The DOI matches its Crossref record; 25 of the 25 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
Looking glass: a field study on noticing interactivity of a shop window
Open accessAbstract
In this paper we present our findings from a lab and a field study investigating how passers-by notice the interactivity of public displays. We designed an interactive installation that uses visual feedback to the incidental movements of passers-by to communicate its interactivity. The lab study reveals: (1) Mirrored user silhouettes and images are more effective than avatar-like representations. (2) It takes time to notice the interactivity (approx. 1.2s). In the field study, three displays were installed during three weeks in shop windows, and data about 502 interaction sessions were collected. Our observations show: (1) Significantly more passers-by interact when immediately showing the mirrored user image (+90%) or silhouette (+47%) compared to a traditional attract sequence with call-to-action. (2) Passers-by often notice interactivity late and have to walk back to interact (the landing effect). (3) If somebody is already interacting, others begin interaction behind the ones already interacting, forming multiple rows (the honeypot effect). Our findings can be used to design public display applications and shop windows that more effectively communicate interactivity to passers-by.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cites
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977) · Biometrics · doi:10.2307/2529310 · Cited by 81,148
Affordance, conventions, and design
Norman, D. A. (1999) · Interactions · doi:10.1145/301153.301168 · Cited by 2,040
Gallup, G. G. (1970) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.167.3914.86 · Cited by 1,794
(2003) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/9780367804787 · Cited by 1,227
Perceptual causality and animacy
Scholl, B. J., & Tremoulet, P. D. (2000) · Trends in Cognitive Sciences · doi:10.1016/s1364-6613(00)01506-0 · Cited by 1,104
Recognizing friends by their walk: Gait perception without familiarity cues
Cutting, J. E., & Kozlowski, L. T. (1977) · Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society · doi:10.3758/bf03337021 · Cited by 1,075
Recognizing the sex of a walker from a dynamic point-light display
Kozlowski, L. T., & Cutting, J. E. (1977) · Perception & Psychophysics · doi:10.3758/bf03198740 · Cited by 856
Implicit human computer interaction through context
Schmidt, A. (2000) · Personal Technologies · doi:10.1007/bf01324126 · Cited by 637
Enticing People to Interact with Large Public Displays in Public Spaces.
Brignull, H., & Rogers, Y. (2003) · Cited by 612
Krueger, M. W. (1991) · Cumulative Index of Computer Aided Architectural Design · Cited by 604
Cited by
Situated interfaces for engaging citizens on the go
Hespanhol, L., Tomitsch, M., McArthur, I., Fredericks, J., Schroeter, R., & Foth, M. (2015) · interactions · doi:10.1145/2851200 · Cited by 15
Stiegemeier, D., Bringeland, S., Kraus, J., & Baumann, M. (2022) · Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications · doi:10.1145/3543174.3546847 · Cited by 14
Metadata
- Authors
- Müller, J., Walter, R., Bailly, G., Nischt, M., & Alt, F.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2012-05-05
- Pages
- 297-306
- OpenAlex
- W2009104953
- Cited by
- 288
- References
- 25
- FWCI
- 29.24
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- green
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: Looking glass: a field study on noticing interactivity of a shop window. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/2207676.2207718
- The paper
- Müller, J., Walter, R., Bailly, G., Nischt, M., & Alt, F. (2012). Looking glass: a field study on noticing interactivity of a shop window. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2207718
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.