The way we perceive things is changing. The way we interact with digital artifacts is changing. We need to re-interpret the shift we’re living and review the language itself that would better convey the message of NUI.I’ve also participated in a workshop on Assistive Technology with an eye tracking device for interface control (Tobii P-10).On June of 2011 I met researchers from the main eye tracking equipment manufacturer Tobii in London. They presented me Tobii-Lenovo laptop prototype with active eye tracking for control, aimed at able-bodied users. I was really impressed with the experience and the possibility of interfacing with the computer through eye tracking in combination with mouse & keyboard/track pad. This was a valuable contact and Tobii team displayed great interest on my research and continuity on exchanging findings; with the possibility to leave me the prototype for testing purposes.I have just returned from the first Tobii conference on eye tracking behavioral research in Frankfurt, and my knowledge from that venue may be of particular value to others who are using or considering eye tracking methods.
Mention iPhone, iPad The most important achievement on TUI is bridging the gap between input and output by displaying outputs and inputs on the same surface, helping to integrate perception and action seamlessly into one environment. Sorensen (2009), apudSharlin (2004)When a tool is physically acted upon, the result is twofold: causality is instantly observed and time is inherently felt. This coupling between user and tool allows for embodiment. ACD models and TUIs alternatively are more open-ended in application, requiring the user to explore rather than CONFORM or ADAPT to the tool. ‘In other words, as we act through technology that has become ready-to-hand, the technology itself disappears from our immediate concerns. We are caught up in the performance of the work; our mode of being is one of “absorbed coping.” The equipment fades into the background. This unspoken background against which our actions are played out is at the heart of Heidegger’s view of being-in-the-world. Dourish (2004:109)
Igonnaletyou decide what’swrongwiththispicture.
Igonnaletyou decide what’swrongwiththispicture.
Accessibility: the technology conveys opportunities for people with special needs to interface with digital devices (multi-sensory).
Great Trans disciplinary research evolving HCI, Cognitive Psychology, Linguistics, Semiotics, Visual Perception Theory, Gestalt Theory, etcLanguage mixing symbols, icons, almost a ideogram.
TASK: OpenSoftw > Print Screen > Open Sotw > Paste > Save File > Select Folder > Tried to change file format (FAIL) > Close softwChange system setings > look downChange mouse settings > look left
Alt + Tab with Eye Gaze selection of Window + SpacebarPicture Viewer > Gaze to zoom in (non reactive visual cues for swith to left / right / bring back the thumbnail barZooming in at the focus pointPresentation slider (Gaze + Spacebar)Scroll text (top / down gaze) – no visual cues for top/down
The way we perceive things is changing. We need to re-interpret the shift we’re living and review the language itself that would better convey the message of Post-WIMP/NUI and encompass the experience of the very interaction itself.GUI additions such as Natural User Interfaces, Microsoft’s Surface Computer, eye-tracking and other Haptic interfaces are not transforming the underlying problems created with the GUI.Sorensen (2009)
Considerations about Eye Gaze interfaces for people with disabilities: from the HCI perspective
Considerations about Eye Gaze interfaces for people with disabilities: from the HCI perspective. Jacques Chueke PhD Researcher, Centre for HCI Design Dr. George Buchanan (1st Supervisor) Senior Lecturer, Centre for HCI Design Stephanie Wilson (2nd Supervisor) Senior Lecturer, Centre for HCI DesignWeb Accessibility London (a11yLDN) eventLondon, UK, May 2011 1
OpportunityI am especially interested on user exploration of new and unfamiliar digital interfaces to betterunderstand how users visually scan them to obtain the gist of its interactive potential. Thetheory of Perceptible Affordances (Gibson: 1986, Norman: 1988, Gaver: 1991) was identified asa proper tool to better understand users’ interactions with novel forms of input and newgenerations of user interface. MIT Media Lab: DepthJS – 2011 2
Norman’s Theory of Action Execution Cycle Execution Specification of Formulation of Actions Intention Sequence Interaction Perception Interpretation Evaluation Evaluation Cycle Preece et al (2009: 121) quoting Norman, (1986) 3
New Modes of Interaction Xbox 360 (Kinect) Dashboard, 2011 4
New Modes of Interaction• PrimeSense / MS Kinect: Swim Browser Prime sense browser competition winner: Stolarsky SwimBrowser’ – 2011 5
New Modes of Interaction• eviGroup Paddle Pro Front-facing webcam to track head movements for cursor control – 2011 6
New Modes of Interaction• Activity Centered Design: The tool is the way (Norman, 2005) +Embodiment (Heidegger ‘being in the world’ and Dourish): We’re the tool. Microsoft Surface, 2007 7
New Modes of Interaction• Hitachi: Hitachis Gesture Remote Control TV Prototype CES 2009: Hitachis Gesture Remote Control TV Prototype 8
It’s not supposed to be like this… Gmail Motion, April 2011 9
It’s not supposed to be like this… Gmail Motion, April 2011 10
New Modes of Interaction • Fast text input: 8Pen Style Android / FlowMenu The marking menu system teaches users to make pen-based gestures (pg. 150) •The Dasher Project www.inference.phy.cam.ac.uk/dasher/ 11
Assistive Technology: Tobii P-10• Assistive Technology: Tobii P-10 at the SmartLab (UEL). Tobii P-10 equipment, Oct. 2010 14
Assistive Technology: Tobii P-10 Tobii P-10 at the SmartLab (UEL), Oct. 2010 15
Assistive Technology: Tobii P-10 Tobii P-10 at the SmartLab (UEL), Oct. 2010 16
Assistive Technology: Tobii P-10 Windows Control, Tobii P-10 17
Tobii Lenovo Pointing With Your Eyes, to Give the Mouse a Break – 2011 18
New Visual Cues/Feedback UI affordances are Just-in-time chrome shown on tap. Applying Can be triggered by the principle of touch or proximity – scaffolding will lead youhover effect (pg. 153) to far more successful multi-touch and gesture UI’s. (pg. 154) Tethers indicate that a size constraint (MS Surface) has been reached on an item being scaled (pg. 91) Wigdor, D. Wixton, D. Brave NUI World, 2011 19
Conclusions The paradigms that define GUI and establish the conventions for manipulation, besides the presentation of the visual interface itself - within different digital environments (e.g. Mac and Windows OS and the WWW) - do not match and better display/encompass the most suitable use of novel modes of interaction.The interface should change to encompass TUI and NUI, rather thanjust co-exist with addictive features in an already exceeded GUI.Research about the different feedback (multi-sensorial) should take place inorder to encompass more efficiently the possibilities of interfacingwith eyes, gestures, voice, touch, emotions and the very mind itself. 20
Thank you for your attention!Jacques ChuekeJacques.email@example.com 21
Bibliography http://www.callscotland.org.uk/Common-Assets/spaw2/uploads/files/A-Guide-to-Picture-and- Symbol-Sets-for-Communication-2010.pdf Buxton, W. (2001). Less is More (More or Less), in P. Denning (Ed.), The Invisible Future: The seamless integration of technology in everyday life. New York: McGraw Hill, 145–179 ITU Internet Reports 2005: The Internet of Things – Executive Summary. Dam, A. (February 1997). "POST-WIMP User Interfaces". Communications of the ACM (ACM Press) 40 (2): pp. 63–67. doi:10.1145/253671.253708. Dourish, P. Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. A Bradford Book: The MIT Press, USA, 2004. Gaver, W. Technology Affordances. Copyright 1991 ACM 0-89791-383-3/91/0004/0079. Jacob, R. et al. (2008). "Reality-Based Interaction: A Framework for Post-WIMP Interfaces". CHI 08: Proceedings of the Twenty-Sixth Annual SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Florence, Italy: ACM. pp. 201–210. doi:http://doi.acm.org.ezproxy.lib.ucf.edu/10.1145/1357054.1357089. ISBN 978-1-60558-011-1. 22
Bibliography Nielsen, J. (April 1993). "Noncommand User Interfaces". Communications of the ACM (ACM Press) 36 (4): pp. 83–99. doi:10.1145/255950.153582. http://www.useit.com/papers/noncommand.html. Norman, D. (1999). Affordance, Conventions and Design. In ACM Interactions, (May + June, 1999), 38-42. Picard, R. Affective Computing. The MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts. London, England, 1998. Preece, J. Sharp, H. Rogers, Y. Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction [2nd edition]. John Wiley & Sons, Ltd, 2009. West Sussex, UK. PsychNology Journal: Communication by Gaze Interaction. Vol. 7 N. 2, ISSN 1720-7525. In Cooperation with COGAIN. Sorensen, M. Making a Case for Biological and Tangible Interfaces. Proceedings of the Third International Workshop on Physicality. Cambridge, England, 2009. WIGDOR, Deniel. WIXON, Dennis. Brave NUI World: designing natural user interfaces for touch and gesture. Morgan Kauffman Publishers, USA, 2011. 23