Usability Aspects of Collaborative planning: current problem areas - - PDF document

usability aspects of
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Usability Aspects of Collaborative planning: current problem areas - - PDF document

Overview What is Tangible Interaction? Usability Aspects of Collaborative planning: current problem areas Our Tangible User Interface (TUI) Tangible Interaction Advantages of tangible interaction to collaborative planning My


slide-1
SLIDE 1

Morten Fjeld

Morten Fjeld - Tecfa Workshop 2001

w w w . f j e l d . c h

1/24

Usability Aspects of

Tangible Interaction

  • Dr. Morten Fjeld, IHA, ETH Z

Morten Fjeld - Tecfa Workshop 2001

w w w . f j e l d . c h

2/24

Overview

  • What is Tangible Interaction?
  • Collaborative planning: current problem areas
  • Our Tangible User Interface (TUI)
  • Advantages of tangible interaction to collaborative planning
  • My main contributions to the research field of TUI design:

i) Navigation tools and ii) Usability evaluation

  • My further contributions to the BUILD-IT project
  • Design conclusions
  • Future challenges in field of TUI research

Morten Fjeld - Tecfa Workshop 2001

w w w . f j e l d . c h

3/24

The subject of Tangible Interaction is the design of interfaces between humans and digital information, making use of physical objects.

"People have developed sophisticated skills for sensing and

manipulating their physical environments." (Ishii, 2001) Tangible User Interfaces (TUIs) aim to draw on these skills by giving physical form to digital information, seamlessly coupling the real world with virtual worlds.

What is Tangible Interaction?

Morten Fjeld - Tecfa Workshop 2001

w w w . f j e l d . c h

4/24

Collaborative Planning: Current Problem Areas

  • Mostly single-user work-stations
  • Little use of everyday gestures and two-handed skills
  • Little input using physical space and graspable devices
  • Low degree of immersion; less spatial information
  • Little haptic feedback; less spatial embodiment
  • The use of CAD systems requires extensive training
  • Access to the design process requires substantial skills

Morten Fjeld - Tecfa Workshop 2001

w w w . f j e l d . c h

5/24

Our TUI 1/2: The BUILD-IT System

Morten Fjeld - Tecfa Workshop 2001

w w w . f j e l d . c h

6/24

Our TUI 2/2: Tangible Interaction Using Bricks

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Morten Fjeld

Morten Fjeld - Tecfa Workshop 2001

w w w . f j e l d . c h

7/24

Advantages of Tangible Interaction to Collaborative Planning

  • Co-located groupware with multi-user, concurrent input
  • Draws on everyday gestures and two-handed skills
  • Uses physical space and tangible input devices
  • Physical interaction supports embodied computation
  • Immersion supports spatial information and 3D feel
  • Little training required, typically 5 - 10 minutes
  • Gives most kinds of users access to design processes

Morten Fjeld - Tecfa Workshop 2001

w w w . f j e l d . c h

8/24

  • Design and implementation of navigation tools *
  • Usability evaluation of navigation tools *

* (Will be focused on next)

  • A theoretical framework for TUI design
  • A set of design guidelines for TUIs

My Main Contributions to the Research Field of TUI design

Morten Fjeld - Tecfa Workshop 2001

w w w . f j e l d . c h

9/24

Navigation 1/5: The Need for Navigation

+ shift rotation zoom

  • tilt

roll

Morten Fjeld - Tecfa Workshop 2001

w w w . f j e l d . c h

10/24

Navigation 2/5: Positioning of a Virtual Scene

Control of the positioning of a virtual scene may employ two alternative fundamental methods:

  • Scene Handling (SH), or
  • Viewpoint Handling (VH)

Morten Fjeld - Tecfa Workshop 2001

w w w . f j e l d . c h

11/24

Viewpont Handling (VH) Scene Handling (SH)

Navigation 3/5: Positioning Methods

Morten Fjeld - Tecfa Workshop 2001

w w w . f j e l d . c h

12/24

Navigation 4/5: Scene Handling in Plan View

Scene selection Scene rotation and zoom

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Morten Fjeld

Morten Fjeld - Tecfa Workshop 2001

w w w . f j e l d . c h

13/24

Navigation 5/5: Viewpoint Handling in Plan View

Viewpoint selection Viewpoint rotation and zoom

Morten Fjeld - Tecfa Workshop 2001

w w w . f j e l d . c h

14/24

Video

Morten Fjeld - Tecfa Workshop 2001

w w w . f j e l d . c h

15/24

Usability Evaluation 1/5: Conjectures

  • SH outperforms VH in both views
  • Higher performance may be explained by

difference in exploratory use and/or difference in bimanual interaction

  • Users prefer SH to VH

Morten Fjeld - Tecfa Workshop 2001

w w w . f j e l d . c h

16/24

Usability Evaluation 2/5: Task: Search-and- position Task with Models Hidden in a Maze

Morten Fjeld - Tecfa Workshop 2001

w w w . f j e l d . c h

17/24

Usability Evaluation 3/5:

Independents:

  • Handling Method (SH, VH)
  • View (Plan View, Side View)

Plan view control Viewpoint Handling Side view control GroundCatcher (2) FrameCatcher (2) ViewFrame zoom Camera zoom Scene Handling

Morten Fjeld - Tecfa Workshop 2001

w w w . f j e l d . c h

18/24

Usability Evaluation 4/5: Experimental Design

Dependents:

  • Performance

(trial completion time)

  • Exploratory use

(# stop-and-go)

  • Bimanual interaction

(# zoom-selections)

  • User preference

(preferred tool per view)

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Morten Fjeld

Morten Fjeld - Tecfa Workshop 2001

w w w . f j e l d . c h

19/24

Usability Evaluation 5/5: Empirical Results

Plan View

  • No performance difference between SH an VH

although users prefered SH

  • SH differed from VH in exploratory use and in

bimanual interaction Side View

  • SH outperformed VH which was comfirmed

by user preference

  • No difference in exploratory use nor in bimanual

interaction

Morten Fjeld - Tecfa Workshop 2001

w w w . f j e l d . c h

20/24

My Further Contributions to the BUILD-IT Project

  • Task analysis (e.g. interviewing project partners)
  • Informal user studies (e.g. brick design, height tools)
  • Software developement (object-orientation, many bricks)
  • Selection and handling of virtual models
  • Video documentation

Morten Fjeld - Tecfa Workshop 2001

w w w . f j e l d . c h

21/24

Design Conclusions

  • Tangible User Interfaces (TUIs) require minimal learning

and support teamwork

  • Bricks are beneficial as handles to virtual models
  • Coinciding action-perception spaces (plan view) give

more freedom in the design of navigation methods

  • Separate action-perception spaces (side view) raise

perceptual problems in the design of navigation methods

  • Vision-based input causes latency and precision problems

Morten Fjeld - Tecfa Workshop 2001

w w w . f j e l d . c h

22/24

Future Challenges 1/3: HCI

  • Efficient bimanual input
  • Effective explorative use
  • Optimal degrees-of-freedom (DOF) in physical-virtual

binding (brick-model locking, # bricks and navigation)

  • Integration of the 3rd dimension on the table-top
  • Bricks as input-output (IO) devices (propelled bricks)

Morten Fjeld - Tecfa Workshop 2001

w w w . f j e l d . c h

23/24

Future Challenges 2/3: CSCW

  • How may shared physical and virtual resources

serve as mediators for collaborative design?

  • How can common understanding be reached using

co-located groupware?

  • How may remote collaboration be supported using

physical bricks as input-output (IO) devices?

Morten Fjeld - Tecfa Workshop 2001

w w w . f j e l d . c h

24/24

Future Challenges 3/3: Technology

  • Lower latency tracking
  • Extendible software through

multimedia framework

  • Improved selection and locking
  • SW-integration with existing

applications

  • Non-dedicated computer
  • Portable HW (see photo)
  • Networked systems
slide-5
SLIDE 5

Morten Fjeld

Morten Fjeld - Tecfa Workshop 2001

w w w . f j e l d . c h

25/24

  • H1. No difference in performance between SH and VH
  • H2. No difference in bimanual interaction between SH and VH
  • H3. No difference in epistemic action between SH and VH
  • H4. No difference in subjective preference between SH and VH

Table 2: Null hypotheses H1 H4.

Null Hypotheses H1 - H4

Add-on 1/5 Morten Fjeld - Tecfa Workshop 2001

w w w . f j e l d . c h

26/24

Experimental Set-up

Experimental Plan view Side view condition

SH:Ground Catcher VH:Frame Catcher SH: Camera VH:View Frame 1st x x 2nd x x 3rd x x 4th x x

Table 3: The two-by-two design gives four conditions.

Add-on 2/5 Morten Fjeld - Tecfa Workshop 2001

w w w . f j e l d . c h

27/24

Results: Trial Completion Time

  • Indep. variable

df F-ratio p

Plan view method 1 0.391 p = 0.533 Side view method 1 8.144 p = 0.005 * Trial 7 5.210 p < 0.001 * Task 7 3.146 p = 0.005 * User 15 2.063 p = 0.018

Table 4: Trial completion time: Significant effects for side view method, trial, and task.

Add-on 3/5 Morten Fjeld - Tecfa Workshop 2001

w w w . f j e l d . c h

28/24

  • Indep. variable

df F-ratio p

Plan view method 1 11.885 p < 0.001 * Side view method 1 0.053 p = 0.818 Trial 7 0.583 p = 0.768 Task 7 4.376 p < 0.001 * User 15 1.715 p = 0.061

Table 5: Zoom selections in plan view navigation: Significant effects for plan view method and task.

Results: Bimanual Interaction

Add-on 4/5 Morten Fjeld - Tecfa Workshop 2001

w w w . f j e l d . c h

29/24

Tool Rating Mean

v.low, -2 low, -1 high, 1 v.high, 2 rating GroundCatcher 1 8 7 1.31 FrameCatcher 1 4 8 3 0.50 Camera 1 5 10 1.50 ViewFrame 1 5 7 3 0.38

Table 7: Overall tool rating selections.

Results: Subjective Preferences

Add-on 5/5