Blended Libraries (Harald Reiterer)


Published on

Chcete vědět víc? Mnoho dalších prezentací, videí z konferencí, fotografií i jiných dokumentů je k dispozici v institucionálním repozitáři NTK:

Would you like to know more? Find presentations, reports, conference videos, photos and much more in our institutional repository at:

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

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Blended Libraries (Harald Reiterer)

  1. 1. Blended Libraries   Future  user  interfaces  concepts  to   support  informa0on  seeking  and   collabora0on   Prof. Dr. Harald Reiterer University of Konstanz Chair for Human-Computer InteractionUniversity of Harald.Reiterer@uni-konstanz.deKonstanz   h"p://hci.uni-­‐  
  2. 2. Introduc7on  •  University  of  Konstanz,  Department   of  Computer  &  Informa0on  Science,   Head  of  the  Research  Group  Human-­‐ Computer  Interac0on  (since  1997)    •  Research  Topics:  Interac0on  Design,   Usability  Engineering,  Informa0on   Visualiza0on  •  Main  Goal:  Improving  the   naturalness  of  the  interac7on   between  human  and  computer   –  Mul0modal  Interac0on   –  Reality-­‐based  Interac0on     2  
  3. 3. UIs  for  Informa7on  Seeking  Systems  (ISS)  •  INSYDER  (ISS  for  the  Web)  –  EU  Project  Eureka  No.  29232   (1999-­‐2001)  •  INVISIP  (ISS  for  Geo-­‐Data)  –  EU  Project  No.  IST-­‐2000-­‐29640   (2002-­‐2004)  •  Mobile  Informa7on  Visualiza7on  (ISS  for  mobile  devices)  –   DFG  PhD  Graduate  Program  (2005-­‐2007)  •  MedioVis  (ISS  for  digital/mul0media  libraries)  –  DFG  LIS   4-­‐54281(3)  (2007-­‐2009)  •  Blended  Library  -­‐  Ministerium  für  Wissenschaa,  Forschung   und  Kunst,  Baden-­‐Würcemberg  (2011-­‐2013)    more  informa0on:  hcp://hci.uni-­‐     3  
  4. 4. Mo7va7on  Poor  Usability  of  OPACs  (2007)     4  
  5. 5. MedioVis  Demo  of  System  in  Use  Integration of Multimedia Metadata and Web Services   5  
  6. 6. Library of the Future –  Blend  Physical  &  Digital  Library   digital  library   physical  library   status-­‐quo     vision     co-­‐opera0on   co-­‐existance     6  
  7. 7. Blended  Library  –  Domains  of  Design   Individual  Interac7on:  Blending  real  world  interac0on  &  objects   (e.g.  scribbling  text,  sketching  objects,  grasping  tokens)  with   digital  ac0ons  &  representa0ons  (e.g.  to  move  digital  books  or   movies,  touch  items  of  a  facet  token  value  wheel).     Social  Interac7on  &  Communica7on:  Different  user  can  interact   at  the  same  0me  on  an  equal  manner  considering  real-­‐word   social  conven0ons  of  communica0on  (e.g.  mul0-­‐touch  displays   allows  mul0user  interac0on;  tokens  could  be  grasped  equally).     Workflow:  Fluid  change  between  real-­‐world  workflows  and   computer-­‐supported  workflows  (e.g.  search  in  a  bookshelf  –   search  on  a  Tabletop).       Physical  Environment:  Blending  the  power  of  real-­‐world  devices,   furniture,  rooms  &  buildings  with  the  power  of  virtual  means  (e.g.   combining  tables,  chairs,  walls,  floor,  ceiling,  light,  sound  with   mul0-­‐touch  planar,  spherical,  cylindrical,  curved  displays);  new   arrangements  of  place  and  space.       7  
  8. 8. What  kind  of  UI  for  different  Displays?   Large  –  small   Different  Input  modali0es     (e.g.  Touch,  Stylus,     Keyboard,  Mouse)   Real-­‐0me  Synchroniza0on   ?     8  
  9. 9. Zoomable  Object-­‐Oriented  Informa7on  Landscape     9  
  10. 10. Query  by  Real  World  Objects,  e.g.  DVD     10  
  11. 11. Query  by  Real  World  Objects,  e.g.  DVD     11  
  12. 12. Blended  Library  –  Coopera7ve  Search  with  Search  Tokens     12  
  13. 13. Blended  Library  –  Coopera7ve  Search  with  Search  Tokens     13  
  14. 14. User  Study    -­‐  Se_ng   Par7cipants:  75  par0cipants,  tested  in  25   randomly  selected  3-­‐person-­‐groups  (triads)   Between-­‐Subject  Design  (12  +  13  groups)   Two  UI  Condi7ons:   -­‐  Synchronized  PC  Interface   -­‐  Search  token  UI:  Physical  search  token  +      Mul0-­‐touch  Tabletop  Research  Ques7on:    What  impact  has  a  search  token  UI  on  the  •  Interac0on  Strategy,  •  Communica0on,  •  Roles  of  Collabora0on?       14  
  15. 15. Selected  Results  •  Interac7on:  Tokens  featured  more  parallel  interac0on.  •  Interac7on:  Tokens  enhance  the  coopera0on  between  the  par0cipants,  they   even  share  their  tokens!  •  Verbal  Communica7on:  no  significant  differences.  •  Non-­‐Verbal  Communica7on:  With  the  Search  Token  UI  gestures  and  posture   were  perceived  without  needing  to  look  up  from  the  display.  •  Roles  of  Collabora7on:  5  different  roles  iden0fied.  Search  Token  UI  allowed   ac0ve  lead  users  to  take  on  a  more  dominant  role  within  the  groups.  Even  the   passive  group  members  showed  a  more  ac0ve  role  compared  with  the  passive   users  in  the  synchronized  PC  condi0on.     15  
  16. 16. Tabletops  for  Co-­‐Located  Collabora7ve  Faceted  Search     16  
  17. 17. Tabletops  &  Collabora7ve  Search:  Why?  •  poten0ally  great  support  of  mechanics  of  collabora7on   [Gutwin  &  Greenberg  2000]  •  closer  face-­‐to-­‐face  collabora7on  and  more  equitable  working   style     [Rogers  &  Lindlay  2004]  •  increased  awareness  and     be"er  group  work  experience     [Amershi  &  Morris  2008]     17  
  18. 18. Facet-­‐Streams  Approach  •  Hybrid  Surfaces  [Kirk  et  al.  2009]   –  Combining  mul0-­‐touch   interac0on  with  tangible   interface  elements    •  Faceted  Search  [Hearst  2009]   –  itera0vely  filtering  the  whole   informa0on  space  based  on   metadata,  instead  of   popula0ng  a  result  set  based   on  keywords     18  
  19. 19. Facet-­‐Streams  Approach  Visual  &  tangible  filter/flow  metaphor  for  Boolean  logic    Redesign  of  [Young  &  Shneiderman  1993,  Hansaki  et  al.  2006]  for  tabletops     19  
  20. 20. Research  Ques7ons  •  Does  Facet-­‐Streams  turn  collabora0ve  product  search  into  a   fun  and  social  experience  with  increased  group  awareness?  •  Can  Facet-­‐Streams  support  the  great  variety  of  different   search  strategies  and  collabora0on  styles  in  different  teams   with  a  simple  but  flexible  design?    •  Can  Facet-­‐Streams  harness  the  expressive  power  of  facets   and  Boolean  logic  without  exposing  users  to  complex  formal   nota0ons?       20  
  21. 21. Study  1  -­‐  Facet  Streams  in  collabora7ve  use  •  72  par0cipants  in  24  groups  of  three  •  Students  and  faculty  staff  from  a  variety  of  fields  (only  2   computer  science  students)     21  
  22. 22. The  Web-­‐Interface     22  
  23. 23. Task  •  Goal:  Facilitate  compromise  nego,a,on  in  a  controlled   environment     23  
  24. 24. Results  -­‐  Strategies     24  
  25. 25. Results  –  Study  1  • Facet-Streams equally effective as established Web designs for faceted navigation (although it introduces novel and unfamiliar hybrid interaction techniques and visual metaphors).• Users perceived using Facet-Streams as a fun experience and considered its design as innovative.• Increased awareness and better mutual support among collaborators was observed.• Variety of different search strategies and collaboration styles could be realized with our design.• Seamless transitions between tightly-coupled collaboration and loosely-coupled parallel work.   25  
  26. 26. Study  2  –  Comprehensiveness  of  Boolean  logic  •  7  par0cipants  (no  computer  science  students)  •  Individual  sessions  (no  group  interac0on)  •  Focus:     –  Task  1:  Can  people  understand  and  learn  our  visual   representa0on  of  Boolean  logic  (without  being  made   aware  that  this  is  Boolean  logic!)?     –  Task  2:  Are  they  able  to  formulate  a    complex  and   evolving  query  based  on  natural  language  instruc7ons?     26  
  27. 27. Study  2  -­‐  Task  1    3  networks  3  Hotels  per  network  4  spots  per  hotel  =36  Ques0ons   Can  people  understand  and  learn  our  visual   representa0on  of  Boolean  logic  (without  being   made  aware  that  this  is  Boolean  logic!)?       27  
  28. 28. Results    Study  2  –  Task  1   Correct   Wrong  Total   234  (92,9%)   18  (7,1%)  AND   101  (96,2%)   4  (3,8%)  OR   133  (90,5%)   14  (9,5%)     28  
  29. 29. Study  2  –  Task  2  •  Are  people  able  to  formulate  a    complex  and  evolving  query  based  on   natural  language  instruc7ons?  •  Experimenter:  Role  of  a  costumer  –  User:  Role  of  a  travel  agent   –  „I  would  be  interested  in  a  hotel  with  a  price  between  50  and  120   EUR,  a  very  high  room  quality,  and  at  least  4  stars.“   –  „It  should  be  in  Spain.“   –  „Lets  include  those  hotels,  that  have  a  high  loca0on  quality  instead  of   a  high  room  quality  as  an  alterna0ve.  They  should  s0ll  have  the  other   features.“   –  …   –  Requirements:  Zero  Hit,  AND,  OR,  temporary  deac0va0on,  mul0ple   output  streams,  parallel  streams     29  
  30. 30. Results  Study  2  -­‐  Task  2  •  6  of  7  correctly  integrated  the  OR  connec0on        •  Boolean:  (room  quality  =  4-­‐6  OR  loca,on  quality  =  5-­‐6)  AND   (hotel  stars  =  4-­‐5)  AND  (country  =  Germany  OR  country  =   Spain)  AND  (features  =  Bar+Pool)     30  
  31. 31. Results  –  Study  2  • Users  were  able  to  quickly  learn  and  apply  our  visual  metaphor   for  Boolean  logic  • Users  succeeded  in  formula0ng  complex  Boolean  queries   based  on  natural  language  instruc0ons     31  
  32. 32. Natural  User  Interfaces  “The goal is to make computer interaction more like interacting with the real,non-digital world.” Reality-­‐Based  Interac0on  (Jacob  et  al.  2008)       Fast flick will keep User flicks screen to contacts scrolling left or right to see   next Album – all after finger has   been removed, as if objects in the list has mass. real word have spatial   relationships.   Natural gestures User do not share control the one single input applications. device – Tabletop allows to draw more directly on existing social interaction skills.   32  
  33. 33. Conclusion   Conclusions  •  •  Blended Library draw strength by building on users’ pre-existing knowledge of the everyday, non-digital library world.•  It employ experiences of reality and makes the interaction with the computer much more natural.•  It blends the benefits of digital libraries with the benefits of physical libraries to make visiting and using a library a new experience. [Microsoft Research UK 2008, Being Human: Human-Computer Interaction in the Year 2020]   33  
  34. 34. Papers  and  Videos  available  on    our  Website  hci.uni-­‐         Ques7ons?     34