" is quite extreme, no? Look at USB, DVD, keyboard, mouse. All successful standards. Why can't a way to find your way in a shopping mall (with application elsewhere) be using this unit?
The multi-user argument is valid. However, how many people would you normally see using a shopping mall static map? 2 maybe 3 ? Then to design a kiosk with 2 to 3 screens can easily be done. Double sided or triangular kiosks would suffice. even 4 if you wanted to, and with the Bendy OLED screens from Sony. even wrap-around surfaces.
The user would then be exposed to other uses for the surface that are not available on the static maps. (transport timetable, city attractions etc.)Besides that the surface is now customisable to anything (including putting static maps if needed.
I like the 'wall' idea and it's doable. But unless you come across someone with bags of money, it's not gonna happen right now. Maybe soon enough. This is only the begining.
So I think that including the paper version is a good idea at the begining, but eventually even paper image can be replicated, if required, with high levels of sharpness on hd1080 screens. mmmmmm1920x1080...
For the most part a single screen works very well.
When a mall is in heavy traffic some units do have crowds, in San Fran both the units on the 2 market entrances for example, most however do not.
The time of use is not 2 minutes especially when shoppers, as most do, reuse the software.
It's a matter of familiarity.
Where the system has worked best is when there has a combination of the static and the interactive mapping - one on one side one on the other.
This approach was favoured by the software developers for this very reason except the mall owners favoured a return on investment with back lit advertising and a reduced coat for updating the data which changes month by month. Running out static maps every month across 20 units is not an option from a budget point of view so it's important to understand that even if a unit is crowded they will at least get up to the minute information - tenancies change ALL the time.
The system is being continually refined in terms of making it easier and quicker to use so IMO it is inaccurate to say the system will become the standard AND ALSO inaccurate to say it doesn't work.
Previous and subsequent developments iterations of this software have been much more successful where restriction on design has been a more internal process.
Regards Erik
similar points about mall touch-screens:
http://www.crunchgear.com/2008/08/25/touch-screens-soon-to-please-stop-being-a-novelty/
Post a Comment
<< Home