Graphical > Tangible? What are their limitations? 93 94 - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation
Tangible User Interfaces Graphical > Tangible? What are their limitations? 93 94 Graphical > Tangible? Graphical > Tangible? Dynamicity, Flexibility Reality based interaction Price Compromise with software when it
93
94
95
http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1357054.1357089
96
the “real” world
design goal
97
98
E.g., gravity, friction, velocity Example of interfaces using users’ knowledge of naive physics?
99
E.g., relative position of body parts, range of motion, skills to coordinate movements (to walk, kick a ball) Example of interfaces using users’ body awareness and skills?
100
E.g., horizon gives a sense of directional information, lighting and shadow provide depth cues Example of interfaces using users’ environment awareness and skills?
101
E.g., verbal and non-verbal communication, exchange objects, ability for collaboration Example of interfaces using users’ social awareness and skills?
102
Expressive power ability to perform a variety of tasks within the application domain Efficiency ability to perform a task rapidly Versatility ability to perform many tasks from different application domains Ergonomics ability to perform a task without physical injury or fatigue Accessibility ability to perform a task when handicapped Practicality (designers) ability to produce the system
103
Case study: URP What themes does URP use?
104
What does URP sacrifice for which benefit?
105
E.g., induction hub with removable magnetic tangible knob
that bring tangibles closer to software
106
107
108
Illuminating Clay
109
SandScape
110
A Reconfigurable Ferromagnetic Input Device
111
Dynamically changeable buttons: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Smai_Z_galE
112
Shutters with shape memory alloy
113
114
115
116
117
118
with nanoscopic cells
119
Actuated workBench PICO
120
(several technologies)
121
122
3D Printing Pneumatic Device Controls with Variable Activation Force Capabilities https://youtu.be/-4gFYvhkz0Y
123
124
125 126
127
127
128
resolution: 2822 dpi
128
How much more efficient are users with a large slider than a small slider?
129
129
difficulty of the task scale of the slider movement time error rate
2cm/96px 4cm/192px 8cm/384px 2 (easy) 3 4 5 (difficult)
130
130
2 3 4 5 Index of Difficulty (easy to difficult) Movement time (s) 0.0 1.0 2.0 2cm/96px 4cm/192px 8cm/384px
131
+288px
131
Zoomed in is better not possible when workspace is restricted
132
132
133
Impact of resizing on performance
133
134
resize resize resize
Need to measure the limit of usability
resize r e s i z e resize resize resize resize resize resize r e s i z e resize resize r e s i z e resize resize resize resize resize resize r e s i z e resize r e s i z e resize resize resize resize resize resize r e s i z e resize r e s i z e resize resize resize resize resize resize r e s i z e
134
interval of difficulty’s change (s) Slider device performance (pursuit error)
Small (2cm/96px) Resizable Large (8cm/384px) 3 (difficult) 9 18 30 (easy)
135
135
136
3 9 18 30 2% 6% Interval of difficulty change (s) Median error (% of slider's range) 4% 8% Resizable slider Small slider Large slider
if no room available, resize
than every ~9 seconds
136
137
resize resize resize
~9s
resize r e s i z e resize resize resize resize resize resize r e s i z e resize resize r e s i z e resize resize resize resize resize resize r e s i z e resize r e s i z e resize resize resize resize resize resize r e s i z e resize r e s i z e resize resize resize resize resize resize r e s i z e
137
Flexibility will not be software’s monopoly and will reach Tangibles Radical Atoms & Perfect Red https://vimeo.com/61141209 Claytronics
http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~claytronics/movies/carDesign_12_vo_H264.mov
138