Running Head: USER ENGAGEMENT WITH PHYSICAL OBJECTS
User Engagement with Physical Objects: An Investigation of the Multi-dimensional
Experience of Archival Users
by
Anastasia S. Weigle
April 23, 2013
Rev. May 11, 2013
1
Running Head: USER ENGAGEMENT WITH PHYSICAL OBJECTS
2
Abstract
A phenomenological approach consisted of observation and semi-structured interviews
used to investigate users’ perception and experience from handling archival objects. Findings
showed engagement characteristics similar to those presented in O’Brien and Toms (2008) study
including aesthetic and sensory appeal, attention, pleasure, and interactivity. However, there
were also numinous qualities such as unity of moment, imaginative empathy, and inquisitive
thinking (Latham, 2009). Results revealed user experience with archival physical objects was
greatly influenced by the participants’ personal views or interests. Point of engagement and
sustained engagement were attributed to the physicality of the objects. Dis-engagement was
attributed by disinterest or negative feelings toward the objects. Characteristics of attributes
during the engagement and disengagement process revealed five categories of multi-dimensional
experience. They are: 1) sensory aesthetics, 2) variety/novelty, 3) emotions/state of mind, 4)
curiosity/inquisitive thinking, and 5) memory/place in time. The study may add new insight for
improving the user experience when accessing and viewing physical and digital collections.
3
Introduction
Humans interact with tangible objects every day. It is something that is done without
thought or force. Touch “simultaneously opens up other imaginative, speculative and emotional
ways of knowing material objects” (as cited in Candlin, 2008, p. 278). It is what helps humans
navigate the world around them. Such an attribute of touch is often difficult to simulate or
recreate with digital objects. To date, there is limited research that examines the engagement
gaps between interacting with a physical object and with its digital counterpart.
O’Brien and Toms (2008) definition of user experience as applied to technology is
characterized by challenge, positive affect, endurability, aesthetic and sensory appeal, attention,
feedback, variety/novelty, interactivity and perceived user control (pg. 941). Several studies
(Desmet, Porcelijn & van Dijk, 2007; O’Brien and Toms, 2008; Wright, Wallace, & McCarthy,
2008; O'Brien, H. L., & Toms, E. G., 2010) have been done on user engagement as applied to
technology yet research on user engagement with physical objects is very scare. The study that
could be related to user engagement with physical objects is Latham’s (2009) themes of
experience as applied to museum objects, which focus on numinous qualities. These include 1)
unity of the moment (objects as holistic united feeling of emotion, intellect, experience and
object), 2) object as a link to the past (experience both tangible and symbolic meanings, 3) being
transported (another time and place temporally, spatially, bodily, and 4) connections bigger than
self (having epiphanic connections) (pg. 82-83). When we physically manipulate objects, it
allows us to be creative in ways that diagrams cannot experience (Overbeeke, Djajadiningrat,
Hummels, Wensveen & Frens, 2004). Having the ability to handle objects is not only enjoyable,
but enriches the learning. It builds a level of memory and fulfillment, that mediated experiences
cannot match (Lapetino, 2012).
4
The purpose of this study is to investigate user engagement with physical objects. The
objectives of this study is (1) to explore the multi-dimensions of user experience with physical
objects, (2) determine what emotional attributes contribute toward a positive learning experience,
and (3) conceptualize a model of user engagement with physical objects. To reach these three
objectives, a phenomenological approach consisting of observation and open-ended semistructured interview questions were used. The questions were be designed to encourage
conversation about the user’s experience through emotional engagement such as visual attention,
sensory appeal, and tactile qualities.
In the following section, a literature review on user experience with both technology and
physical objects is reported first. Second, a description of the research procedure is presented.
Data collected from a small sample of academic students (graduate and undergraduate) from a
university in the New England area is analyzed. Findings lead to a definition and conceptual
model of user engagement are presented at the end.
5
Literature Review
There have been several studies on user engagement with technology as it applies to
marketing, branding, social science and education. Yet little research has been explored in the
area of user engagement with physical objects, except in the field of museum studies. A
definition of user engagement with technology was developed by O’Brien and Toms (2008) as a
quality of user experience characterized by challenge, aesthetic and sensory appeal, feedback,
novelty, interactivity, perceived control and time awareness, motivation, interest, and affect.
Such a definition is is very different from Latham’s (2009) exploratory study on museum objects
as having numinous qualities. Archival and museum artifacts have similar numinous qualities.
The power of numinous artifacts is the intangible and invisible connection, both real and
imaginative, that engages the users emotionally (Maines and Glynn, 1993, p. 10). In cultural
institutions such as museums and archives, where the focus is on historical objects and materials,
user engagement is defined as interactivity, “a range of experiences that fully engage visitors
personally, physically, and emotionally” (Adams, Luke, & Moussouri, 2004, p. 157). Many
visitors expect or want to engage with the object (as cited in Adams, 2004).
According to O’Brien and Toms (2008), there are four attributes of user engagement with
technology. They are: 1) point of engagement, 2) period of, or sustained engagement, 3)
disengagement, and 4) re-engagement. User engagement with physical objects is immediate
because there are no barriers between the user and the artifact. Given the abundant research on
human-computer interaction and user engagement and experience, it is no longer enough to
assume to know what the engagement experience is with physical objects. In this study, humanobject-interaction is being explored.
6
What is a Physical Object?
A physical object is tangible, something perceived by the senses such as touch or vision
(Merriam-Webster online). A physical object may be touched, grasped, moved, positioned,
stroked, held and manipulated by hand (Treadaway, 2009). The words “tangible” or “material”
will be used throughout this study and applies to the definition of a physical object as stated in
this section. Physical objects in archives are of a historical nature and may contain personal
papers, institutional records or artifacts. The collections may represent people, places,
institutions or events.
User Engagement with Physical Objects
The users’ interaction with tangible objects is a physical activity that builds a memory
and satisfaction that mediated experiences during the human-computer interaction cannot match
(Lapetino, 2012, para. 7). Interaction with tangible objects is important in research and a
necessity where artifacts play an important role in specific field studies such as archeology,
anthropology, or botany (Furuta, Marshall, Shipman, Leggett, 1996).
An early exploratory study of 3-D models (the physical object) and recognition training
programs for the United States Air Force found that objects added an extra dimension to
physiological cues such as tactile and kinesthetic improving information retention (Upton, 1974).
Recognition training, as defined by Upton (1974) “is the tuning of mental faculties to integrate
the visual perception of an object with abstract information associated with the object to give
direction to physical behavioral response” (p. 10). Military aircrew recognition training
7
programs were provided with a variety of two-dimensional visual images such as photographs
and three-view drawings/silhouettes. The only technology at the time was zoom lens vidiom TV
cameras intended to give aircrew personnel a visual cue of a target. Three-dimensional rendering
software was not developed at this time. Upton’s (1974) study discovered that by introducing
three-dimensional models—physical objects/replicas of aircraft—into the recognition training
program, aircrew were able to retain specific detailed information not found in the twodimensional formats. This additional information found through the interaction by the user and
the physical object improved the aircrews’ ability to recognize military aircraft. Handling the
physical object provided tactual and kinesthetic cues and additional sensory interaction such as
information feedback and reinforcement that two-dimensional objects could not. Upton’s study
of physical objects and enhanced learning experience was a pre-cursor to three-dimensional
rendering software development and the theoretical framework of information interaction theory
designed by Shedroff (1994).
Research regarding cultural objects suggests that touch is an invaluable source of
information (Upton, 1974). The British Museum created touch-based exhibitions called the
Enlightenment Gallery (Touching History, 2008). The Enlightenment Gallery displayed physical
objects that could be picked up and handled. Together with signage and textual stories, visitors
were able to elicit information about an object's material properties creating a sense of intimacy
through engagement with the collections (Candlin, 2008). Visitors felt the experience increased
the quality of their visit by bringing the experience to life (Touching Museum, 2008). Although
this type of exhibition is designed for children, both children and adults spend their days
touching objects. In fact, adults would prefer to handle an object when asked what its properties
are. For children, the act of touch is an important activity in cognitive learning (Woodnow,
8
1969). Museums depend on exhibitions to encourage aesthetic or emotive responses as well as to
inform, instruct and educate and even to entertain. The virtual visitor is distanced from the direct
experience of the physical object (as cited in Lester, 2006).
Technology has replaced our ability to touch and explore objects depriving us of physical
sensory experiences (Treadway, 2009). Holding something is a kind of connection and
experience that can be difficult to replicate on the digital environment (Lapatino, 2012). It is this
so-called “connection” that gives humans the ability to recognize objects. This ability comes
from the users past experience or familiarity with the object in relation to an event (Upton,
1974). Unable to touch objects may be one of the cognitive barriers for online learning. Lapatino
(2012) describes the physical touch as a singular experience creating a connection between the
object and a memory. This connection creates emotional qualities such as nostalgia, empathy,
sadness, fear and joy. It is the user’s interactivity with the object that creates this such as picking
up an object you initially thought would be light, but instead has weight. This information
changes the users perspective of the object. Weight cannot be physically experienced in digital
format. Even turning the pages of a book cannot be 100% replicated even with applications such
as “pageflip”. Our hands play an important role in object handling. Our fingers and thumbs can
rotate an object, feel it’s texture and relay information back to us. The hands are now the
interface between the object and the user (Treadaway, 2009).
The physical book also offers the user the opportunity to touch, feel, smell and see all
elements of the total book when reading. Birkert (1994) called this “sensory engagement.” Just
as in Michael Buckland’s meaning for “information as thing,” the phrase “archives as things”
follows the same premise. In this case objects are used for “information,” in the same as data
and documents. Objects, too, have the quality of imparting knowledge (Buckland, 1991 &
9
Latham, 2011). In archives, “artifacts are a powerful medium of communication to the reader,
providing a sense of immediacy with the past and possessing their own aesthetic and emotive
qualities (as cited in Latham, p. 123). Instead of user engagement in human-computer
interaction, we are now talking about engagement between human and object interaction
(Latham, 2009).
In archives and special collections, the use of primary resources should include the
physical artifact so that users can evaluate paper quality, handwriting, date and content (Carini,
2009). Although the handwriting, date and content of letters can be studied online, the paper
quality—texture, smell and sound—cannot. This would add an additional dimension to the
learning experience. When users are studying digital objects, the inability to touch may
negatively impact the learning experience.
O’Brien and Toms (2008) incorporated four theoretical frameworks to define user
experience: flow, aesthetic, play, and information interaction (O’Brien and Toms, 2008). Each
theory has specific attributes in user engagement with technology. Flow is the mental state in
which a user performing a task or activity is fully immersed in a feeling of energized focus, full
involvement, and enjoyment in the process of the activity (Csikszentmihalyi, 1990). Mihaly
Csikszentmihalyi defined flow theory as a “theoretical perspective of student learning that
integrated cognition, motivation, and emotion” (Whitson & Consoli, 2009, p. 40). Some of the
characteristics of flow are merging action and awareness, concentration on the task at hand,
loss of self-consciousness, and transformation of time (as cited in Whitson & Consoli, 2009, p.
41).
The theory of aesthetics is important to engagement. When applied to technology,
aesthetics experiences are intrinsically motivating, require focused attention, stimulate curiosity,
10
and are interesting and pleasurable. Certain aspects of aesthetic appeal are balance, color,
emphasis, symmetry and harmony. All these attributes create a visually pleasing interface.
(O’Brien and Toms, 2008).
Play theory pertains to the physical activity with various applications, which satisfy
psychological and social needs (O’Brien and Toms, 2008). The theory of play describes the
intense learning experience in which users voluntarily devote enormous amounts of time, energy
and commitment while deriving a great deal of enjoyment from the experience (Reiber, et al.,
1998). The theory of play and its accompanying attributes can be applied to the physical object.
The theory of information interaction as it applies to technology pertains to the
interaction between the user and the computer interface (Schneiderman, 1997). Adams (2004)
definition of interactive in museums parallels the theory of information interaction. It is the
object instead of the application or task that provides “valuable, compelling, and empowering
information and experiences for others.” (Shedroff, 1994, para. 1) If we replace the computer
interface, which is the medium enabling user experience, with the object, then in essence, we
have cut out the “middle man.” There are no barriers between the user and the object. The
information interaction becomes a pure experience.
An examination of the attributes for these theories reveals that some can be applied to the
physical objects such as sensory appeal, aesthetic, pleasure, and interactivity. However, physical
objects can offer a unique experience as well, one that attaches different dimensions of emotion
or have an emotional value. In Latham’s (2009) work with museum objects, she calls this
“numinous,” one that appeals to the higher emotions or to the aesthetic sense (Merriam-Webster
online).
11
Previous research has investigated the concept of numinous qualities with museum
objects (Latham, 2009; Bartlett, 2009, Maines & Glynn, 1993). Although numinous has religious
or spiritual connotations, in this study, numinous is referred to something that gives people a
sense of reverence toward the object because of its historical significance in time. These objects
tell stories with social and intellectual history—“the interaction of emotions, ideas and beliefs in
material culture” (Maines, et al., 1993, p. 10). Latham (2009) used four themes of experience to
identify attributes of user engagement with museum objects. The themes are: 1) emotions,
feelings and intellect converge to create a “unity of the moment;” 2) tangible and symbolic
meanings connect the user to the past; 3) the user feels as if they are transported back in time and
is felt temporally, spatially and bodily; and 4) connections bigger than self where the user feels a
deep epiphanic connection, or epiphany, with the past, self and spirit. (Latham, 2009, p. 82-109).
User experience with physical objects lay heavily on the aesthetic and sensual appeal—attributes
that evoke an emotional connection to the object through various themes (Latham, 2009). These
themes of experience are similar to the “threads of experience” defined by McCarthy & Wright
(as cited in O’Brien and Toms, 2008) and used to develop the interview process. The “threads of
experience” that helped define specific attributes in engagement with technology are the sensual,
emotional, spatial-temporal and composition threads.
Csikszentmihalyi (1990) “flow“ theory and Jennings (2000) aesthetic theory also meets
Latham’s (2009) “unity of the moment” defined as an epiphanic connection with temporally,
spatially and body connections all unified together described as an “ah ha” moment. The
information interaction theory can be recognized in Latham’s theme of “connecting with the
object” which communicates to the user information about the past through visual attributes and
content.
12
Empirical studies on user engagement with physical objects are limited. Museum objects
appear to be the focus in regards to user experience with physical objects. O’Brien and Toms
(2008) exploratory study on user engagement and Latham’s (2009) exploratory study on
numinous attributes of experience are the two research articles on both sides of the spectrum—
user engagement with technology versus user engagement with physical objects. This study aims
at developing a new conceptual model of user engagement with archival objects based on the
phenomenological data.
13
Methodology
Research Design
The research questions that drive this study are:
1. Is user experience with technology similar to user experience with physical objects?
2. What are the multi-dimensional experiences of archival users with physical objects?
3. What is the definition of user experience with physical objects?
A phenomenological approach was be used in hopes to gain access to the users
perception and experience from handling the objects. Semi-structured open-ended interview
questions (Appendix A) were developed using McCarthy & Wright’s (2004) four “threads of
experience.”
Participants
Four academic students (3 females and 1 male) participated in this study. All were users
of the archives and special collections at a large university in the New England area. A flyer (see
Appendix C) was created to recruit students. The participants identified themselves as graduates
or undergraduates with a mean age of 35 years (SD=13.14). Three of the participants are workstudy students in the archives and were recruited by the archivist for this study. The fourth
participant was currently doing research for a master thesis in the archives and was interested in
participating. This is a purposive study as all the participants have an interest in archival
collections.
Among the four participants, two are second year graduate students with majors in
maritime studies and archeology, the third is a senior majoring in women and gender studies and
14
the fourth participant is a freshman with no declared major. The fourth participate did mention an
interest in physical anthropology.
Materials
Participants were provided with two small archival collections (Appendix D) totaling one
cubic foot. The first collection contained mid-nineteenth century circulars and correspondences
of early slavery history in America and a photograph album of an African-American family in
1950’s Maine. The second collection contained a variety of late nineteenth and early twentieth
century medical artifacts and photographs.
Interview Protocol and Procedure
McCarthy and Wright’s (2004) four “threads of experience” were used to develop the
interview questions. The compositional thread was operationalized through questions such as
“What was your experience like?” to “Can you share your experience?” The spatiotemporal
thread pertains to the amount of time a user will spend with an object or the numinous affect of
an object that teleports the user into a specific time in history. The emotional thread of the
experience could be sadness, enjoyment, frustration or depression just to name a few. Lastly,
sensual experience is the look and feel of the physical object through touch and can include all
five senses.
The interviews were done over a one-week period and were audio recorded using
AudioNote on an iPad 2. All interviews were done in-person immediately after the participants
finished studying the collections. Demographics for participants were gathered and assurance of
confidentiality was conveyed to all the users before beginning. Participants were presented with
15
two small archival collections each approximately .5 cubic foot containing mid-nineteenth
century to early twentieth-century materials. Collections were placed in a small work area where
participants could study with minimal interruptions. Participants were allowed to handle all
artifacts without the hindrance of wearing white cotton gloves. Because the study area had no
windows to look in, the researcher had to observe participants in the same room making the
proximity between the two very close to each other. The observation had to be done in such a
way as not to impinge on the student’s comfort level or personal space. To do this, participants
were told the researcher would be quietly sitting in the back corner working on other projects as
not to disturb them. Participants were told to announce their conclusion of their study of the
materials once finished. The time between the user studying the objects and the interview
questions are immediate making recall easy as the phenomena is fresh in their minds. At the end
of each interview, the participant was thanked and presented with a $20 Starbucks gift card.
The interview questions (see Appendix A) designed for this study are focused semistructured and open-ended. The questions are asked in a conversational way, such as “Tell me
about your experience?” or “Was there anything in the collection that caught your attention?”
The participants are allowed to “tell their story” in a natural way with little or no interruption by
the interviewer.
Participants took an average of 35 minutes to go through the collections. Participants
were provided with a copy of the interview transcript a few days after the interview and were ask
to add any additional comments if they had anything more to add. The interview process took 15
minutes. The study session took place between March 4 and March 12, 2013. The entire research
study session lasted an average of 55 minutes. Once finished, the interview process began.
16
Data Analysis
Data analysis was done in two processes. In Vivo Coding was used to analyze the data
using MS Word and Excel software. The first level memo coding was done numerous times on
all four interviews to ensure accuracy of coding. At the same time analysis of the observational
notes (Appendix B) taken during the study process were used to further analyze the user
experience. The codes were sorted into categories and then grouped into five multi-dimensional
experiences using McCarthy and Wright’s (2005) themes of experiences. Situational analysis
maps were also created to see if participants’ personal views and situation at present affected
their experience. It is hoped that a new conceptual model and definition of user experience with
physical objects will emerge.
Results
The results of the study confirmed five multi-dimensional user experiences using
McCarthy and Wright’s (2004) “threads” as a guide. The experience threads are compositional,
emotional, sensual and spatiotemporal. The compositional thread followed the users’ narrative
structure to understand the process of engagement (point of engagement, period of engagement,
disengagement and re-engagement). The emotional thread identified those instances when users
experience some kind of feeling, negative or positive, such as satisfaction, fun, enjoyment,
frustration or sadness. The sensual thread pertained to the aesthetic qualities of the objects that
are “intrinsically pleasing, require focused attention, stimulate curiosity, and are interesting and
pleasurable (as cited in Toms & O’Brien, 2005, pg. 939). The spatiotemporal thread pertained to
the users perception of time both external and internal. This would also include a specific time
17
in their lives (memory) and/or place in time (history). The next section of the results described
the various process of engagement revealed in the analysis.
The Process of Engagement
The point of engagement was initiated by the object’s physicality. Participants were
asked to study a collection in no particular order and to begin at any time. It was observed that
engagement was immediate due to the physicality of the objects. There did not seem to be a
specific reason other than choosing an object to begin study. So the questions here is which
object and why? Point of engagement for one participant was attributed to personal relationship
and size of the object. “I actually helped make those displays for the exhibit so I thought ‘cool’
these are in it so I already kind of seen them before ... and they were larger” (PAR_01).
Attraction to an object based on its aesthetic quality and novelty engaged a user who “like the
medical collection because it’s got neat little objects that are completely foreign so that’s
fascinating and being able to touch them” (PAR_04). Interesting objects or enjoying handling
objects began the point of engagement but did not always relate to any particular experience. “I
did the predictable thing—I started left to right—sort of went through them that way” (PAR_03).
Sustained engagement was maintained through the physicality of the objects, curiosity,
and emotion. Participants showed interest on how objects were used or where they came from
and “the desire to know more about either the setting in which the objects were physically used
or the time in which they were used” (PAR_02).
Disengagement occurred when an object was difficult to interpret. One participant
became frustrated by the difficulty of reading a letter, “It frustrates me that I couldn’t pick out
certain words” (PAR_02). Confusion caused by organization of objects can disengage the
18
participant from the process. “It wasn’t completely clear at first to me what the structure was of
the whole collection” (PAR_01). Lack of context with the object caused disengagement “... it is
disconnecting in that if I have no context for it at all it’s like well, it’s a picture of an ocean and a
boat” (PAR _04). Negative feelings or lack of interest towards a particular object(s) can cause
the participant to disengage as was evident with this user. “I have no desire to immerse myself in
the culture and the time of the early 1800s and the slave trade ... because I know it’s going to be
unpleasant” [PAR_02).
Table 1 is a summary of the engagement process found through the threads of experience.
Table 1 shows the dimensions of experience found through the sensual, emotional and
spatiotemporal threads
Thread
Sensual
Point of Engagement
and Reengagement
• Aesthetic elements
• Personal interest
Emotional
Spatiotemporal
• Curiosity
• Inquisitiveness
Sustained Engagement
Disengagement
• Physicality
• Tangibility
• Sight, smell, touch
• Positive affect: fun,
enjoyment, amazement,
empathy, reverence
Negative: frustration,
unpleasant, confusion
Positive: satisfying
experience after
completion
• Evoke personal memory
• Send user to a place in time
• Active manipulation of
objects: rotating, removing
objects from boxes.
Disoriented by
collection
organization
Experience Threads
Through these three threads (sensual, emotional, and spatiotemporal), five categories of
dimensions of experience were revealed. They are: 1) sensory aesthetics, 2) variety/novelty, 3)
emotions/state of mind, 4) curiosity/inquisitive thinking, and 5) memory/place in time. Table 2
19
identifies the attributes of engagement as applied to the dimensions of experience. This next
section reveals the attributes characterized through the three remaining threads of experience
(sensual, emotional and spatiotemporal).
Table 2. Dimensions of experience found through the sensual, emotional and spatiotemporal
threads and their attributes
Attributes of User
Experience with Physical
Objects
Amazement, wonder
Fun, enjoyment
Sorrow
Confusion
Attention, interest
A
DIMENSIONS OF EXPERIENCE
B
C
D
Sensory
Aesthetics
Variety
Novelty
Curiosity
Inquisitive
Thinking
Emotions
State of
Mind
Memory
Place in
Time






















Physical feelings
Empathy
Reverence
Tangible, physicality








Personal interest
Spatiotemporal
Interactivity
Interpretation
E



The Sensual Thread of Experience. Starting with the sensual threads of experience,
participants’ were immediately connected with the object’s physical qualities. They reacted to
the objects size, texture, markings, and in one case, the smell of an object. All four participants
expressed the enjoyment of seeing and handling the physical objects. “It’s more engaging to
20
handle the objects for me” (PAR_01). “To actually see the physical object that they wrote
[about] which is very different than having the knowledge which is cool ... I get a strong imagery
of the objects and their purpose and how they have been used” (PAR_02). “You can read about
them in books— it’s one thing—but to actually see it it’s really quite powerful” (PAR_03).
“There is a noticeable difference to me. I think they have more value” (PAR_04).
One participant mentioned the smell of the object, “Yeah, I feel like there’s like some—
or maybe it’s more mental—but like chemical smell. I find that fascinating.” Another pointed out
that the texture of an object was engaging. “It’s still a piece of paper but it’s textured which gives
it more a connection in part of my brain that kind of excites me” (PAR_02).
Handling or touching the objects was important to the participants’ experience.
“Just to be able to touch and look at everything” (PAR_03) “It’s more engaging to handle the
objects for me” (PAR_01). “Being able to touch” (PAR_04). “I would understand the objects
more clearly and seeing them and handling them” (PAR_02).
Aesthetics also brought out a sense of curiosity or inquisition thinking. One participant
brought out their smart phone to search the web for information about a particular object they
were studying. “I was curious about certain aspects as I was with the BC Company, the aspirin
online so I found it” (PAR_02). For some, curiosity is the act of surprise, “I peaked inside the
aspirin packet to see and a couple of the tubes still had powder and liquid in them which is
fascinating” (PAR_04). “It was interesting to unfold the piece of cloth and to see a pair of
glasses. I kind of got a kick out of it. It was kind of like a nice little surprise, like, 'Oh, its pair of
glasses!' ” (PAR_03). A participant was curious how an object was created, “It made me think a
little bit about how were these manufactured” (PAR_01).
21
Some of the objects aesthetic qualities were unique or novel which drew the attention of
the users. The experience was equally enhanced as they held the object to inspect it closer. “It’s
cool you have the little glasses with the spring loaded bridge. How did they put them on. And the
cat gut sutures were pretty interesting to look at” (PAR_01). “That’s so cool that it comes in
those little capsules” (PAR_03). “A couple of tubes still had powder and liquid in them which is
fascinating” (PAR_04).
The Emotional Thread of Experience. The emotional thread pertains to the affect the
objects had with the user. During the engagement process, users’ experienced feelings of fun,
enjoyment and sorrow. Feelings induced by wonder and interest was predominant and even
empathy was felt.
In reaction to reading some descriptive notes regarding the medical collection, the
researcher heard the participant laugh. When asked during the interview what caused this
reaction, the participant explained her reaction about the creator of the collection, “I thought that
it was kind of funny changing his name to something that was similar to his old name. I thought
it was kind of an interesting—I think I remember being surprised at that . . . especially after a
prestigious sort of background, the contrast was surprising” (PAR_01).
Enjoyment, amazement and wonder were a common thread of emotions during the
process of engagement. “I get to just enjoy the fact that I am interacting with these objects”
(PAR_02).
While going through the photographs in the African American collection, one participate
stated “It’s amazing to see old photographs of people and to see these materials about people’s
lives” (PAR_03). Again, the physicality of the object is very important to the user. “Holding the
22
materials ... I find that fascinating.” (PAR_04). “You’re reading something about people selling
a human being ... that is really very affecting” (PAR_03).
As found in Latham’s (2009) study of museum objects such as empathy, awe or
reverence, and deep engagement (p. 15), the participants felt a strong emotional connection with
the objects. Participants reflected on the creator of the objects and what may have been the
original intent of the object. For one user, a particular object evoked a sense of reverence and
empathy for the history behind the object. One participant expressed strong emotions over a
collection. “You know, it’s powerful, it’s very powerful. I’ve never seen a slave deed before and
I’m getting all choked up” (PAR_03). This participant’s experience was very emotional. “I
looked at the slave deeds. That was hard. I felt a little bit like crying ... looking at the deeds
where people were actually sold and bought, that’s kind of heart breaking” (PAR_03)
Even showing reverence to the objects was witnessed. Fearful of doing harm to the
artifacts, one participant avoided handling the actual photographs, instead viewing the copies! “I
was being very gentle and careful. I care about it a lot” (PAR_03).
The Spatiotemporal Thread of Experience. In this study, the spatiotemporal thread is
defined by the participants’ recall of past memories attached to the object. It is also the
participants’ ability to reflect on the past lives of people in a particular time and place. One
participant related an object to a memory of sailing. “I used to sail on traditional boats and
people make their own little needle cases and stuff like that and it kind of reminded me of that
type of object that would have been a handmade more personalized object” (PAR_01).
Another was amazed an object was still around after going through the processes of being
put up and taken down and an interest to know about the setting “It’s just incredible that this
23
piece of paper, not only was it like nailed to a tree or to a pole as is evident by the hole in the
middle of it but someone had the fore site to take down the sign and not throw it away”
(PAR_02).
Connecting a collection to his or her own personal experience was evident as one
participant shared a memory about asking his father to find old photographs of family members.
“In my own family we didn’t have a lot of old pictures of grandparents and such. I made my dad
hunt down pictures of his parents and his family” (PAR_03).
The medical collection creates an image in the participants mind on the horrific life of
patients in an asylum: “I’m reading this and I’m thinking about ... what mental asylums used to
be like and so immediately I’m thinking, Oh, so they’re basically experimenting on these people.
That’s kind of horrifying” (PAR_03).
A participant reflected on the lives of the people in the photographs. “Photos with people
in them for me are different and I would spend more time thinking about that person and what’s
her facial expression and what’s she doing that day” (PAR_04). This user saw the photographs as
a numinous object. “They feel they have some essence of a person’s soul” (PAR_04).
Observational Notes
The study revealed user experience was greatly influenced by the participants’ personal
views or interests. Two participants had background interests in cultural studies and archeology.
The researcher observed these two spent the longest amount of time going through the
collections. Evidence showed the users taking time to read the objects carefully and attempting
to interpret the information based on the objects aesthetics attributes and contextual content
found in the finding aids. These participants were interested in how an object worked, what an
24
object was used for, who used the objects, and why. “I’m thinking looking at those more about
like who wrote this down and why? Where did they take it get it printed? Where did they post
this sign?” (PAR_01). “Why did they take the photos ... why did they keep them in the first
place?” (PAR_04). It was not surprising that the two participants with backgrounds in cultural
and archeological studies practiced the process of interpreting objects. One participant even
made reference to their background interests “Granted my field is studying physical objects”
(PAR_04).
Another participant majored in women and gender studies. This participant was
emotionally connected to the objects and sensitive to the collections content and physicality. This
participant shared with the researcher, during the interview process, interest in the topic. “I’m
writing my thesis for my women and gender study major ... on a book called “The memoirs of
Eleanor Eldridge” who was actually born a free woman in Rhode Island but her father was a
slave. I am doing a lot of research around that period” (PAR_03).
Academic novelty also impacted user experience, as is evidenced by the observational
notes and comments made by the participant. During the initial engagement process, the user
took out a smart phone to search Google in hopes of finding information about a particular
object. “I know how to Google things to get what I want—it’s my Google ‘phoo’ ” (PAR_02).
The user created an environment of playfulness and curiosity stating a love of old stuff, which
was repeated three times at the onset of the interview. PAR_02. “I love old stuff ... I’m a huge
book nerd reading since I was small and I love old stuff. I don’t know why but I do, I love old
stuff (PAR_02). This participant chose to avoid spending too much time studying the African
American collection commenting “I am not an enormous fan of American History—not that
25
anywhere else is really less bloody ... I have no desire to immerse myself in the culture and the
time of the early 1800s and the slave trade.” (PAR_02).
In summary, the compositional thread reflected the engagement process from beginning to end.
The researcher was able to identify all four processes of engagement (point, sustained,
disengagement, reengagement). The remaining three threads of experience revealed five
categories of multi-dimensional experience. They are: 1) sensory aesthetics, 2) variety/novelty,
3) emotions/state of mind, 4) curiosity/inquisitive thinking, and 5) memory/place in time. Table 1
shows the dimensions of experience found through the sensual, emotional and spatiotemporal
threads. Table 2 shows the multi-dimensional experiences of user found through the sensual,
emotional and spatiotemporal threads and their attributes. It was also observed the participants
personal views and education knowledge influenced their experience.
Discussion
In this study, the driving force was the archival object. The experience for the users was
similar to the Csikszentmihalyi (1990) “Theory of Flow.” The users did not require any special
skills to handle the objects so connection was immediate. This allowed participants to freely
concentrate on the object to a point where they were completely involved with the story and their
sense of place within the object. This flow produced overlapping experience with the user. A
user could have an emotional connection while at the same time admiring the structure that
brings on a personal memory and place in history. For example, a participant shared the
following during the interview process:
“It looks like [aesthetics through sight and touch] they were somewhat
industrially made [attempt understand or interpret the object] you know but at the
26
same time [place in time] it reminds me [personal memory] of things that people
made on their own [place in history]. I used to sail [personal memory] on
traditional boats and people make their own little needle cases and stuff like that
and it kind of reminded me [memory recall] of that type of object [physicality]
that would have been [place in time] a handmade more personalized object.”
From the study observation, it appears the physicality of the object influenced every aspect of the
engagement process except for disengagement. What was interesting in this study was that
participants felt multiple experiences at one time without a hindrance between the user and
object, an immediate connection was made through touch, thought and interpretation. A user
could have an emotional connection at the same time while admiring the structure that brings on
a memory. Figure 1 shows a proposed conceptual model of user engagement with physical
objects using the multi-dimensional experience of the user where during the sustained
engagement period users go through a multi-layered multidimensional engagement experience.
Figure 1. A conceptual model of user engagement with physical objects
using dimension of experience
27
A new proposed definition of user engagement with physical objects would include some aspects
of both O’Brien and Toms (2005) and Latham’s (2009) definition of experiences. Therefore, the
definition of user engagement would have to include certain attributes from both studies:
User engagement with physical objects is characterized by attributes of aesthetic
and sensory appeal, variety and novelty, curiosity and inquisitive of mind,
emotional connection, numinous qualities such as empathy and reverence,
memory of place and time, affect and interest.
Strength and Limitations of the Study
The strength of the study was examining user engagement from a unique angle of users
interacting with physical objects. Having the study done on site also was a strength allowing the
researcher to observe first hand how users related to the objects in the archives.
The second strength of this study was the participants’ themselves and the words they
used to described their experience. Rich detail and anecdotal stories revealed deep emotions
providing a better understanding of the phenomenon.
The limitation of the study was the small number of participants, as well as the fact that
all participants were users of the archives. Further studies involving more participants and
participants who are non-archive users are necessary to examine the whole spectrum of user
engagement experiences.
The close proximity between the participant and the researcher during observation might
also a weakness. It would have been more advantageous if the participants had privacy while the
research observes unnoticeably.
28
Conclusions
The study offered rich insight on the phenomenon of physical objects and their
relationship with users. This can set the groundwork for further study on user engagement with
physical objects using a wider and varied population. Further study on the relationship between
objects and “flow” theory may reveal additional attributes. The proposed conceptual model
presented in this study highlights the variety of experiences during sustained engagement with
point of engagement and disengagement being just a small part of the experience. This is because
the participants connected with the object immediately. The study showed the similarities of
attributes presented by O’Brien and Toms (2005) and Latham’s (2009) work. But it also
presented the differences between archival users and users of technology. Participants preferred
to touch and feel objects over a digital counterpart. As one participant described, “It is the story
that they tell, the historical context, personal feeling, tie to community, to other people.
Grounding and sentimental in a way. Giving you a place.”
29
Bibliography
30
_____ (2008). Touching History: An evaluation of hands on desks at the British Museum. Morris
Hargreaves McIntyre: Manchester (UK).
Adams, M., Luke, J. & Moussouri, T. (2004). Interactivity: moving beyond terminology.
Curator, 47(2) 155-70.
Bartlett, C. (2009). Numinous objects: the ethnohistorical complexities of a residential school
bass drum. Paper presented for the Ethnohistory Field School, University of Victoria in
Canada.
Birkerts, S. (1994). Gutenberg Elegies: The Fate of Reading in an Electronic Age. Boston, Mass,
USA: Faber and Faber.
Buckland, M. K. (1991). Information as thing. Journal of the American Society for Information
Science (1986-1998), 42(5) 351-360.
Budd, M. (1998). Aesthetics. In E. Craig (Ed.), Routledge Encyclopedia of Philosophy. London:
Routledge. Retrieved April 16, 2013, from http://www.rep.routledge.com/article/M046
Candlin, F. (2008). Touch, and the limits of the rational museum or can we think? Senses and
Society, 3(3) 277-292.
Carini, P. (2009). Archivists as Educators: Integrating Primary Sources into the Curriculum.
Journal of Archival Organization, 7(41-50).
Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1990). Flow: The psychology of optimal experience. New York: Harper
and Row.
Desmet, P. M. A., Porcelijn, R. & van Dijk, M. B. (2007). Emotional Design; Application of a
Research-Based Design Approach. Knowledge Technology & Policy, 20:141–155. DOI
10.1007/s12130-007-9018-4
Furuta, R., Marshall, C. C., Shipman III, F. M., & Leggett, J. J. (1996). Physical objects in the
digital library. In Proceedings of the First ACM International Conference on Digital
Libraries, 109–115.
Goodnow, J. J. (1969). Effects of active handling, illustrated by uses for objects. Child
Development, 40, 201-212.
Jennings, R. (2000). Theory and models for creating engaging and immersive ecommerce Web
sites. In Proceedings of the 2000 ACM SIGCPR Conference on Computer Personnel
Research (pp. 77-85) New York; ACM.
Lapetino, T. (2012). A digital generation searching for an analog experience. Hexanine.
Retrieved livepage.apple.comfrom:http://www.hexanine.com/zeroside/a-digital
generation-searching-for-analog-experiences/
Latham, K. F. (2009). Numinous experiences with museum objects (Doctoral dissertation.)
31
Available from ProQuest Dissertations and Theses database (ATT 3357980).
Latham, K. F. (2011). Medium rare: exploring archives and their Conversion from original to
digital part two—the holistic knowledge arsenal of paper-based Archives. Library and
Information Science Research Electronic Journal, 21(1).
Latham, K. F. (2011). Museum object as document: Using Buckland’s information concepts to
understand museum experiences. Journal of Documentation, (68)1, 45-71.
Lester, P. (2006). Is the virtual exhibition the natural successor to the physical? Journal of the
Society of Archivists, (27)1, 85-101.
McCarthy, J. & Wright, P. (2004). Technology as Experience. MIT Press. Retrieved from
http:// bookshelf.theopensourcelibrary.org/2004_MIT_TechnologyAsExperience.pdf
Maines, R. P. and Glynn, J. J. (1993). Numinous objects. The Public Historian, (15)1, 9-25.
Merriam-Webster Online (2013). Retrieved April 19, 2013. http://www.merriam-webster.com/
Rieber, L. P., Smith, L., & Noah, D. (1998). The value of serious play. Educational Technology,
38(6), 29-37.
Schneiderman, B. (1997). Direct manipulation for comprehensible, predictable and controllable
user interfaces. In Designing the user interface (3rd ed., pp. 33–39). Reading, MA:
Addison-Wesley.
Shedroff, N. (1994). Information interaction design: A unified field theory of design. Retrieved
24 February, 2013 from http://www.nathan.com/thoughts/unified/
O'Brien, H. L. and Toms, E. G. (2008). What is user engagement? A conceptual framework for
defining user engagement with technology. Journal of the American Society for
Information Science and Technology, 59(6) 938-955.
O'Brien, H. L., & Toms, E. G. (2010). The Development and Evaluation of a Survey to
Measure User Engagement. Journal Of The American Society For Information Science
and Technology, 61(1), 50-69.
Treadaway, C., (2009). Hand and mind—shaping experience. Australasian Journal of
ArtsHealth. 1, 1-15.
Upton, P. M. (1974). Some aspects of three-dimensional models and recognition training.
Unpublished manuscript. Defense Intelligence School, Washington, DC.
Walsh-Piper, K. (1994). Museum education and aesthetic experience. Journal of Aesthetic
Education, 28(3), 105-115.
32
Whitson, C. and Consoli, J. (2009). Flow Theory and Student Engagement.
Journal of Cross-Disciplinary Perspectives in Education, 2(1), 40-49
Wright, P., McCarthy, J. & Meekison, L. (2005). Making sense of experience. In M. A. Blythe,
K. Overbeek, A. F. Monke & P. C. Wright (Eds.), Funology: from usability to enjoyment.
(43-54). New York: Springer Science.
Zuidervaart, L. (2011). Theodor W. Adorno. The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy,
Retrieved February 23, 2013, from http://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2011/entries/
adorno/
33
Appendix A. Semi-Structured Open-Ended Interview Questions*
1. Did you do anything before studying the collections such as supporting documents?
2. Were there any expectations about the collections before you came in today?
3. Did you use any of the finding aids?
4. Was there anything in the collection that was interesting or that caught your attention?
5. Did the object give you a sense of a story?
6. Was there any time during you study that you took a break or disengage for a moment other
than moving from collection 1 to collection 2?
7. What item or items did you spend the most time on and why?
8. Did you hold the documents at all or just look at them?
9. Did you handle the photographs at all or did you just look at the copies?
10. How challenging was it to go through the collection.
*Note: Not all questions were used during the interview process.
Interview Codes
Tangible Aesthetics
Sensory Aesthetics
Pleasure
Affect (negative)
Physicality of object that is pleasing
Using senses to experience object
Delight, joy, gratification (Merriam-Webster Online)
Affect is the emotional investment a user makes with an object—a
negative response
Affect (positive)
Affect is the emotional investment a user makes with an object—a
positive response
Attention
A mental activity. The ability to concentrate for long periods of time
Organization
The participant comments on the arrangement of collection as a positive or
negative affect
Disengagement (self) The participant pulls away from an object for internal reasons
Engagement
The participant describes being engaged with the object
Curiosity
Inquisitive interest participant needs or wants to learn more
Confusion
Characterized by a lack of clear and orderly thought (state of mind)
Enjoyment
To feel attraction toward or take pleasure in (Merriam-Webster Online)
Interest
A quality in a thing arousing interest (Merriam-Webster Online)
Memory
A particular act of recall or recollection (Merriam-Webster Online)
Place in Time
Imagining a place in time representing history
Novelty
Unusual or interesting,
Depth perception
Users’ take notice tobjects three-dimensional qualities
Awe
To inspire, extraordinary
Empathy
the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to something
(Merriam-Webster Online)
34
Appendix B. Observational Notes
(transcribed from handwritten notes)
PAR_01. Participant studied first collection thoroughly, reading almost all the letters, the flyers
and artifact on display board. Very methodic.in method of study.
Used finding aids for letters and photographs.
Shows curiosity with wooden album cover. Spend over 25 minutes on these. Wow. I hope I get
back to work on time.
Lots of back and forth with finding aids and objects.
Finally, medical collection. removing all object from box.
Manipulating objects. Opening boxes and envelopes.
Curious about glasses. Studies mechanism of glasses.
Takes photographs and biographical notes from medical collections.
Oh! She laughs. Hmmmm? Has to be the biographical notes. Need to ask about that.
PAR_02.
Spent 5 minutes chatting with this participant in the onset of the study of medical collections.
Excited, couldn’t wait to use smart phone. Searching web. I didn’t want to be rude so engaged
until found right moment to step back. Very chatty!
Was fascinated by medical packet. Spent most time on medical collection. Hmmmm. Not too
interested in photographs with this collection. Did read biographical notes.
Spending some time with medical artifacts. Hmmmm. Can observe this participant having
genuine fun with objects.
Reading some of the slavery letter and studying the display board. Using finding aids with
letters.
I can already tell this session will be short.
PAR_03.
Very sweet person. Very sensitive in nature by the way the participant conversed with me at the
beginning before start the study. Excited about study and collections.
35
Oh how interesting. Not looking at original photographs. What a shame. Using copies. Handling
copies gingerly? Why? They are just copies.
Spending quite some time on letter and display board artifact. Very quiet and reserved.
Now on medical objects. Again, very careful. Handles objects very gingerly.
Well, I could not help myself. Disrupted users time and encouraged the participant not to be
afraid of hurting the collections. I reiterated it was okay to touch the objects. User more relaxed.
Whew! Definitely a sensitive soul here!
First sound from user when reads descriptive notes. I hear “Wow”
PAR_04. Starts with medical collection immediately. Take items out of box. Starts to
disassemble articles. Looking at tubes. Sutures! Peaks in envelope! How funny. Like a present
waiting to be opened! Too, too funny!
Reads content on objects. Uses descriptive notes. Seems interested in biographical notes.
Spends a good amount of time on these artifacts.
Moving onto letters and photo albums.
Very methodic. Using transcripts. Shows curiosity with letters.
36
Appendix C. Recruitment Flyer
Appendix D. Collections used in Study
LEFT: Runaway slave
broadside from Clay
County, Missouri,
dated July 14, 1860.
BOTTOM:
Manuscript, partly
printed document
authorizing the seizure
of 2 slaves, 3 horses,
80 head of cattle, and
sixty head of hogs, in
payment of a debt
owed by William
Garborough and Hugh
Rusk to William A.
Austin, Jackson
County, Florida, dated
January 22, 1858.
African American Maine Photograph Album
Wooden photograph album and three packets of loose photographs, of African American
women presumably on vacation in Maine. Many locations are identifiable as being
along the Mid-coast. The album was purchased from a dealer in Virginia. 1940s and
50s 0.5 ft.
Collection two artifacts: Medical Collection