tangible user interfaces (tui’s). what are tangible user interfaces? physical worlddigital world...
TRANSCRIPT
4
Precursors
• E.g. Marble answering machine, Durrell Bishop, Royal College of Art, Interaction Design, 1992. http://vimeo.com/19930744
5
Early Work
• Fitzmaurice et al. 1995 – Graspable user interfaces http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V-TGEe-Imro
• Ishii et al. 1997 - Tangible bits
6
Recent work
• E.g. Lumino, Baudish et al, 2010 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tyBbLqViX7g
• E.g. Portico, Avrahami et al, 2011 http://vimeo.com/29359319
7
Benefits of TUI’s (Ishii 2008)
1. Double interaction loop - immediate tactile feedback
2. Persistency of tangibles3. Coupled input/output space4. Special vs generic purpose 5. Space-multiplexed vs time-
multiplexed inputAlso fun + engaging!
8
• Sense position & orientation on touch technology
• Add intelligent drawing support
• How can they be best combined with multi-touch surfaces for enjoyable and productive interaction?
Can we connect these physical drawing tools to the digital space?
9
Our Approach
• Design– Tangible hardware
• Implementation– Recognizer– Drawing application
• Usability evaluation
Capacitive Touch (CapTUI) Infrared Touch (TanGeo)– Ryan Tan & Bryan Chen– Rachel Blagojevic
– Jacky Zhen
10
CapTUI Technology – Capacitive
• Small touch screens e.g. iPad, smart phones etc…
• Touch detection via electrical pulse from fingers/conductive material
13
Implementation: Tangible Recognition
• Tangible ID– 3 point (min) unique patterns
Valid patterns Invalid patterns
14
Implementation: Tangible Recognition
• Learning phase• Recognition phase– Touch point detection– Match point distances to saved tangible ID’s – No way of knowing which part of the touch point
is in contact (+/- error)
15
Implementation: Drawing Application
• Beautification
Ink-to-edge snapping Corner snapping & Length visualization
18
Evaluation
• First iteration: usability– Simple drawing tasks
• Second iteration: comparative study– Recognizable vs non recognizable drawing tools on
screen
19
Usability Evaluation
• Can users construct simple drawings using the tangibles? Is the system usable?
• 10 participants• 5 simple drawing tasks
20
Usability Evaluation: Results
• First exploration– Technology works– Is usable for simple drawings
• Tangible detection problems– Stability– Consistent circuit– Finger to tangible contact– Friction with screen– Comfortable drawing
• Tangible outline helpful – recognition indicator• Drawing guides needed
21
Comparative Study
• Does CapTUI assist users to easily draw precise geometric drawings
• Recognizable vs non recognizable drawing tools on screen
• 12 Participants
22
Comparative Study: Results
• CapTUI rated significantly higher than Paint overall• Visual guides helpful for precise drawing
– significantly lower average angle error. • Participants enjoyed using CapTUI significantly more • Participants believed that CapTUI produces significantly
more tidy drawings than Paint.• Making fine grained movements with the tangibles difficult• Tangible design still needs work
– consistent detection– accurate positioning
23
Tangeo Technology – Infrared
• Table tops e.g. Microsoft Surface 2.0• PixelSense - Touch detection via infrared
reflection for each pixel• Image processing on detected pixels• Identifies finger/blobs/tags
26
Implementation: Tangible Recognition
• Learning phase• Recognition phase– Detection via
custom tags– Use tag location to
get tangible outline– Use thresholds for
blob sizes
28
Implementation: Drawing Application
• Visual Guides– Tangible outline– Angle visualisation– Length visualisation– Ink beautification • corner snapping • ink-to-edge snapping
29
Usability Evaluation
• Can users construct simple geometric drawings using Tangeo? Is the system usable?
• 2 phase cycle• 8 participants• 4 drawing tasks
30
Usability Evaluation: Results
• Enjoyable / easy to use the tangibles• Good recognition• Visual guides helpful and easy to understand• Drawing accuracy – less positive perception• Add stylus for drawing
31
References• Marble answering machine - Crampton Smith, G. The Hand That Rocks the Cradle. I.D., May/June 1995, pp. 60-
65.• Fitzmaurice G. W., H. Ishii, and W. Buxton. 1995. Bricks: laying the foundations for graspable user interfaces.
In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '95), ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., New York, NY, USA, 442-449.
• Ullmer B. and H. Ishii. 1997. The metaDESK: models and prototypes for tangible user interfaces. In Proceedings of the 10th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology (UIST '97). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 223-232.
• Ishii H., B. Ullmer, Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, p.234-241, March 22-27, 1997, Atlanta, Georgia, United States
• Ishii H., 2008. Tangible bits: beyond pixels. In Proceedings of the 2nd international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction (TEI '08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, xv-xxv.
• Baudisch P., T. Becker, and F. Rudeck. 2010. Lumino: tangible building blocks based on glass fiber bundles. In ACM SIGGRAPH 2010 Emerging Technologies (SIGGRAPH '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 16 , 1 pages.
• Avrahami D., J. Wobbrock, and S. Izadi. 2011. Portico: tangible interaction on and around a tablet. In Proceedings of the 24th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology (UIST '11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 347-356.
• Blagojevic R., X. Chen, R. Tan, R. Sheehan, and B. Plimmer. 2012. Using tangible drawing tools on a capacitive multi-touch display. In Proceedings of the 26th Annual BCS Interaction Specialist Group Conference on People and Computers (BCS-HCI '12). British Computer Society, Swinton, UK, UK, 315-320.
• Zhen, J. S., R. Blagojevic and B. Plimmer (2013). Tangeo: Geometric Drawing with Tangibles on an Interactive Table-Top. CHI 2013. Paris France, ACM. WIP: in press.
• Shaer O. and E. Hornecker (2010) "Tangible User Interfaces: Past, Present and Future Directions", Foundations and Trends® in Human-Computer Interaction: Vol. 3: No 1-2, pp 1-137.