TUI’s: design challenges

1. TUI’s: design challenges Matthias Rauterberg Department Industrial Design Technical University Eindhoven 2004

2. Theory: 1 2 3 4 5 2D-Interaction: 1 2 3 4 3D-Interaction: 1 2 Future Directions: 1 2 Our Research Approach Validated Design Knowledge statistics requirements empirical validation assessment criteria Interactive systems

3. Theory: 1 2 3 4 5 2D-Interaction: 1 2 3 4 3D-Interaction: 1 2 Future Directions: 1 2 Trends in Interactive System Technology Mobile computing Transport Ambient rooms and Cooperative buildings

4. Theory: 1 2 3 4 5 2D-Interaction: 1 2 3 4 3D-Interaction: 1 2 Future Directions: 1 2 Interaction ModelsUllmer & Ishii, 2000 INPUT / OUTPUT INPUT OUTPUT physical graspable representation Non graspable representation control digital control view model model

5. Theory: 1 2 3 4 5 2D-Interaction: 1 2 3 4 3D-Interaction: 1 2 Future Directions: 1 2 Perception Space and Action Space • Perception Space • The physical space where the user’s attention is. • Action Space • The physical spacewhere the user acts in. • Design Principle: • perception space and action space must coincide! [δ=0] • “Interlacing the display and manipulation space” (Djajadiningrat, 1998, TU Delft) perception space δ action space

6. Communication & Working Area Electronic documents Paper document Working Area Theory: 1 2 3 4 5 2D-Interaction: 1 2 3 4 3D-Interaction: 1 2 Future Directions: 1 2 Architecture of a Natural User Interface (NUI) Wellner P, Mackay W, Gold R: Computer-Augmented Environments: Back to the Real World. (1993) Fitzmaurice G, Ishii H, Buxton W: Bricks-Laying the Foundations for Graspable User Interfaces. (1995) Tognazzini B: Tog on Software Design. (1996)

7. Theory: 1 2 3 4 5 2D-Interaction: 1 2 3 4 3D-Interaction: 1 2 Future Directions: 1 2 Tangible User Interfaces (TUI)… The Build-It SystemM. Bichsel, M. Fjeld & M. Rauterberg 1997 2D interaction:

8. Theory: 1 2 3 4 5 2D-Interaction: 1 2 3 4 3D-Interaction: 1 2 Future Directions: 1 2 Interaction Props: user study 18th Century: tool production • Props design factors:form, size, material and metaphor: • An experiment was carried out to explore different design strategies. • Tasks were based on initial planning of an interior architecture. • Focus of the experiment was subjective opinion (n=12) about the bricks. • The bricks were ranked by user performance before (first number) and after (second number) task solving activity.

9. Theory: 1 2 3 4 5 2D-Interaction: 1 2 3 4 3D-Interaction: 1 2 Future Directions: 1 2 The Build-It System: tangible props 2D [design by Fred Voorhorst] 3.D PhD Thesis (2001) from Morten Fjeld

10. Theory: 1 2 3 4 5 2D-Interaction: 1 2 3 4 3D-Interaction: 1 2 Future Directions: 1 2 2D Interaction Props PhD Thesis (2003) from Dima Aliakseyeu

11. Theory: 1 2 3 4 5 2D-Interaction: 1 2 3 4 3D-Interaction: 1 2 Future Directions: 1 2 3D Interaction Props RISP:Rigid Intersection Selection Prop PhD Thesis (2004) from Sriram Subramanian

12. Theory: 1 2 3 4 5 2D-Interaction: 1 2 3 4 3D-Interaction: 1 2 Future Directions: 1 2 Different Prop Designs… Ref: Napier (1956) classified grips into 2 different categories’precision grip’ and ’power grip’. RISP := Rigid Inter-Section Prop RISP Power RISP Round RISP Thumb

13. Theory: 1 2 3 4 5 2D-Interaction: 1 2 3 4 3D-Interaction: 1 2 Future Directions: 1 2 The Next Steps • full-duplex audio connection • additional interaction techniques, e.g. speech, handwritten input • more 2 and 3D interaction possibilities • video conferencing functionality for distributed cooperation

14. Theory: 1 2 3 4 5 2D-Interaction: 1 2 3 4 3D-Interaction: 1 2 Future Directions: 1 2 Future Directions… Further research questions:? gaze/eye contact with remote partner? variation of interface prop designs ? additional input technologies ? presence supported by full-duplex audio connection And how to analyze human behavior in 2/3D space & time over a longer period?

15. Thank you for your attention.