An Explorative Comparison of Magic Lens and Personal
Projection for Interacting with Smart Objects
Fahim Kawsar, Enrico Ru...
“A	
   computa0onally	
   instrumented	
   tangible	
   object	
  
with	
  an	
  established	
  purpose	
   that	
   augme...
Design Constrains
Form factor and interaction consistency need to be
maintained, limiting the output modalities.
[Tokuda, ...
Solution Space
Intangible	
  representa0ons	
  	
  
are	
  usually	
  coupled	
  with	
  the	
  
tangible	
  representa0on...
0.065p/min
Projector
Phone
Smart
Object
Magic Lens with Mobile Augmented Reality
0.065p/min
90
Projector
Phone
Projected
Screen
90o
Smart
Object
Personal Projection with Pico Projector
iPhone 3GS + Optoma Projector
NyARToolkit for Tracking
Private APIs for Custom Projection
Prototype Hardware
Smart Objects and Applications
Energy Aware KettleReview Augmented BooksSelf Describing Medicine Box
Qualitative Study
➡ 12	
   Par0cipants	
   (7	
   Male,	
   Age:	
   22	
   -­‐	
   38),	
  
recruited	
  through	
  unive...
Results: Usability Feedback (IBM Usability Questionnaire)
Results: NASA Task Workload Index
Implications
Decomposition of the Interaction Space
Implications
Fragmentation of Attention
Hand Eye Co-ordination
Mobility
Situational Disability
Application Context
Summary
➡ 	
  Two	
  interac0on	
  techniques	
  for	
  smart	
  objects.
➡ 	
  Magic	
  lens	
  metaphor	
  with	
  Mobil...
fahim.kawsar@gmail.com
http://www.fahim-kawsar.net
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

MobileHCI 2010 Talk on Smart Object Interaction

1,013 views
874 views

Published on

This talk compares two interaction techniques : mobile augmented reality and personal projection in the context of smart object and internet of things interaction.

Fahim Kawsar, Enrico Rukzio, and Gerd Korutem; "An Explorative Comparison of Magic Lens and Personal Projection for Interacting with Smart Objects "; 12th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI 2010), Lisboa, Portugal September 7th-10th, 2010.

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

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,013
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
132
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

MobileHCI 2010 Talk on Smart Object Interaction

  1. 1. An Explorative Comparison of Magic Lens and Personal Projection for Interacting with Smart Objects Fahim Kawsar, Enrico Rukzio, Gerd Kortuem Lancaster University
  2. 2. “A   computa0onally   instrumented   tangible   object   with  an  established  purpose   that   augments   human   percep0on  and  is    aware  of  its  opera0onal  situa0ons   and   capable   of   providing   supplementary   services   without   compromising   its   original   appearance   and   interac0on  metaphor  significantly.”  -­‐  (Kawsar,  2007) -­‐  Perceptual  Augmenta0on -­‐  Device  Centric  Situa0onal  Awareness -­‐  Supplementary  Services Smart Objects [Tokuda, 2004][Kawsar, 2005] [Ishii, 1997][Beigl 2001] [Ambient Device] [Intelligent Spoon, MIT] [Ambient Orb, NabazTag, LG Intelligent Fridge]
  3. 3. Design Constrains Form factor and interaction consistency need to be maintained, limiting the output modalities. [Tokuda, 2004][Ishii, 1997][Beigl 2001] [Ambient Orb, NabazTag, LG Intelligent Fridge]
  4. 4. Solution Space Intangible  representa0ons     are  usually  coupled  with  the   tangible  representa0ons  of   the  physical  smart  objects. [SixthSense, MIT] Projected Embedded Mobile Mediator [Tokuda, 2004] [Molyneaux, 2007] [Kawsar, 2005] [Perci, Broll, 2009] [Kawsar, 2007] [Ishii, 1997]
  5. 5. 0.065p/min Projector Phone Smart Object Magic Lens with Mobile Augmented Reality
  6. 6. 0.065p/min 90 Projector Phone Projected Screen 90o Smart Object Personal Projection with Pico Projector
  7. 7. iPhone 3GS + Optoma Projector NyARToolkit for Tracking Private APIs for Custom Projection Prototype Hardware
  8. 8. Smart Objects and Applications Energy Aware KettleReview Augmented BooksSelf Describing Medicine Box
  9. 9. Qualitative Study ➡ 12   Par0cipants   (7   Male,   Age:   22   -­‐   38),   recruited  through  university  mailing  lists. ➡ Own  phones  and  no  prior  experience  with   Augmented  Reality  or  Personal  Projec0on   Apps. ➡ Performed   3   iden0cal   tasks   with   2   interac0on  techniques.   ➡ Sor0ng  medicine  boxes. ➡  Searching  book  reviews. ➡  Es0ma0ng  energy  cost  of  a  keVle. Tasks
  10. 10. Results: Usability Feedback (IBM Usability Questionnaire)
  11. 11. Results: NASA Task Workload Index
  12. 12. Implications
  13. 13. Decomposition of the Interaction Space
  14. 14. Implications Fragmentation of Attention
  15. 15. Hand Eye Co-ordination
  16. 16. Mobility
  17. 17. Situational Disability
  18. 18. Application Context
  19. 19. Summary ➡  Two  interac0on  techniques  for  smart  objects. ➡  Magic  lens  metaphor  with  Mobile  Augmented  Reality   ➡  Personal  Projec0on  with  Pico  Projector  augmented  Phones Personal  Projec0on   Decomposes   the   Interac/on   Space,   requires   demanding   Hand-­‐Eye   Co-­‐ ordina/on   and   introduces   fragmenta/on   of   a:en/on,   however   it   yields     superior   performances   over   Magic   Lens   with   Situa/onal   Disabili/es   and   in   Social   Collabora0ve   Applica0ons  context.  
  20. 20. fahim.kawsar@gmail.com http://www.fahim-kawsar.net

×