![“A
computa0onally
instrumented
tangible
object
with
an
established
purpose
that
augments
human
percep0on
and
is
aware
of
its
opera0onal
situa0ons
and
capable
of
providing
supplementary
services
without
compromising
its
original
appearance
and
interac0on
metaphor
significantly.”
-‐
(Kawsar,
2007)
-‐
Perceptual
Augmenta0on
-‐
Device
Centric
Situa0onal
Awareness
-‐
Supplementary
Services
Smart Objects
[Tokuda, 2004][Kawsar, 2005]
[Ishii, 1997][Beigl 2001] [Ambient Device]
[Intelligent Spoon, MIT]
[Ambient Orb, NabazTag,
LG Intelligent Fridge]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/mobilehci-2010-101222102736-phpapp01/75/MobileHCI-2010-Talk-on-Smart-Object-Interaction-2-2048.jpg)
![Design Constrains
Form factor and interaction consistency need to be
maintained, limiting the output modalities.
[Tokuda, 2004][Ishii, 1997][Beigl 2001]
[Ambient Orb, NabazTag,
LG Intelligent Fridge]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/mobilehci-2010-101222102736-phpapp01/75/MobileHCI-2010-Talk-on-Smart-Object-Interaction-3-2048.jpg)
![Solution Space
Intangible
representa0ons
are
usually
coupled
with
the
tangible
representa0ons
of
the
physical
smart
objects.
[SixthSense, MIT]
Projected
Embedded
Mobile Mediator
[Tokuda, 2004]
[Molyneaux, 2007]
[Kawsar, 2005]
[Perci, Broll, 2009] [Kawsar, 2007]
[Ishii, 1997]](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/mobilehci-2010-101222102736-phpapp01/75/MobileHCI-2010-Talk-on-Smart-Object-Interaction-4-2048.jpg)
Uploaded byFahim Kawsar
MobileHCI 2010 Talk on Smart Object Interaction
The document compares two interaction techniques for smart objects: the magic lens metaphor using mobile augmented reality and personal projection using a pico projector. A study involving participants assessed the usability and workload of both techniques, revealing that personal projection, despite requiring intense hand-eye coordination and causing attention fragmentation, performed better in scenarios involving situational disabilities and collaborative applications. The findings emphasize the importance of understanding interaction design constraints and the impact of physical form factors on user experience.
More Related Content
Similar to MobileHCI 2010 Talk on Smart Object Interaction
MobileHCI 2010 Talk on Smart Object Interaction
- 1. An Explorative Comparisonof Magic Lens and Personal Projection for Interacting with Smart Objects Fahim Kawsar, Enrico Rukzio, Gerd Kortuem Lancaster University
- 2. “A computa0onally instrumented tangible object with an established purpose that augments human percep0on and is aware of its opera0onal situa0ons and capable of providing supplementary services without compromising its original appearance and interac0on metaphor significantly.” -‐ (Kawsar, 2007) -‐ Perceptual Augmenta0on -‐ Device Centric Situa0onal Awareness -‐ Supplementary Services Smart Objects [Tokuda, 2004][Kawsar, 2005] [Ishii, 1997][Beigl 2001] [Ambient Device] [Intelligent Spoon, MIT] [Ambient Orb, NabazTag, LG Intelligent Fridge]
- 3. Design Constrains Form factorand interaction consistency need to be maintained, limiting the output modalities. [Tokuda, 2004][Ishii, 1997][Beigl 2001] [Ambient Orb, NabazTag, LG Intelligent Fridge]
- 4. Solution Space Intangible representa0ons are usually coupled with the tangible representa0ons of the physical smart objects. [SixthSense, MIT] Projected Embedded Mobile Mediator [Tokuda, 2004] [Molyneaux, 2007] [Kawsar, 2005] [Perci, Broll, 2009] [Kawsar, 2007] [Ishii, 1997]
- 5. 0.065p/min Projector Phone Smart Object Magic Lens withMobile Augmented Reality
- 6.
- 7. iPhone 3GS +Optoma Projector NyARToolkit for Tracking Private APIs for Custom Projection Prototype Hardware
- 8. Smart Objects andApplications Energy Aware KettleReview Augmented BooksSelf Describing Medicine Box
- 9. Qualitative Study ➡ 12 Par0cipants (7 Male, Age: 22 -‐ 38), recruited through university mailing lists. ➡ Own phones and no prior experience with Augmented Reality or Personal Projec0on Apps. ➡ Performed 3 iden0cal tasks with 2 interac0on techniques. ➡ Sor0ng medicine boxes. ➡ Searching book reviews. ➡ Es0ma0ng energy cost of a keVle. Tasks
- 10. Results: Usability Feedback(IBM Usability Questionnaire)
- 11. Results: NASA TaskWorkload Index
- 12.
- 13. Decomposition of theInteraction Space
- 14.
- 15.
- 16.
- 17.
- 18.
- 19. Summary ➡ Two interac0on techniques for smart objects. ➡ Magic lens metaphor with Mobile Augmented Reality ➡ Personal Projec0on with Pico Projector augmented Phones Personal Projec0on Decomposes the Interac/on Space, requires demanding Hand-‐Eye Co-‐ ordina/on and introduces fragmenta/on of a:en/on, however it yields superior performances over Magic Lens with Situa/onal Disabili/es and in Social Collabora0ve Applica0ons context.
- 20.