Magic pointing iswc2015
-
Upload
diako-mardanbegi -
Category
Technology
-
view
13 -
download
0
Transcript of Magic pointing iswc2015
IT UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN
MAGIC pointing for eyewear computers
Shahram Jalaliniya
Diako Mardanbegi
Thomas Pederson
IT UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN
Why gaze-based interaction on eyewear computers?
• Need for touch-less interaction- Interaction on the move- In parallel with real world tasks
• Head & Eye movements as input modalities
• Eyewear device as a platform for gaze-tracker
IT UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN
Challenge of gaze tracking on eyewear computers
Small size of the head-mounted displays & need for more accurate gaze trackers
Eye FOV: 95°
HMD HMD FOV: 14°
(Google Glass)Big screens
HMD
Accuracy of gaze tracker
IT UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN
Target acquisition on GUI
• Point & select• Eye-pointing is fast but:
- Works for only big targets
• Head-pointing is accurate but:- Tiring specially for long distances
+
Target size
Distance fro
m
start p
oint
+
Accuracy of gaze tracking
*
Initial point
Target
IT UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN
Magic (Manual & gaze input cascaded) pointing
• Use gaze as an implicit data to move cursor as close as possible to the target (Zhai,99)
- Liberal approach (fixed distance)- Conservative approach (involve user)
+
+*
Gaze moves the cursor
Close to the target
Manual part of the pointing (Head movement)
IT UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN
Previous Work
Dimensions
Manual part of pointing
Display setup Strategy
MAGIC pointing (Zhai, S., Morimoto, C.,1999)
Mouse Stationary Liberal/Conservative
MAGIC-Touch System (Drewes, H., and Schmidt, A., 2009)
Touch-sensitive mouse
Stationary Liberal
Look & Touch (Stellmach, S., and Dachselt, R.,2012)
Mouse Stationary Conservative
Head assisted gaze pointing(Spakov & et al., 2014)
Head movements Stationary Liberal
Our study Head movements Head-mounted display
Liberal
Previous work
IT UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN
Experiment goal
• Investigating utility of MAGIC pointing for eyewear computers (combination of eye & head movements)
• Comparing user performance in a target acquisition task using:
•Head pointing
•Combination of eye & head (MAGIC) pointing
•Eye pointing
IT UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN
Head pointing
IT UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN
Magic pointing
IT UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN
Experiment Setup
• Participants- 16 participants (mean age=29, 2 females)- all highly skilled computer users (x ̅= 4.62, σ= 0.5)
IT UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN
Apparatus• Head tracker of Google Glass (9DoF)• Home-made monocular wearable gaze tracker (GlassGaze)
with accuracy of 1 degree (about 50 pixel on Google Glass)
IT UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN
Design (2 x 2 x 2)
• Two pointing modalities: - MAGIC & Head pointing
• Two target sizes- Small (30 pixels ≈ 0.6°) & Big (70 pixels 1.4°)
• Two distances- Near (100 pixels ≈ 2°) & Far (280 pixels ≈ 5.6°)
• 15 repetitions- Median of 15 trials is taken
IT UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN
Experiment results: Task completion Time
• Head pointing is faster for the short distance
• MAGIC pointing is faster in longer distance
• Target size effect is observed
• No distance effect is observed in MAGIC pointing for big targets
IT UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN
Experiment results: Error rate (wrong tap)
MAGIC pointing is more accurate for pointing to small
and far targets
IT UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN
Conclusions
• MAGIC pointing makes it possible to select targets smaller than accuracy of the gaze tracker on head-mounted displays
• MAGIC pointing is faster than Head pointing just for long distances
• In MAGIC pointing the distance does not affect the performance for big targets since in this case MAGIC pointing is similar to eye pointing
IT UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN
Outlook
• Investigating different strategies for positioning the cursor to the initial point of the manual part in MAGIC pointing
- Fixed minimum distance- Fixed time
• Investigating MAGIC pointing for UI development
IT UNIVERSITY OF COPENHAGEN