Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.
Playing it Real Again:
A Repeated Evaluation of Magic Lens and Static
Peephole Interfaces in Public Space
Jens Grubert, Di...
(How) do individuals use a Magic Lens interface in
public space if they can use an established interface?
switchable
Inter...
Research Questions
 Confirmatory
 Which interface would be used longer?
 Which interface participants would prefer?
 E...
Design of Experiment
 Between-subjects design
 Factor: location
 PUV: public space
(transit area, Vienna), n=10
 PUG: ...
Findings
 Confirmatory
 Which interface would be used longer?
ML was used significantly less
compared to both PUG and LA...
Findings
 Confirmatory
 Which interface participants would prefer?
“I enjoyed using the ML view in the environment”
ML w...
Why those differences?
Spatial and Social Context: PUV
Spatial and Social Context: PUG
A closer look at the spatial and social settings
 PUV:
 Mainly waiting area
 Perceived social distance
 Passers-by par...
PUV
 241 passers-by
 More and longer intrusions
into social and personal space
PUV: 50%
PUG
 691 passers-by
 Very few,...
PUV: 15%
Intrusion of social space Intrusion of personal space
5%
Summary
 Repeated study on usage of ML and SP in public spaces
 Sign. differences in usage time and preference
 Potenti...
Future Work
 Increase ecological validity of results by
 Promoting intrinsic motivation to use the interfaces
(real user...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

ACM MobileHCI 2013 - Playing it Real Again: A Repeated Evaluation of Magic Lens and Static Peephole Interfaces in Public Space

473 views

Published on

Jens Grubert delivered the presentation on August 28th, 2013 during the 15th edition of MobileHCI, International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services in Munich, Germany.

ABSTRACT:
We repeated a study on the usage of a magic lens and a static peephole interface for playing a find-and-select game in a public space. While we reproduced the study setup and procedure the task was conducted in a public transportation stop with different characteristics. The results on usage duration and user preference were significantly different from those reported for previous conditions. We investigate possible causes, specifically the differences in the spatial characteristics and the social contexts in which the study took place.

Published in: Science, Technology, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

ACM MobileHCI 2013 - Playing it Real Again: A Repeated Evaluation of Magic Lens and Static Peephole Interfaces in Public Space

  1. 1. Playing it Real Again: A Repeated Evaluation of Magic Lens and Static Peephole Interfaces in Public Space Jens Grubert, Dieter Schmalstieg Institute for Computer Graphics and Vision, Graz University of Technology
  2. 2. (How) do individuals use a Magic Lens interface in public space if they can use an established interface? switchable Interfaces can be switched at any time. Magic Lens (ML) Static Peephole (SP)
  3. 3. Research Questions  Confirmatory  Which interface would be used longer?  Which interface participants would prefer?  Exploratory  (How) does the setting influence the usage?
  4. 4. Design of Experiment  Between-subjects design  Factor: location  PUV: public space (transit area, Vienna), n=10  PUG: public space (transit area, Graz), n=8  LAB: laboratory, n=8  Dependent variables  Usage duration  Preference PUV PUG LAB
  5. 5. Findings  Confirmatory  Which interface would be used longer? ML was used significantly less compared to both PUG and LAB (Kruskal-Wallis p < .001, post-hoc pairwise Mann-Whitney U) PUV PUG LAB 44% 76% 68%
  6. 6. Findings  Confirmatory  Which interface participants would prefer? “I enjoyed using the ML view in the environment” ML was enjoyed significantly less compared to PUG (Kruskal-Wallis p < .001, post-hoc pairwise Mann-Whitney U) PUV PUG LAB 3.5 5 4
  7. 7. Why those differences?
  8. 8. Spatial and Social Context: PUV
  9. 9. Spatial and Social Context: PUG
  10. 10. A closer look at the spatial and social settings  PUV:  Mainly waiting area  Perceived social distance  Passers-by partly in peripheral view of partic.  PUG:  Mainly transit area  Central square under CCTV  Passers-by behind partic.
  11. 11. PUV  241 passers-by  More and longer intrusions into social and personal space PUV: 50% PUG  691 passers-by  Very few, short interactions no interaction glimpses stay + watch > 5 sec 22% 8% PUG: 68% 30% 2%
  12. 12. PUV: 15% Intrusion of social space Intrusion of personal space 5%
  13. 13. Summary  Repeated study on usage of ML and SP in public spaces  Sign. differences in usage time and preference  Potential causes: spatial and social setting  However, many potential confounding factors: personality, demand characteristics, intrinsic motivation
  14. 14. Future Work  Increase ecological validity of results by  Promoting intrinsic motivation to use the interfaces (real users with real needs)  Decreasing awareness of study setting  Remote evaluations  Body-worn sensors  Increase external validity of results by  Re-running study  Narrow down potential confounding factors  More measurements: personality tests (BFI), demand characteristics (PARH)

×