Playing it Real: Magic Lens and Static Peephole Interfaces for Games in a Public Space


Published on

Jens Grubert deliver the presentation on September 29th, 2012 during the 14th edition of MobileHCI, International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services in San Francisco, California, USA.

Magic lens and static peephole interfaces are used in numerous consumer mobile phone applications such as Augmented Reality browsers, games or digital map applications in a variety of contexts including public spaces. Interface performance has been evaluated for various interaction tasks involving spatial relationships in a scene. However, interface usage outside laboratory conditions has not been considered in depth in the evaluation of these interfaces.
We present findings about the usage of magic lens and static peephole interfaces for playing a find-and-select game in a public space and report on the reactions of the public audience to participants‟ interactions.
Contrary to our expectations participants favored the magic lens over a static peephole interface despite tracking errors, fatigue and potentially conspicuous gestures. Most passersby did not pay attention to the participants and vice versa. A comparative laboratory experiment revealed only few differences in system usage.

Published in: Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

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

No notes for slide

Playing it Real: Magic Lens and Static Peephole Interfaces for Games in a Public Space

  1. 1. Playing it Real: Magic Lens and Static Peephole Interfaces for  Games in a Public Space Jens Grubert1, Helmut Munz, Ann Morrison2, Gerhard Reitmayr11Institute for Computer Graphics and Vision, Graz University of Technology2Department of Architecture, Design and Media Technology, Aalborg University
  2. 2. Goals Picture of smartphone interaction at pt stop2 Jens Grubert |
  3. 3. (How) do individuals use a  Magic Lens interface in public space if they can use an established interface?3 Jens Grubert |
  4. 4. Research Questions (How) do individuals use a Magic Lens interface in public space if they can use an established interface? Magic Lens Static Peephole Interfaces can be switched at any time. Which interface would be used longer?4 Jens Grubert |
  5. 5. Research Questions (How) do individuals use a Magic Lens interface in public space if they can use an established interface? Reactions from passers‐by?5 Jens Grubert |
  6. 6. Research Questions (How) do individuals use a Magic Lens interface in public space if they can use an established interface? Differences in usage between public space and  laboratory?6 Jens Grubert |
  7. 7. Study Design Quantitative and qualitative methods7 Jens Grubert |
  8. 8. Study Design Quantitative and qualitative methods  Between‐subjects design   IV: public space, laboratory  DV: usage time of interface8 Jens Grubert |
  9. 9. Study Design Quantitative and qualitative methods  Between‐subjects design   IV: public space, laboratory  DV: usage time of interfaces  Video‐recording and coding, semi‐structured interviews9 Jens Grubert |
  10. 10. Study Design  find and select game  in front of A0 poster  free choice of interface  switching possible at any time10 Jens Grubert |
  11. 11. Magic Lens11 Jens Grubert |
  12. 12. Static Peephole12 Jens Grubert |
  13. 13. switching interfaces13 Jens Grubert |
  14. 14. Participants  16 participants (8 female, 8male), 21‐30 years  Design, IT, social science background  Mostly non‐gamers, had contact with AR before ProcedureIntro Training Game Interviews Performance 15 targets x 8 levels (15-20 min) 14 Jens Grubert |
  15. 15. 15 Jens Grubert |
  16. 16. Data Collection Video‐recording for main phase (2 hours per location) Questionnaires Device logging  usage times  tracking data  touch events16 Jens Grubert |
  17. 17. Hypotheses H1: ML will be used less often in the public  setting than in the laboratory  H2: ML will be used less as the game progresses 17 Jens Grubert |
  18. 18. Findings ML was used most of the time (76% in public, 68% in lab)18 Jens Grubert |
  19. 19. Findings H1: ML will be used less often in the public  setting than in the laboratory  H2: ML will be used less as the game progresses 19 Jens Grubert |
  20. 20. Findings20 Jens Grubert |
  21. 21. Findings H1: ML will be used less often in the public  setting than in the laboratory  H2: ML will be used less as the game progresses21 Jens Grubert |
  22. 22. Participants used Magic Lens more Enjoyment “you are much more in the game” Novelty  “I wanted to try out  Augmented Reality [ML], as I  can use the map [SP] view all  the time”. Overview22 Jens Grubert |
  23. 23. Participants used Static Peephole ... When tracking failed Speed Fatigue23 Jens Grubert |
  24. 24. Public Reactions  691 people passing by24 Jens Grubert |
  25. 25. Public Reactions 25 Jens Grubert |
  26. 26. Public Reactions 26 Jens Grubert |
  27. 27. Public Reactions 27 Jens Grubert |
  28. 28. Public Reactions 28 Jens Grubert |
  29. 29. Usage beyond Study29 Jens Grubert |
  30. 30. (How) do individuals use a  Magic Lens interface in public space if they can use an established interface?30 Jens Grubert |
  31. 31. Summary Magic Lens used more Interfaces combined for various reasons Most passers‐by did not notice No differences in usage between public space ‐ lab31 Jens Grubert |
  32. 32. Future Directions Less obtrusive  evaluation methodologies Longer usage times Different tasks More usage contexts  Malls  Public transportation32 Jens Grubert |
  33. 33. Thank you Questions? This work was supported by the Austrian National Research Funding Agency (FFG) in the SmartReality project.33 Jens Grubert |