# MuMIA: Multimodal Interactions to Better Understand Art Contexts
## 4 Evaluation Study
### Results
#### 4.2.2 Interactions, Affordances, and Metaphors  
The study participants had a positive perception of the utility and the usability of _MuMIA_. They mentioned that the interactions supported in the proposed system are meaningful, intuitive, and easy to use and follow. They could easily understand the concept of \"look-and-ask\" supported by the multimodal interaction, and they noticed no failure of the system. \" While I had never used an eye-tracker before, its use was quite simple and intuitive. It was as simple as you look at an area that is interesting and you ask the system to provide more information about it. \"_ \(\sim\) [Participant #11]  
\" I noticed no failure of the system; it always provided information about the figure I was looking at. I enjoyed the fact that I could ask questions for combinations of figures, such as [PERSON] and [PERSON], with the system providing me with more complex information. \"_ \(\sim\) [Participant #10]  
While _MuMIA_, similar to every software application and digital tool, includes an initial learning phase, it was found to be quite intuitive and the visitors did not face difficulties when learning to use it. The concept of \"look-and-ask\" was natural to them. Moreover, the familiar affordances and interaction metaphors contributed to the positive experience of the study participants, who mastered the interaction mechanisms quickly. \" It was easy to learn how to use _MuMIA_; for people who face difficulties, maybe, it would be a good idea to include a tutorial phase to practice interactions before the actual visit phase. \"_ \(\sim\) [Participant #6]  
\" The concept was natural and friendly to me, so, I didn't need much time to understand how to use _MuMIA_. But, even if I had to spend more time to figure out how it works, I would had spent it, because the visitor experience was unique! \"_ \(\sim\) [Participant #11]  
While _MuMIA_ was stable and credible, some study participants noticed a slight latency, which could affect the system responsiveness. Considering that the visitors' time is valuable and, often, visit time is limited, the responsiveness of a cultural heritage application is crucial. The study participants mentioned that the system did what was intended but that, sometimes, it took more time than they expected, and thus, it could have a negative impact on visitor experience. \" I didn't notice any failure during the operation, but a shortcoming that I noticed is that, at some times, there was a latency to follow my gaze. So, I caught myself trying to follow the [system] pointer rather than focusing on the content of the exhibit. \"_ \(\sim\) [Participant #3]  
Moreover, some study participants raised an issue about the ability to follow-up usage on other platforms or re-visits. _MuMIA_ is based on eye-tracking, which may not be an established commercial technology, but it is growing fast and many techniques are deployed for accurate and fast eye tracking. In particular, recent advances in visual computing, gaze estimation algorithms, cameras, and processing power of computing devices have led to eye tracking being no longer constrained to desktop computers but also available on head-mounted displays [56; 57; 58; 59; 60], handheld mobile devices [61], and public displays [39]. Today, laptops such as Alienware 17 R4 and Acer Predator 21 X come with integrated eye trackers and smartphones such as the iPhone X and Huawei Mate 30 Pro are equipped with front-facing depth cameras capable of accurate gaze estimation. \" While I enjoyed MuMIA, I am not sure if it's a feasible solution for a museum context. I mean, what is the cost for a museum to have an eye-tracker for each exhibit or what is the cost for a visitor to have their own eye-tracker? In case that the cost is high, it might be a problem for adopting such solutions in real-life settings.