exploiting the cognitive and social benefits of physically large displays desney s. tan thesis...

Exploiting the Cognitive and Social Benefits of Physically

Large DisplaysDesney S. Tan

Thesis Proposal

Thesis Committee:

Randy Pausch (Chair)Jessica HodginsScott Hudson

Mary Czerwinski, Microsoft Research

Desney S. Tan, Thesis

Proposal

2

Towards Human-Centered Computing

Human-ComputerInteraction

Software

Mechanical Issues

CognitiveIssues

SocialIssues

HardwareHardware

Software

Mechanical Issues

Physically Large Displays


Proposal

3

Ignore Science Fiction at Our Peril

Captain’s workplace on USS Enterprise


Proposal

4

Large Displays are Here

Gary Bishop’s workplace at UNC


Proposal

5

Small vs. Large Displays


Proposal

6

Thesis Statement

“Information elicits fundamentally different cognitive and social reactions when presented on large wall-sized displays as compared to smaller displays, even at identical visual angles.

These reactions can be quantified and understood in controlled experiments and can be exploited to design display systems that make users more productive than they were on traditional systems.”


Proposal

7

Outline

• Introduction• General approach• Spatial cognition• Social environments • More proposed work• Expected contributions• Proposed schedule• Conclude


Proposal

8

General Approach

Controlled Experiments/Evaluation

Formulate Design Principles

PrototypeSystems

IdentifyPromising Areas

Anecdotal Evidence

Prior TheoreticalResearch

HCI Iterative Design


Proposal

9

Outline

• Introduction• General approach• Spatial cognition• Social environments• More proposed work• Expected contributions• Proposed schedule• Conclude


Proposal

10

Experimental Setup

19" Desktop Monitor

LargeProjectionDisplay

14"

76"

136"

25"


Proposal

11

Experimental Setup (actual)

Small Display Large Display


Proposal

12

Initial Exploratory Experiments

• Reading task: No performance difference

• Spatial task: Large display 26% improvement


Proposal

13

Guilford-Zimmerman Spatial Task

1

2

3

4

5


Proposal

14

Spatial Task Procedure

• Paper-based instructions• 3 practice questions

– Feedback provided

• 30 questions in each display condition– 5 minutes for each condition– No feedback


Proposal

15

Spatial Task Performance

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

Small Display Large DisplayLarge

Display

Pro

port

ion

C

orr

ect

SmallDisplay

N=24


Proposal

16

Follow-up Experiments: Hypotheses

1. Egocentric strategy more efficient than exocentric one for spatial orientation task

– Telling users is sufficient to bias them

2. With no explicit strategy, display size biases users differently:

– Small displays → exocentric strategy– Large displays → egocentric strategy


Proposal

17

Three Different Instruction Sets

• Unbiased (original Guilford-Zimmerman):– “The boat is moving.”

• Egocentric bias:– “Imagine standing on a boat that is

moving.”

• Exocentric bias:– “Imagine standing on a boat that is firmly

attached to the ground. A painted image is moving in front of you.”


Proposal

18

Experimental Procedure

Exocentric Unbiased(Experiment 1)

Egocentric

Small

Large

Display(within Ss)

Instruction Set (between Ss)

• Design:

• 42 participants • Same setup and procedure as before


Proposal

19

Spatial Results

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

Exo GZ Ego

SmallLarge

Exocentric Instructions

UnbiasedInstructions

Egocentric Instructions

Pro

port

ion

C

orr

ect

DifferentNo Difference

No Difference

Sm

all

Dis

pla

y

Larg

e

Dis

pla

y

Sm

all

Dis

pla

y

Larg

e

Dis

pla

y

Sm

all

Dis

pla

y

Larg

e

Dis

pla

y


Proposal

20

Spatial Cognition: Proposed Work

• Examine interaction:– Will interaction create egocentric biases

that negate the effects of screen size?

• Generalize:– For what tasks does this hold?

• Specify concrete principles for designing large display interfaces and systems


Proposal

21

Outline



Proposal

22

Social Environments

• Exploit social cues induced by physical size:– Help people communicate– Increase productivity on individual tasks

• Must quantify in order to exploit• Information on large displays more

public– Ask user? Cannot guarantee accuracy– Video? Cannot disambiguate glance from

reading


Proposal

23

Measuring ‘Peeking’

• Implicit memory priming paradigm– Expose user to stimulus– Test user implicitly on how much

they’ve processed stimulus• Word Stem Completion• Eg. Mon_____

– Priming measured by faster response or higher frequency of stimulus • Monkey, money, monster, monday,

monopoly, …


Proposal

24

Experiment Materials

• Stimulus: 30 carefully chosen words– 7 e-mail subject lines– 2 e-mail messages

• Place e-mail where it can be seen by user

• Priming test to see if they’ve read it– Word stem completion


Proposal

25

Experimental Setup

156″

38″

16″27.5″

66″114″

Experimenter

Participant

Large ProjectionScreen

Small Desktop Monitor


Proposal

26

Implicit Memory Results

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

4.5

1 2Small Display Large Display

Avera

ge #

of

Targ

et

Word

s

N=12

N=12


Proposal

27

Other Converging Measures

• Users admitted reading text on:– Large Screen (7/12) vs. Small Screen

(3/12)

• Comments indicate reading someone else’s e-mail more acceptable on large screen

• Video shows users glanced at:– Large Screen (M=19 seconds) vs.

Small Screen (M=14 seconds)


Proposal

28

Social Environments: Summary

• Implicit memory priming paradigms effective for measuring if someone has peeked at text

• People are more willing to read someone else’s e-mail on large wall-sized displays than on smaller displays– Even with identical visual angles and

legibility


Proposal

29

Social Environments: Proposed Work

• Understand why large displays more public– Physical proximity of information to owner?– Wall-mounted nature of large display?

• Protect private information from prying eyes– Private information never placed on public screens– Interface conventions that convey level of privacy

• Facilitate ad hoc collaboration– Display systems that make people interact more


Proposal

30

Outline



Proposal

31

More Proposed Work

• Defining large displays:– Do users rely more on environmental or

optical cues in perceiving physical size?– What is the optimal physical size?

• Subjective responses:– Are there specific tasks that users prefer

performing on large displays?– Are users more motivated by large

displays?


Proposal

32

Outline



Proposal

33

Expected Contributions

• Fundamental understanding of physical display size on information perception and task performance

• New paradigms to measure display benefits

• Applications that large displays benefit• Principles for designing large display

systems


Proposal

34

Proposed Schedule

Completion:

MayFebruaryOctoberJuly

Present:March

Microsoft ResearchInternship

Social Environments

Thesis writing

Subjective Response

Spatial Cognition

Defining Large Displays


Proposal

35

Conclusions

• New Approach– Physical size of displays, even viewed at

identical visual angles, affects performance– Formulate design principles for building

large display systems

• Initial Results– Spatial cognition: Large displays bias users

into more efficient egocentric strategies– Social environments: Large displays are

more public


Proposal

36

Conclusions

• Proposed Work– Extend results and find concrete

applications in:• Spatial cognition • Social environments

– Define what makes large displays different– Understand subjective responses to large

displays


Proposal

37

Acknowledgments


Proposal

38

The End… Or has it just Begun?

Exploiting the Cognitive and Social Benefits of Physically

Large DisplaysDesney S. Tan

Thesis Proposal

Thesis Committee:

Randy Pausch (Chair)Jessica HodginsScott Hudson

Mary Czerwinski, Microsoft Research


Proposal

40

Visual Perception

Retinal imagePhysical object

Perceived image


Proposal

41

Display Garden


Proposal

42

Small vs. Large Displays (schematic)

76"

10.5"

136"

14"

57"

48"

25"

LargeProjectionDisplay

DesktopMonitor


Proposal

43

Reading Task

• 1 practice + 6 test GRE passages

• 24 participants• No significant differences in reading

speed or comprehension

10 pt 14 pt 18 pt

Small

Large

Display(within Ss)

Font Size (within Ss)


Proposal

44

Harder Guilford-Zimmerman Question

1

2

3

4

5


Proposal

45

Spatial Updating: New Paradigm

• Navigate through virtual ‘maze’– Spatially update mental map

• At the end, point at direction of objects

Start

End


Proposal

46

Spatial Updating: Design

• Hypothesis: Physically large displays provide cues that allow for more efficient egocentric navigation even when the user has active control of a first person viewpoint

Passive Active

Small

Large

Display(within Ss)

Control (within Ss)


Proposal

47

Spatial Updating: Prior Findings

• Egocentric strategy faster and more accurate than exocentric strategy

• The more cues present, the better– Proprioceptive cues better than visual

cues or imagination– Active control better than passive viewing


Proposal

48

Notification Study: Setup

103″

25″

Large Projection

Display66″

Small Desktop Monitors

16″


Proposal

49

Notification Study: Conditions

(a) Monitor: Near-within (b) Monitor: Near-across (c) Monitor: Far-across

(d) Projector: Near-within

(e) Projector: Near-across

(f) Projector: Far-across


Proposal

50

Notification Study: Tasks

• Primary task – Proofreading– Identify grammatical errors within text

article

• Secondary task – Notification Detection– Detect visual changes outside the focal

region

• Tertiary task – Text Comparison– Determine whether two sets of text were

identical


Proposal

51

Notification Study: Results

• No effect of physical discontinuities (monitor bezel or depth difference)

• Significant, though small (~10%) performance difference when tasks further apart (55 vs. 27 degrees), but only when further separated in depth


Proposal

52

Ch 3: Defining Large Displays

• Hypothesis 3a– Users rely on environmental cues more than

optical cues in perceiving physical size

• Hypothesis 3b– The physical size of a display is optimal when it

presents life-sized images


Proposal

53

Ch 4: Spatial Cognition

• Hypothesis 4a– Large displays better bias users into egocentric

representations than small displays, even when users are interacting with content

• Hypothesis 4b– Large displays improve performance on 3D

navigation tasks

• Hypothesis 4c– Egocentric representations afforded by large

displays transfer more readily to the real-world and are more efficient for training tasks


Proposal

54

Ch 5: Social Environments

• Hypothesis 5a– People treat information on large displays as

being public and are more likely to interact with it

• Hypothesis 5b– People working on displays that are publicly

visible are more likely to stay on task and be more productive

• Hypothesis 5c– Systems that are aware of their physical displays

as well as their social impact can automatically lay information out based on social context


Proposal

55

Attention and Human Memory

• Hypothesis 5d– Large displays arouse users more, better

capturing their attention as well as allowing them to remember more information presented on the displays


Proposal

56

Ch 6: Subjective Responses

• Hypothesis 6a– Users prefer performing tasks requiring overviews

of large areas on large displays; Users prefer performing tasks requiring detailed work on small displays

• Hypothesis 6b– Even with user interaction, there exists a (possibly

non-linear) function that describes viewing distance preferences as they relate to the size of displays

• Hypothesis 6c– Users find large displays more engaging and are

more motivated to perform tasks on them


Proposal

57

Size-Distance Invariance Hypothesis

• Given a retinal image, the ratio of perceived size (s) to perceived distance (d) is constant

S1S2

d1d2

α

tan α = s/d


Proposal

58

Ames Room Illusion

ActualPerson A

ApparentPerson A

Actual + ApparentPerson B

ViewingPeephole

ApparentShape of Room


Proposal

59

Risk Analysis

• Few significantly interesting effects– But: Prior work and anecdotal evidence indicates

there are– But: Already shown non-intuitive benefits– But: Work with Stage 3 (CMU), Large Display User

Experience (MSR), Proffitt Psychology Lab (UVA)

• Unable to reproduce and measure effects– But: Already shown this is possible– But: Work with Mary Czerwinski, Dennis Proffitt

• Create overly contrived studies, no real application– But: Work with Large Display User Experience (MSR)


Proposal

60

Interesting Work Beyond Scope

• Interaction of physical size with:– Field of view– Fidelity/Resolution– Information content

• System with fluid notion of displays• Interaction and visualization techniques• Brain imaging to support behavioral

results– fMRI, OTIS, …

Women Go With the (Optical) FlowDesney S. Tan, Mary Czerwinski, George Robertson 9:30am, Wednesday April 9th, 2003

Information Voyeurism: Social Impact of Physically Large Displays on Information PrivacyDesney S. Tan, Mary Czerwinski5:30pm, Tuesday April 8th, 2003

With Similar Visual Angles, Larger Displays Improve Spatial PerformanceDesney S. Tan, Darren Gergle, Peter Scupelli, Randy Pausch 10:00am, Wednesday April 9th, 2003


Proposal

62

That’s brilliant! I’m glad you’re on my

committee…

exploiting the cognitive and social benefits of physically large displays desney s. tan thesis...

Documents

thesis statementinformation

spatial task performancen

large wallsized displays

smaller displays

display systems

exocentric bias

egocentric bias

experimental setupdesney