1 / 31

Exploring tangible interaction

Exploring tangible interaction Research presentation at ID-Studiolab Philip Ross 28-10-2002 contents Introduction Research area Set up Poco Moto Filmpjes Experiments Results Conclusions Introduction We don’t understand the VCR and the VCR doesn’t understand us Introduction

Audrey
Download Presentation

Exploring tangible interaction

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Exploring tangible interaction Research presentation at ID-Studiolab Philip Ross 28-10-2002

  2. contents • Introduction • Research area • Set up • Poco • Moto • Filmpjes • Experiments • Results • Conclusions

  3. Introduction We don’t understand the VCR and the VCR doesn’t understand us

  4. Introduction Why is this?

  5. Introduction The VCR sees us as mere cognitive beings. And greatly overestimates our abilities and efforts

  6. Introduction People are more than cognitive beings. Communication is thinking, doing and feeling Products should capitalize on all these skills

  7. Introduction Thinking Doing Feeling Aesthetic interaction

  8. Research area Aesthetic

  9. Research area Aesthetic Tangible

  10. Research area Aesthetic Tangible Direct

  11. Research area Aesthetic Tangible Direct Semantic

  12. Research area Aesthetic Tangible Direct Semantic Interaction -> meaning

  13. Research area Aesthetic Tangible Direct Semantic Interaction -> meaning Experience & translation -> meaning

  14. Research area Aesthetic Tangible ? Direct semantic

  15. Research set-up Functional aesthetic installation Coppia Espressiva: 2 music products Experiments Observation, questionnaires & statistics

  16. Coppia Espressiva Poco tangible Musical Semantic approach Moto tangible Musical Direct approach

  17. Poco • From music term Poco a Poco (bit by bit) • Phycons (physical icons) • Expressive forms

  18. Moto • Derived from music term Con moto (with movement) • Using gestures & tools • Dynamic

  19. Demonstration films • Films can be downloaded from this URL: (ID-Studiolab site) • Poco demo.mov (10.1 MB) • Moto demo.mov (16.8 MB)

  20. Experiments • Creative session • 8 students expressing moods • Matching session • 22 subj rating expressions

  21. Creative session 1. Learning (40 min) 2. Test assignment 3. Mood induction (4 moods induced by using film clips) rating of mood (SAM) 4. Expressing the moods rating of effort rating of satisfaction measuring time needed 5. Evaluation

  22. Creative session- results Poco: Clear & controllable Natural mappings Very usable Very enjoyable

  23. Creative session- results Poco: Clear & controllable Natural mappings Very usable Very enjoyable Moto: Complex 2 tools didn’t work More involvement More possibilities 2 groups

  24. Creative session- results Poco: Clear & controllable Natural mappings Very usable Very enjoyable Moto: Complex 2 tools didn’t work More involved More possibilities 2 groups Time, effort, satisfaction insignificant

  25. Matching session • 22 subjects • Same mood induction • 10 music clips per mood • 5 intended • 5 random distracters • Rate appropriateness

  26. Matching session - results • Poco and Moto clips were rated differently (X^2=14.121, p=0.03) • Poco clips were rated higher (Mean rank Poco vs Moto: 453 vs 419. Mann-Whitney U=87429, p=0.031)

  27. Matching session - results • Focusing on Moto-users: • 2 groups: 5 were able to express feelings, 3 were not • 5 made better clips on Moto than Poco! Mann-Whitney U= 38983, p=0.004)

  28. Conclusions • Direct and semantic approach: • both suitable for intuitive, aesthetic & expressive interaction • Semantic approach: • phycons not only meaningful when referring, also powerful way of communicating expressive meaning • Mutual understanding of expressive meaning has positive effect on usability and joy of use

  29. Conclusions • Direct approach: • elicits more extreme experiences • requires more subtlety • can easily become too complex. • When natural relation between cause and effect disappears, feeling of control disappears.

  30. Conclusions • in both direct and semantic interaction: ‘Attractive things work better’ (Norman) Experiencing aesthetics contributes to enjoyment AND results

  31. More info See www.studiolab.io.tudelft.nl/ross/project or e-mail p.r.ross@student.tudelft.nl

More Related