Critical Evaluation Of a Master Thesis

TANGIBLE AND GESTURE INTERACTION FOR ENHANCING VISITOR EXPERIENCE IN MUSEUMS

by RATTANACHAROENPORN KANOKPORN

Faculty of Cultural and Social Sciences Paris Lodron University of Salzburg Technical Faculty of IT and Design Aalborg University in Copenhagen

——————————————————————-

Level of Design

The author didn’t deliver any artefact within the master thesis but analysed the existing objects, such as tangible interfaces in museum context. Since no tangible artefact was provided the paper design can be analysed for the given task.  The paper has basic «Microsoft Documents»  design, without any artistic approaches. For pictures and chars, as well as demonstration of results basic charts from Microsoft or GoogleDoc suit were used. The author refers to some existing concepts from literature inserting the screenshots from existing books with a proper reffering.

Degree of Innovation

Personally, I found the master thesis not innovative. Yes, it answered the research question that the author mentioned, however, the question itself is not innovative. 

Independence

The author had some biases towards the expected result. This conclusion was made from the introduction and first part of the paper. The vague phrases about digitalisation that plays important role in organisations were used. In addition, in the beginning the statement about usefulness tangible interfaces were mentioned with some subjective adjectives that were not supplemented with the data from researches or any other grounded work to prove this statements.  

Outline and structure

Visual hierarchy is not respected in the paper. As a result, the structure is not clearly underline the taxonomy of the subsection and the relation of subsection to a section. The usage of different type sizes and styles could be useful in this case to visualise the relation of paragraph to a parent part. Unfortunately, sometimes it is hard to follow the narrative and make conclusions and relations in the text.

Degree of communication

The author uses simple language, that is easy to follow. However, sometimes the field and academic terms are used in inaccurate way. For instance, the author mentioned that they «conducted qualitative method to answer the question», that might be rephrased as «user interview, that were conducted as a part of qualitative approach». However, this statement might seems as sucked from a finger, some other terms in academic environments were messed up and communicated in not a proper and clear way. 

Scope of the work

The paper contain 106 pages with title page and appendix. Without appendix, bibliography, list of tables and title page it is 76 pages that can be consider as a standard scope for a MA thesis.

Orthography and accuracy

I didn’t find any type mistakes or issues with grammar. However, as it was mentioned in section «Degree of communication» some phrases could be used in more accurate way.

Literature

I found the literature comprehensive and I learned about interesting papers that could be useful for my further thesis. Also, I found it interesting, that the bibliography overall is interdisciplinary. We can clearly see marketing, interaction and user experience design and museum studies.