Displayless Interaction af Lars Bo Larsen, AAU

617 views
530 views

Published on

Oplægget blev holdt ved InfinIT-arrangementet Temadag om Interaktionsdesign, der blev afholdt den 20. juni 2013. Læs mere om arrangementet her: http://www.infinit.dk/dk/hvad_kan_vi_goere_for_dig/viden/reportager/styr_din_mobiltelefon_med_et_nik.htm

Published in: Technology, Business
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
617
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
208
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
11
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Displayless Interaction af Lars Bo Larsen, AAU

  1. 1. Displayless  Interac/on  Lars  Bo  Larsen  Mai  Baunstrup,  Søren  Staal  Jensen    Infinit  Temadag,  AAU  20  juni  2013  
  2. 2. Outline  •  Introduc/on  of  the  Displayless  Interac/on  (DI)  project  •  Presenta/on  of  AAU  contribu/on:  –  “Using  sound  content  to  direct  user’s  aOen/on”  –  Experiments  –  (preliminary)  Results  2  
  3. 3. Display-less Interaction "Outline of the Display-Less Interaction Project"–  To investigate interaction design for devices withoutdisplays"–  Partners: Bang & Olufsen, Radiometer, AAU"–  Infinit “mini project”, running January 1 – June 302013"–  Close integration with PDP thesis students(Engineering Psychology)""3  
  4. 4. Display-less Interaction "Our Focus"–  Using the auditory modality "–  To investigate if designed sounds can guide theuser’s attention onto certain areas of a user interface"–  To achieve this with sounds that are intuitive, whichdo not have to be learned (earcons) or to be based onmetaphors or cultural references (auditory icons)"4  
  5. 5. Background"•  Pratt (1930) found that the pitch of tones were related totheir perceived positions"5  
  6. 6. Background"•  Walker and Ehrenstein (2000) tested 12 sounds thateither increased or decreased in pitch"6  •  Results: Test-personsmatched an increaseand the decrease inpitch with ”high” and”low”, at a 96% accuracylevel""
  7. 7. Theories"•  R. Walker (1987) ”The effects of culture, environment,age, and musical training on choices of visual metaphorsfor sound”"•  828 test-subjects were tested to see how they matchedacoustic features (frequency, waveform, amplitude, andduration) to visual metaphors on a response sheet. ""•  Left-Right was generally matched with the duration of asound"7  
  8. 8. Our Experiment"Inspired by this, we decided to design a number of sounds with thegoal of directing the user’s attention in a particular direction on a plainsurface.""Inspired by the fact that earcons, designed as musical sounds areconsidered more attractive to listen to than other types, we chose aformat of short piano sounds or tunes.""12 sounds were designed with the help of a musician:"–  2 pitch change sounds (1 increasing, 1 decreasing)"–  2 high / medium high pitch tones"–  2 low / medium low tones"–  2 sounds with increasing/decreasing beat"–  4 hybrid sounds (with beat and pitch change)"•  Duration is 1.1-1.2 seconds"•  Tones are roughly within one octave"8  
  9. 9. 9  Our  speaker  device  consists  of  16  individual  speakers  (built  by  B&O)  set  in  a  frame    The  speakers  are  connected  in  4  groups  with  4  speakers  in  each  corner    This  allows  to  define  5  channels:  Le^,  Right,  Up,  Down  and  All    In  the  experiment,  the  speakers  are  hidden  to  the  test  person  
  10. 10. Experimental design"We designed two experiments:"1.  Half the sounds are played by all speakers, (ie thesound is emitted uniformly from the surface of thedevice). The other half were played in either Right,Left, Up, Down sections as a control condition"–  30 test persons each listened to 192 sounds"2.  All sounds are played by all speakers"–  16 test persons each listened to 96 sounds"•  Only results from experiment 2 is reported here."10  
  11. 11. Experiment setup"•  The test personused a laser pointerto indicate whereshe experiencedthe sound "•  The facilitatervisually determinedthe position in a4x4 grid"•  The playback andrecording ofpositions werecontrolled by amatlab program"11  
  12. 12. Experiment 1"•  Data was obtained via a matlab program,where the test-persons response wasrecorded via a push on a button, inaccordance to a 4x4 grid"13  
  13. 13. Experiment 1 Results"•  30 test-persons participated"•  The general results are that the acousticswere dominant in accordance to how theusers gave their response"•  The sounds only had an influence withinthese areas. "14  
  14. 14. The decrease in pitch sound"15  
  15. 15. One of the diagonal ”up” hybrid sounds"16  
  16. 16. Experiment 1 Results"•  Notable answers from the questionnaires "17  
  17. 17. Experiment 1 Results"•  Other interesting data"Feedback from an explorative question What many test-persons mentioned ""18  
  18. 18. Results:"Experiment 1:"–  showed that the acoustics was the dominant factor – ie whensounds are played from different positions, users will hear thisand it overrides the contents"–  Analysis of interdependencies, etc are ongoing."Experiment 2:"–  The purpose of Experiment 2 is to see what happens when thefactor of acoustics is eliminated"–  Preliminary results show clear effects in some cases and not soclear in others, analysis is still ongoing"19  
  19. 19. Experiment 2 results"Pitch and beat change""""" Decrease " "Increase"""Decrease "Increase"20  Pitch  Beat"
  20. 20. Experiment 2 results"•  Static Pitch"21  High   Medium  high  Medium  Low  Low  
  21. 21. Experiment 2 results"•  Hybrid Sounds"Pitch decrease + beat up Pitch decrease + beat down""Pitch increase + speed up Pitch increase + beat down"22  
  22. 22. Experiment 2 results"•  Answers from the questionnaires regarding whether thesounds could guide the test-persons up or down"23  
  23. 23. Experiment 2 results"•  Answers from the questionnaires regarding whether thesounds could guide the test-persons left, right or into a corner"24  
  24. 24. Statistical tests (Chi-Square)"Increase in pitch (”up sound”)""""Yes,  significant  Decrease in pitch (”down sound”)"""Yes,  significant  25  
  25. 25. High static pitch""""""" " " " " " " " " " "Yes,  significant  Medium high static pitch""•                                             Yes,  significant  26  Statistical tests (Chi-Square)"
  26. 26. Statistical tests (Chi-Square)"Increase in beat (”right sound”)"""""Not  significant  Decrease in beat (”left sound”)""                                      Not  significant  27  
  27. 27. Medium low static pitch"""  Low static pitch"28  Statistical tests (Chi-Square)"
  28. 28. Summary"•  Experiment 2 showed that the pitch level and changeswere the dominant factor"•  The pitch up and down sounds worked as expected"•  The static pitch worked for the high tones, but only partlyfor low"•  The beat change – ie left and right sounds did not work"•  The diagonal and right-left sounds did not work asintended"•  The diagonal and right-left sounds worked as up anddown sounds, in accordance to their pitch change"29  
  29. 29. Application"So, how do we apply this result fordisplayless Interaction?"–  Our goal was to show that by utilisingspecific designed sound patterns, asound source location can besimulated under certain circumstances,without any added mental load on theuser"–  This has implications for displaylessdevices, where e.g. a blinking LED canbe replaced by a “down” sound todirect the users attention downwards"–  Leading to better interaction (probably)better aesthetics and cheapermanufacturing costs"30  
  30. 30. Conclusions  A  first  step  towards  a  design  guide  for  “simulated  3D”  sounds  have  been  taken  •  Preliminary  results  show  some  clear  indica/ons  for  up-­‐down,  however  le^-­‐right  s/ll  remains  unsolved  •  There  are  interdependencies  when  the  physical  sound  source  can  be  located  •  We  have  deliberately  avoided  metaphorical  sounds  and  chosen  very  generic  paOerns  to  leave  designers  as  much  freedom  as  possible  •  Sta/s/cal  analysis  is  s/ll  ongoing  •  Results  are  applicable  and  will  reduce  manufacturing  costs  and/or  increase  usability  31  

×