Nannan Xi, Juan Chen, Filipe Gama, Henry Korkeila and Juho Hamari
In recent years, there has been significant interest in adopting XR (extended reality) technologies such as VR (virtual reality) and AR (augmented reality), particularly in…
Abstract
Purpose
In recent years, there has been significant interest in adopting XR (extended reality) technologies such as VR (virtual reality) and AR (augmented reality), particularly in retail. However, extending activities through reality-mediation is still mostly believed to offer an inferior experience due to their shortcomings in usability, wearability, graphical fidelity, etc. This study aims to address the research gap by experimentally examining the acceptance of metaverse shopping.
Design/methodology/approach
This study conducts a 2 (VR: with vs. without) × 2 (AR: with vs. without) between-subjects laboratory experiment involving 157 participants in simulated daily shopping environments. This study builds a physical brick-and-mortar store at the campus and stocked it with approximately 600 products with accompanying product information and pricing. The XR devices and a 3D laser scanner were used in constructing the three XR shopping conditions.
Findings
Results indicate that XR can offer an experience comparable to, or even surpassing, traditional shopping in terms of its instrumental and hedonic aspects, regardless of a slightly reduced perception of usability. AR negatively affected perceived ease of use, while VR significantly increased perceived enjoyment. It is surprising that the lower perceived ease of use appeared to be disconnected from the attitude toward metaverse shopping.
Originality/value
This study provides important experimental evidence on the acceptance of XR shopping, and the finding that low perceived ease of use may not always be detrimental adds to the theory of technology adoption as a whole. Additionally, it provides an important reference point for future randomized controlled studies exploring the effects of technology on adoption.
Details
Keywords
Henriikka Vartiainen, Teemu Valtonen, Juho Kahila and Matti Tedre
In 2022 generative AI took the Internet world by storm. Free access to tools that can generate text and images that pass for human creations triggered fiery debates about the…
Abstract
Purpose
In 2022 generative AI took the Internet world by storm. Free access to tools that can generate text and images that pass for human creations triggered fiery debates about the potential uses and misuses of generative AI in education. There has risen a need to check the popular utopian and dystopian narratives about AI against the diversity of hopes, concerns and future imaginaries that educators themselves associate with generative AI. The purpose of this study is to investigate the perspectives of Finnish teacher educators on the use of AI in education.
Design/methodology/approach
This article reports findings from a hands-on workshop in teacher training, where participants learned about how generative AI works, collaboratively explored generative AI and then reflected on its potential and challenges.
Findings
The results reveal nuanced, calm and thoughtful imaginaries rooted in deep understanding of educational policy, evaluation and the sociocultural context of education. The results cover teachers’ views on the impact of AI on learners’ agency, metacognition, self-regulation and more.
Originality/value
This article offers a unique exploration into the perceptions and imaginaries of educators regarding generative AI in specific (instead of “monolithic AI”), moving beyond dystopian views and instead focusing on the potential of AI to align with existing pedagogical practices. The educators contrasted the common techno-deterministic narratives and perceived AI as an avenue to support formative assessment practices and development of metacognition, self-regulation, responsibility and well-being. The novel insights also include the need for AI education that critically incorporates social and ethical viewpoints and fosters visions for a future with culturally, socially and environmentally sustainable AI.
Details
Keywords
Henrietta Jylhä and Juho Hamari
Customization by segmenting within human–computer interaction is an emerging phenomenon. Appealing graphical elements that cater to user needs are considered progressively…
Abstract
Purpose
Customization by segmenting within human–computer interaction is an emerging phenomenon. Appealing graphical elements that cater to user needs are considered progressively important, as the way a graphic is visually represented can greatly contribute to the interaction. However, aesthetic perceptions are subjective and may differ by target group. Understanding variations in user perceptions may aid in design processes; therefore, we set out to investigate the effects of demographic differences relating to perceptions of graphical user interface (GUI) element (i.e. game app icon) aesthetics.
Design/methodology/approach
The authors employed a vignette experiment with random participant (n = 513) assignment to evaluate 4 icons from a total of 68 pre-selected mobile game icons using semantic differential scales. This resulted in a total of 2052 individual icon evaluations. Regression analyses were performed with the effects of age, gender and time using graphical user interfaces (i.e. app stores) and the interactions of these variables relating to perceptions of GUI element aesthetics.
Findings
The results indicate that, overall, demographic factors have relatively little effect on how icons are perceived. Significant relations suggest that experienced users, younger audiences and women are more critical in their perception of aesthetic excellence, and that perceptions change for younger women. The implications of the findings are discussed via adaptive decision-making theory.
Originality/value
In the context of graphical user interface element aesthetics, demographic differences have received minimal attention as moderating variables regardless of their relevance in design and development. Hence, it merits further research.
Details
Keywords
Younghoon Chang, One-Ki Daniel Lee, Jaehyun Park and Juyeon Ham