0.903
IF
1.06
CiteScore
0.510
SJR
1.062
SNIP
Research paper
 
CC-BY 4.0
 
 

The Effect Assessment of Reading Experience and Use Intention for AR Interactive Device

 
1
Asia University, Department of Digital Media Design, Taichung City, TAIWAN
EURASIA J. Math., Sci Tech. Ed 2018;14(1):531–542
Online publish date: 2017-11-18
Publish date: 2017-11-18
KEYWORDS:
ABSTRACT:
This research has designed the “Interactive Device – Food Island” with the intention of promoting the concept of food safety in an interactive way. In order to examine the value of interactive devices in the aspect of the reading experience and the purpose of reuse. This research will ask people to take the “Interactive Device” survey to explore the reading experience. This research has obtained 192 valid questionnaires from the surveyors. The results of the analysis: (1) a good “Interface design” could have positive influence on the “Technology acceptance model”. (2) The explanation rate reaches 41.7% in the “Reading experience” for the “Interactive Device – Food Island”. “Interface design”, “Usability”, and “Perceived enjoyment” could have a positive impact on the “Reading experience”. (3) Compared with the “Interface design”, the “Usability”, and the “Reading experience”, the factor of “Perceived enjoyment” may be more effective in the “Intention to reuse”, the explanation rate reaches 44.8%. Thus, this research has concluded that the “Interactive Device – Food Island” could improve the positive “Reading experience” so to attract the user to use it again. The conclusion of this research can be a reference for food safety education in digital communication.
 
REFERENCES (27):
1. AAM. (1992). Excellence and Equity: Education and Public Dimension of Museums. Washington, DC: The American Association of Museums, 8-9.
2. Bucknavage, M. W., & Cutter, C. N. (2009). Hazard analysis of critical control points. Microbiologically Safe Foods, 435.
3. Chang, Y. H., Lin, Y. K., Fang, R. J., & Lu, Y. T. (2017). A Situated Cultural Festival Learning System Based on Motion Sensing. Eurasia Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 13(3).
4. Chang, Y. S., & Wang, C. C. (2012). Why Are Players Being Immersed in Online Game? A Study on the Game’s Creating Value of Emotion for Players, International Journal of Digital Media Design, 4(1), 49-67.
5. Csikszentmihalyi, M. (1975). Beyond boredom and anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
6. Davis, F. (1989). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, 13, 319-339.
7. Ellington, H., Adinall, E., & Percival, F. (1982). A Handbook of Game Design. London, Kogan Page.
8. Fan, K. K., Xiao, P. W., & Su, C. H. (2015). The Effects of Learning Styles and Meaningful Learning on the Learning Achievement of Gamification Health Education Curriculum, EURASIA Journal of Mathematics, Science & Technology Education, 11(5), 1211-1229.
9. Hsu, C. L., & Lin, J. C. (2008). Acceptance of Blog Usage: The Roles of Technology Acceptance, Social Influence and Knowledge Sharing Motivation. Information & Management, 45, 65-74.
10. Hsu, C. L., & Lu, H. P. (2007). Consumer Behavior in Online Game Communities: A motivation factor perspective. Computers in Human Behavior, 23, 1642-1659.
11. Jackson, S. A., & Csikszentmihalyi, M. C. (1999). Flow in sports: The keys to optimal experiences and performances. Champaign, IL: Human Kinetics.
12. Kaufmann, H., & Schmalstieg, D., (2003). Mathematics and Geometry Education with Collaborative Augmented Reality. Computers & Graphics, 27, 339-345.
13. Kristof, R., & Satran, A. (1995). Interactivity by design: Creating & Communicating with New Media. Mountain View, CA: Adobe Press.
14. Kuflik, T., Stock, O., Zancanaro, M., Gorfinkel, A., Jbara, S., Kats, S., & Kashtan, N., (2011). A visitor’s guide in an active museum: Presentations, communications, and reflection. Journal on Computing and Cultural Heritage (JOCCH), 3(3), 11.
15. Luo, W., & Strong, D. (2000). Perceived critical mass effect on groupware acceptance, European Journal of Information Systems, 9(2), 91-103.
16. Massimini, F., & Carli, M. (1988). The systematic assessment of flow in daily experience. In M. Csikszentmihalyi, & I. Csikszentmihalyi, (Eds.), Optimal experience: Psychological studies of flow in consciousness (pp.266-287). New York: Cambridge University Press.
17. Mathieson, K., & Chin, W. (2001). Extending the technology acceptance model: the influence of perceived user resources. The Data Base for Advances in Information System, 32(3), 86-112.
18. Moon, J., & Kim, Y. (2001). Extending the TAM for a world-wide-web context. Information and Management, 38(4), 217-230.
19. Nielsen, J. (1995). 10 usability heuristics for user interface design. Nielsen Norman Group, 1(1).
20. Nunnally, J. C. (1978). Psychometric Theory. New York: McGraw-Hill.
21. Pine II, B. J., & Gilmore, J. H. (1999). The Experience Economy. Boston: Harvard Business School Press.
22. Rettie, R. (2001). An exploration of flow during Internet use, Internet Research: Electronic Networking Application and Policy, 11(2), 103-113.
23. TCS. (2017). Taiwan Communication Survey: epaper July 2017. Retrieved on 21 July 2017 from http://www.crctaiwan.nctu.edu.tw/epaper/%E7%AC%AC56%E6%9C%9F20170728.htm.
24. Teo, T., Lim, V., & Lai, R. (1999). Intrinsic and extrinsic motivation in Internet usage, OMGGA International Journal of Management Science, 27(1), 25-37.
25. Venkatesh, V., Speier, C., & Morris, M. (2002). User acceptance enablers in individual decision making about technology: toward an integrated model, Decision Science, 33(2), 297-315.
26. Watts, B. J. (1999). Interactive media in museum environments: Perceptions about its and Human Experience. Cambridge: MIT Press.
27. Winogard, T. (1997). The Design of Interaction, Beyond Calculation: The Next Fifty Years of Computing, 149-162.
eISSN:1305-8223
ISSN:1305-8215