Tangible User Interfaces (TUI’s). What are Tangible User Interfaces? Physical WorldDigital world...

31
Tangible User Interfaces (TUI’s)

Transcript of Tangible User Interfaces (TUI’s). What are Tangible User Interfaces? Physical WorldDigital world...

 Tangible User Interfaces (TUI’s)

2

What are Tangible User Interfaces?

Physical World Digital worldTUI’s

3

GUI vs TUI

(Ishii 2008)

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

11

Design: Tangible Hardware

12

Final Design

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

16

Implementation: Drawing Application

• Visual drawing guides

Tangible outline Angle visualization

17

• First iteration: Video

• Second iteration: Demo

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

24

Design: Tangible Hardware

25

Final Design

26

Implementation: Tangible Recognition

• Learning phase• Recognition phase– Detection via

custom tags– Use tag location to

get tangible outline– Use thresholds for

blob sizes

27

Implementation: Drawing Application

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.