Research Exploration of Tangible User Interfaces
1 like430 views
The document summarizes research on tangible user interfaces (TUIs). It discusses key works and definitions in the field from 1994 to 2014. It analyzes several TUI projects based on their representation (iconic or symbolic), interaction type (spatial, relational, constructive), and feedback modalities (visual, audio, tactile). Research areas are identified, such as feedback modalities and the relationship between tasks and interface tools. The analysis is used to hypothesize that feedback represented through physical manifestation may have better performance than visual feedback. An experiment is proposed to test this, investigating the influence of feedback on task completion time, error rates, and user satisfaction and preference.
![Ho: Feedback has no influence on overall performance with respect to task
completion. [1]
H1: Feedback represented through visual modality has better performance
rates than feedback through physical manifestation . [2]
H2: Feedback represented through visual feedback will have a higher user
preference than physical manifestation. [2]
1.
2.
Hausen, D., Wagner, C., Boring, S., & Butz, A. (2013, April). Comparing modalities and feedback for peripheral interaction. In CHI'13
Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1263-1268). ACM.
Shimojo, S., & Shams, L. (2001). Sensory modalities are not separate modalities: plasticity and interactions. Current opinion in
neurobiology, 11(4), 505-509.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/apurvamehulendsem1-131129153024-phpapp01/85/Research-Exploration-of-Tangible-User-Interfaces-55-320.jpg)
Research Exploration of Tangible User Interfaces
- 1. Research investigation and exploration of
- 2. Guided By: Keyur Sorathia, Asst. Prof Apurva Gupta 10020509 Mehul Agarwal 10020525
- 4. Scientific Discovery Phase 1 – Literature Survey Adventure Phase 2 – Analysis, Identification of research area & research question Evil Phase 3 – Experimentation, Plan for next semester
- 6. TANGIBLE Anything and everything which we can touch and feel
- 7. “A Tangible User Interface gives physical form to digital information and computation, salvaging the bits from the bottom of the water, setting them afloat, and making them directly manipulable with human hands.” -by Hiroshi Ishii
- 8. The TUI timeline past works in TUI Tangible Bits by Ishii TUI = Graspable Object + Ambient Media Emerging framework for TUI by Ullmer, Ishii TAC Paradigm MCRpd. Object coupling wiith digital rep. and digital info. Improvise mapping Emphasis on person-product interaction in Interaction frogger Tokens, Containers, Tools by Holmquist Mapping physical object to digital information. Another improved definition by Koleva et al. Graspable Interfaces by Fritzmaurice 1994 96 Shaer et al. 98 2000 02 Themes of TUI by Eva H. et al. 04 06 Monograph by Eva Hornecker et al. 08 10 12 2014
- 10. TUI Domain and context Spatial, Relational or Constructive Prototype (Evaluation and deployment) Iconic or Symbolic and Metaphors Method of Coupling Input Input Sensing Technology Embodiment Axis Feedback Broader domain of which project is a part of and the specific context in which it is used. Microcontroller, Camera Vision and RFID are 3 major technologies used for TUI projects. Tangible Tools Tokens and Containers Static or Dynamic Binding Embodiment Axis is relation between input and output device. TUI System Direct-Manipulation, Behavioral Specifications or Communication Channels Device and Interaction Language used for providing Input Device, modality and type of feedback Output Device and modality used for providing output
- 14. Analysis
- 15. Chemicable Tangible Rings TUIs have been mostly used in field of Entertainment, Play and Edutainment and Problem Solving and Planning Dirty Tangible Interfaces Tern Slingshot Music Mixing Interface LumiTouch Tangible Tiles
- 16. Chemicable Dirty Tangible Interfaces Urp (Iconic) Iconic representation is increasing in projects and whereas use of Symbolic representation is more or less constant. Ninja Tracks (Symbolic)
- 17. Tangible Rings (Spatial) Spatial properties are explored in many projects. This can be also due to spatial advantage of TUIs over GUI. But there are very few projects that use all the three (Spatial, Relational and Cognitive) capabilities of TUIs. Siftables (Relational) Tangible Triangles (Constructive)
- 18. Slurp (Audio + Visual + Tactile) Visual is more preferred medium for Output whereas tactile is preferred more for feedback. Almost 25% of projects read did not have any kind of feedback. Tangible Rings (Visual) Music Cubes (Audio) UnitedPulse (Tactile) Haptic Cues (Audio + Tactile) CurlyBot (Visual + Tactile) Music Mixing (Visual + Audio) Smell and taste were not chosen as feedback or output modality in any of the papers read.
- 19. Slurp (Audio + Visual + Tactile) Tangible Rings (Visual) Music Cubes (Audio) UnitedPulse (Tactile) Haptic Cues (Audio + Tactile) CurlyBot (Visual + Tactile) Music Mixing (Visual + Audio) Output- Visual followed by equal preference of auditory and tactile. Feedback- Tactile, Visual and then auditory. Combination of Visual + Auditory was preferred for Output while combination of Tactile + Auditory was preferred for feedback.
- 20. Research Areas
- 21. Feedback modalities in TUI system • • Slurp (Audio + Visual + Tactile) Tangible Rings (Visual) Haptic Cues (Audio + Tactile)
- 22. Relation between no. of task and TUI handle (tool) • • • Tangible Tiles Ninja Tracks Urp
- 23. Impact and importance of gestures in Tangible Interfaces. Slurp (Eyedropper Gesture) Tangible Rings (Lens Gesture) Music Cubes (Shake Gesture)
- 24. GUI specific task (Copy-Paste or Undo) for Tangible Interfaces
- 25. • • •
- 26. How the TUI system differ for novice user or experienced user? Can the same system perform easy to complex tasks or do we need to make modifications based on the level of experience of the user. Comparing TUI and GUI on following parameters: Computational, Work load, Task Complexity, Ergonomics, Entry threshold for the system, Contexts, Technological literacy of the user (as defined by innovation adoption curve) For above mentioned Is TUI better than GUI, or a hybrid solution makes a better option? Input and output of a system could be co-located and coincident or spaced differently in time and space. Study could be undertaken to understand how does concurrence of input/output space affects users perception, experience etc.
- 27. Feedback modalities in TUI system • • Slurp (Audio + Visual + Tactile) Tangible Rings (Visual) Haptic Cues (Audio + Tactile)
- 28. Feedback and Output Modalities
- 29. Visual is more preferred medium for Output whereas tactile is preferred more for feedback. Almost 25% of projects read did not have any kind of feedback. Smell and taste were not chosen as feedback or output modality in any of the papers read. Output- Visual followed by equal preference of auditory and tactile. Feedback- Tactile, Visual and then auditory. Combination of Visual + Auditory was preferred for Output while combination of Tactile + Auditory was preferred for feedback. Slurp (Audio + Visual + Tactile) Tangible Rings (Visual) Music Cubes (Audio) UnitedPulse (Tactile) Haptic Cues (Audio + Tactile) CurlyBot (Visual + Tactile) Music Mixing (Visual + Audio)
- 30. Statement From Research Papers • • • • • • • • •
- 31. Using Data obtained from analysis of projects and Points from the theoretical papers
- 32. Effectiveness of materiality as feedback modality over tactile, audio, etc. PneUI Inherent Feedback v/s Augmented FeedbackHow does user performance change? Slingshot Music Cubes Reactable Music Mixing (Advanced User) Importance of Feedback for first time user v/s experienced user?
- 33. Examples of Material Feedback v
- 34. Checking if the rice is cooked
- 35. Toothpaste
- 36. Fresh Fruit
- 37. Coconut
- 38. Piggy Bank
- 39. Batman’s Cape
- 40. Current Research in Material modality
- 41. InForm
- 42. Invisible Helmet
- 43. PneUI
- 44. PneUI
- 45. PneUI
- 46. Jamming User Interface (Transparent Haptic Lens)
- 47. Radical Atoms
- 48. Radical Atoms “Radical Atoms” is vision of human interactions with the future dynamic physical materials that are transformable, conformable and informable. Radical Atoms should fulfill the following three requirements: • Transform its shape to reflect underlying computational state and user input; • Conform to constraints imposed by the environment and user input; and • Inform users of its transformational capabilities (dynamic affordances).
- 49. Radical Atoms Digital information has physical manifestation so that we can interact with it.
- 52. Environment • • Contextual deployment Controlled lab Users • • • • • Tasks • • Tasks which justify change in texture Task which is symbolic Experimentation New users / conditioned users Illiterate-rural / Educatedurban Age group Gender Past experience Tests • • Parameters • • • • Time of task completion Time between 2 tasks Preference of the user Error rates in task execution • • Effectiveness of change in material properties as output modality over audio/visual output modality Time taken for user to understand the meaning of the output Effect of change in users (any point under the users mentioned above) Effect of change in environment (controlled / contextual)
- 53. Material Properties Color Rigidity (If the object is stiff or soft) Sound of object (wood and steel differ in sound) Texture Shape • Dimensional (changing length/breadth/height) • Organic (cube ---> amoeba-like shape) Smell of the object Weight State (Liquid/solid/gas) Temperature Colour Rigidity Sound of object Texture Dimensional Change Organic Change Smell of Object Weight State Change Temperature
- 54. Aim of the Experiment: 1. • • • 2. • 3. Investigation of (feedback) influence on overall performance on Task completion time Error Rates Satisfaction Understanding how well the user understands the task Task completion time User preference of feedback modalities Mode of the Experiment: 5 point Likert Scale
- 55. Ho: Feedback has no influence on overall performance with respect to task completion. [1] H1: Feedback represented through visual modality has better performance rates than feedback through physical manifestation . [2] H2: Feedback represented through visual feedback will have a higher user preference than physical manifestation. [2] 1. 2. Hausen, D., Wagner, C., Boring, S., & Butz, A. (2013, April). Comparing modalities and feedback for peripheral interaction. In CHI'13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 1263-1268). ACM. Shimojo, S., & Shams, L. (2001). Sensory modalities are not separate modalities: plasticity and interactions. Current opinion in neurobiology, 11(4), 505-509.
- 56. Feedback Serial task • • • • Gain Energy • • • • Burst Bubble Rainbow zone • •
- 58. Timeline January: Development of Experiment February: Experimentation March-April: Analysis and Paper Publication
- 59. Log on to: medium.com/interaction-modalities to watch the whole show
- 60. References