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.

Intuitive Interaction in Children

418 views

Published on

Research Proposal Presentation

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

  • Be the first to like this

Intuitive Interaction in Children

  1. 1. Intuitive Interaction in Children Shital Desai Assoc. Prof. AletheaBlackler : PrincipalSupervisor Prof. Vesna Popovic :AssociateSupervisor
  2. 2. Outline • Introduction • Literature Review • Research Problem • Research Design • Contributions and Outcomes 2
  3. 3. Introduction 3
  4. 4. Introduction • For a product and an interface to be intuitive to use, it should adapt to the context of use (Moran et al., 2001). • Intuitive-ness is a human quality developed over time (Dane et al., 2012) . 4
  5. 5. Introduction • Intuitive-use is an unconscious application of one’s prior knowledge (Mohs et al., 2006). • People use knowledge gained from their experiences using other products and features in order to intuitively interact with interfaces (Blackler et al., 2007). • Intuitive-ness is an attribute of an object (Norman, 2002). 5
  6. 6. Introduction • Physical materials can assist in building existing intuitions in children (Clement., 1994). • Intuitional foundations will develop if the objects are familiar to children. 6
  7. 7. Literature Review Embodied Intuitive Use Intuitive Interaction Embodied Cognition Infant Psychology Dynamic Systems Neuroscience Robotics Situated Cognition Distributed Cognition 7
  8. 8. Literature Review Embodied Intuitive Use Intuitive Interaction Embodied Cognition Cognition Intuition 8 Decision Making
  9. 9. Intuitive Interaction • Prior Knowledge. • Familiarity. • Image Schemas. • Diversity in prior knowledge with age. • Diversity in familiarity with age. 9
  10. 10. Intuitive Interaction • Prior Knowledge • Prior experience with similar products and features enables intuitive use of features. • Familiarity • Make function, location and appearance familiar for known features. • Use familiar things to demonstrate function, appearance and location of less known features. • Consistency and Redundancy. 10
  11. 11. Intuitive Interaction • Image Schemas- • Derived from sensori-motor knowledge from every day experiences (Hurtienne et al., 2007). Basic Space Container Identity Multiplicity Scale Process Force Attribute Container 11
  12. 12. Intuitive Interaction • Diversity in familiarity with respect to age. (Lawry et. al, 2011) • Older adults are familiar with products that they own. • Younger adults demonstrate higher levels of familiarity with the current interaction paradigm as compared to older adults. • Diversity in prior knowledge with respect to age. (Brandenburg et al., 2012) • Children were slower than adults with no prior knowledge who were slower than adults with prior knowledge. 12
  13. 13. Intuitive Interaction Continuum of knowledge in Intuitive Use adapted from Israel et al., (2009) 13 Culture Tools Expertise Sensorimotor Innate EncodingRetrieval DegreeofSpecialisation Max Max
  14. 14. Embodied Cognition 14
  15. 15. Embodied Cognition Real World Real Time Evolutionary Clark (2013) Lungarella (2003) Thelen (2010 Brooks (1999) Eelen et al., (2013) Kirsh (2013) Turner (2013) Hayles (2013) Anderson (2005) 15
  16. 16. Embodied Cognition Practical Environmental Kirsh (2013) Papert (1994) Kuniyoshi et al. (2004) Corr (2008) Bassilli (2013) Nathan (2008) Social Hutchins (2000) Saloman (1997) Cole et al., (1980) 16
  17. 17. Design Aspects of Embodiment Social Real World Real Time Evolutionary Practical Environmental Familiarity and Experiential Knowledge Scaffolds Affordance Emergence 17
  18. 18. Familiarity and Experiential Knowledge • Tangible interfaces are devices that give physical form to digital information (Ishii, 2008). • Natural mappings provide familiarity with the natural world (Klemmer et al., 2006). • Use of familiar objects in physical manipulations (Resnick, 1998). • Familiarity and experiential knowledge results in intuitive use of products. 18
  19. 19. Affordances • Property of the world that enables organisms to control their actions (Gibson, 1996). • Properties of objects and actors in the world (Snapp-childs et al., 2013). • Affordances of the familiar objects allow re- purposeful use of objects (De Valk et al, 2013). 19
  20. 20. Emergence 20
  21. 21. Scaffolds Galaxy S3 Tutorial 21
  22. 22. Research Problem • Embodiment provides natural and intuitive form of interaction (Ishii, 2008). • The term embodiment has been increasingly used in interaction design to mean bodily action and physicality. 22
  23. 23. Research Problem • Use of physical body movements as the basis for interactional metaphors that relate to abstract representations which in turn facilitate intuitive use (Antle et al., 2013) . • Aspects contributing to intuitive embodied mappings? 23
  24. 24. Research Questions • Main Research Question: • What is the role of embodiment in intuitive use in children? • Sub-questions: • What are the aspects of embodiment that contribute to intuitive use in children? • How can these aspects facilitate interaction in children? 24
  25. 25. Research Design Literature Review Experiment 1 • Pilot Study • Data Collection • Data Analysis Experiment 2 • Pilot Study • Data Collection • Data Analysis Findings and Conclusions 25
  26. 26. Data Collection Methods • Mixed Method Approach Observations with verbal protocols Interviews Questionnaires 26
  27. 27. Data Collection Methods • Pairing children in constructive interaction • Trans-generational pairing. • Acquaintance based pairing. • Same gender pairing. 27
  28. 28. Overview of Experiments Experiment 1 Investigate aspects of embodiment that contribute to intuitive use in children. Experiment 2 Investigate the ways in which the aspects of embodiment can facilitate interaction in children. 28
  29. 29. Experiment 1 Investigate aspects of embodiment that contribute to intuitive use in children. Pre-experiment Experiment Post-experiment Location home QUT People and Systems Lab and local state schools Participants 80-100 children (40-50 pairs) from local state schools (prep- grade 5) Duration 10 minutes 30 minutes 10-20 minutes Data Collection Technique Questionnaire Observations Semi-structured retrospective Interview Data Analysis Tool Excel, SPSS Observer XT, SPSS Atlas.Ti, SPSS Toy Selected Jenga 29
  30. 30. Experiment 2 Investigate the ways in which the aspects of embodiment identified in experiment 1 can facilitate interaction in children. Pre-experiment Experiment Post-experiment Location home QUT People and Systems Lab and local state schools Participants 80-100 children (40-50 pairs) from local state schools (prep- grade 5) Duration 10 minutes 30 minutes 10-20 minutes Data Collection Technique Questionnaire Observations Semi-structured retrospective Interview Data Analysis Tool Excel, SPSS Observer XT, SPSS Atlas.Ti, SPSS Toy Selected Will be decided based on Experiment 1 outcomes. Examples are Cubelets, Mackey Mackey 30
  31. 31. Looking Forward YEAR 1 LITERATURE REVIEW LOW RISK ETHICS APPROVAL ( approval no.: 1300000826) EDUCATION QLD APPROVAL (approval no.: 550/27/1392 PARTICIPANT RECRUITMENT YEAR 2 EXPERIMENT 1 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS EXPERIMENT 2 PARTICIPANT RECRUITMENT YEAR 3 EXPERIMENT 2 DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS THESIS WRITEUP 31 PUBLISHING
  32. 32. Research Contributions • New theory of embodied intuitive interaction. • Better understanding of how children interact with products. • New research and design methods. • Knowledge that is transferrable to other areas. 32
  33. 33. Research Outcomes • Design framework to develop intuitive products for children. • Children will be able to use their inherent intuitions and subsequently build upon them while interacting with products and features. • This will result in less cognitive load. • Children will not give up on products designed for them. 33
  34. 34. Thank You Questions?
  35. 35. Sample Size Estimation k = 2 n = 63.76561 f = 0.25 sig.level = 0.05 power = 0.8 35
  36. 36. Sample Size Estimation n = 50.1508 d = 0.5 sig.level = 0.05 power = 0.8 36
  37. 37. Sample Size Estimation Method Effect Size Significanc e (p) Power Sample Size/grou p One Way ANOVA 0.25 0.05 0.8 63.76561 One tailed t- test 0.5 0.05 0.8 50.1508 Correlatio n 0.3 0.05 0.8 84.74891 Chi- Square 0.3 0.05 0.8 87.20955 37
  38. 38. 38

×