Assessing Feedback for Indirect Shared Interaction

800 views

Published on

Just skyped this presentation to OTM-MONET in Greece, about the paper:
http://www.mendeley.com/research/assessing-feedback-indirect-shared-interaction/

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

No Downloads
Views
Total views
800
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
1
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Assessing Feedback for Indirect Shared Interaction

  1. 1. 1  Assessing  Feedback  for  Indirect  Shared  Interac5on  with  Public   Displays       Jorge  C.  S.  Cardoso  –  jorgecardoso@ieee.org   Rui  José  –  rui@dsi.uminho.pt    
  2. 2. 2   Our  work  •  Study  and  develop  an  interacAon  abstracAon     –  We  are  starAng  with  the  concept  of  widget  and   adapAng  it  to  the  public  display  seEng  •  In  this  paper,  we  focused  on  the  feedback  to   user  input  
  3. 3. Target  public  display  applicaAon   3   environment  •  Environment  for  public  display  applicaAons   –  MulAple  displays     –  MulAple  applicaAons  scheduled  for  each  display   –  MulAple  interacAon  mechanisms   –  MulAple  interacAon  points  for  an  applicaAon   •  Personal  mobile  devices,  dedicated  input  devices   –  Ubiquity  of  interacAon  and  informaAon     •  Not  focused  only  on  the  public  display:   •  interacAon  can  happen  even  if  the  applicaAon  is  not   currently  being  shown  on  the  public  display   •  ApplicaAons  can  have  mulAple  informaAon  outlets:  web,   mobile  device,  etc.  
  4. 4. 4   MoAvaAon  •  InteracAon  is  import  for  the  success  of  public   displays,  but  •  It  is  sAll  hard  to  incorporate  interacAvity  into   public  display  applicaAons,  because  •  “At  present,  there  are  no  accepted  standards,   paradigms,  or  design  principles  for  remote   interacAon  with  large,  pervasive  displays.”    [1]  
  5. 5. 5   MoAvaAon  •  There  are  no  interacAon  abstracAons  for   public  displays  that  take  into  account:   –  the  heterogeneous  input  mechanisms   –  the  mulA-­‐user,  shared  and  possibly  remote   interacAon  environment  
  6. 6. 6   Widgets  •  Our  iniAal  set  of  widgets  maintain  the   graphical  affordances  of  the  desktop  widgets  •  But  they  can  be  interacted  with  in  a  very   different  way   –  They  have  explicit,  human-­‐readable,  ids  that  can   be  used  with  several  input  mechanisms    
  7. 7. 7   Study  •  Widgets  should  provide  system-­‐level  input   feedback     –  But  given  the  mulA-­‐user,  shared,  remote  interacAon   seEng,  we  must  develop  a  feedback  mechanism   specific  for  public  displays     •  Independent  of  the  input  mechanism   •  FuncAoning  as  a  sharing  mechanism  to  enAce  further   interacAon  [2]  •  The  purpose  of  this  study  was  to  assess  how  well   users  understood  the  feedback  mechanism    
  8. 8. 8  Widgets  
  9. 9. 9   Feedback  Mechanism  •  The  feedback  is  shown  directly  on  the  public  display   (inside  or  near  the  graphical  representaAon  of  the   widget)   –  It  includes  a  masked  idenAficaAon  of  the  user  that   interacted     –  It  also  includes  an  indicaAon  of  whether  the  input  was   accepted  (widgets  may  be  temporarily  disabled  and  not   accept  the  input)  •  We  tested  three  variaAons   –  Internal:  Uses  the  text  components  of  the  widget   –  External:  Uses  a  pop  up  for  every  input   –  External-­‐CumulaAve:  Uses  the  same  pop  up  for  the  all   inputs  within  a  small  Ame  period  
  10. 10. 10   Feedback  Internal   External   External-­‐CumulaAve  
  11. 11. 11   Procedure  •  We  asked  parAcipants  to  interact  with  mockup  applicaAons  and  interpret  the   feedback  •  Using  SMS  messages  to  interact     –  The  feedback  used  the  phone  number  to  idenAfy  the  user  •  Three  groups  of  users  were  subjected  to  the  three  variaAons  •  Three  parts   –  Single  user  interacAng  with  the  display   –  MulAple  users  interacAng  with  the  display   –  QuesAonnaire  to  assess  subjecAve  preferences  •  We  asked  users  to  interact  and  interpret  the  feedback   –  And  measured  the  errors  in  their  answers  •  We  also  asked  them  to  compare  the  three  variaAons  and  tell  us  which  one  they   preferred  
  12. 12. 12   Part  1  and  2:  Error  results   Part 1 − Single−user Part 2 − Multi−user3.0 8 62.0 41.0 20.0 0 INT EXT INT EXT E−C
  13. 13. 13   Part  3   100 INTERNAL EXTERNAL 80 EXTERNAL_CUMULATIVE 60% 40 20 0 BEST WORST
  14. 14. 14   Conclusions  •  The  External-­‐CumulaAve  was  clearly  preferred   and  had  the  best  performance  •  This  study  was  a  controlled  experiment  so  we   sAll  need  a  real  seEng  evaluaAon,  but  the   results  seem  to  indicate  that,  generally,  the   feedback  mechanism  is  understandable.  
  15. 15. 15   References  •  [1]  Bellucci,  A.,  Malizia,  A.,  Diaz,  P.,  &  Aedo,  I.  (2010).  Human-­‐Display  InteracAon   Technology:  Emerging  Remote  Interfaces  for  Pervasive  Display  Environments.  IEEE   Pervasive  CompuAng,  9(2),  72-­‐76.  IEEE.  doi:10.1109/MPRV.2010.30  •  [2]  Brignull,  H.,  &  Rogers,  Y.  (2003).  EnAcing  People  to  Interact  with  Large  Public   Displays  in  Public  Spaces.  In  M.  Rauterberg,  M.  Menozzi,  &  J.  Wesson  (Eds.),   INTERACT’03  (pp.  17-­‐24).  IOS  Press.  Retrieved  from  hpp://dblp.uni-­‐trier.de/db/ conf/interact/interact2003.html#BrignullR03  
  16. 16. 16   The  End  •  Thank  you.  

×