Comments:
Comment #1
Comment #2
Comment #3
LucidTouch: A See-Through Mobile Device
Daniel Wigdor, Clifton Forlines, Patrick Baudisch, John Barnwell, Chia Shen
Link to UIST 2007 paper and video.
Overview:
A potential drawback of touchscreen devices (on mobile phones) is that the user's fingers may obstruct his/her view of the screen or item they are selecting. This paper discusses a device (LucidTouch) that allows the user to control the application by touching the back of the device. This is done by overlaying an image of the user's hands onto the screen, making it appear that the device is semi-transparent. This allows users to easily select things on the screen that could otherwise potentially be obscured by their fingers or hands.
Device:
It combines a multi-touch input surface with a semi-transparent display that overlays an image of the user's hands onto the screen (illuminated semi-transparent bi-directional diffuser layer). It makes use of a camera mounted on the back of the device to capture video of the user's fingers and hands. Since there are eight possible contact points, something was needed to help users distinguish between fingers on the display. The LucidTouch makes use of red dots (hovering fingers) and blue dots (in contact with device).
Experiment Features:
The traditional QWERTY layout was used. Additionally, a modified version was also used that split the keyboard in half and reoriented it so that the user could maintain the usual "home row" while holding the device. While it might benefit touch typists, it could potentially be confusing for users who are unable to do this (look at keys when typing on a regular computer keyboard).
Since one finger can't span the entire screen space, coordinated actions between hands may be required (handing-off items from one to the other). LucidTouch expands small items as they get closer to the center of the screen to support easier hand-off between fingers.
Traversing a map was made easier by allowing it to take advantage of the multi-touch interface. The map-browsing application supported rotation, translation, and scaling, while remaining under the user’s fingers.
Experiment:
Map Browsing- users were presented a map of Cambridge, Massachusetts and asked to find the location of the lab that they were in. The task was presented four times: 1) Use only one thumb on the front of the device. 2) Use a thumb on the front and a finger on the back. 3) Make use of all fingers on the back of the device. 4) Overlaying image of the hands were removed and only the touch-cursors could be seen.
Text Entry- users were asked to type their name using both of the keyboard layouts. Each layout was used twice. First, they only used their thumbs on the front of the device. Then, they were allowed to use fingers on the back. When entering on the back of the device, first the semi-transparent image of the hands was used, and then it was removed.
Drag & Dock- users were asked to select an item and drag it to a specified location on the screen. They followed the same conditions used during the text entry part of the experiment.
Results:
For most tasks (all except for non-inverted QWERTY keyboard), participants found that using the multi-touch interface on the back was useful in accomplishing their tasks. Most users found that the semi-transparent overlay was useful. Without it, they found it difficult to determine which touch-cursor corresponded with which finger. They found that it would be useful to vary the pseudo-transparency, in order to minimize its intrusiveness.
Tuesday, March 24, 2009
Paper from CHI 2008
Comments:
Comment #1
Comment #2
Comment #3
Electronic Voting Machines versus Traditional Methods:
Improved Preference, Similar Performance
Sarah Everett, Kristen Greene, Michael Byrne, Dan Wallach,
Kyle Derr, Daniel Sandler, Ted Torous
Link to CHI 2008 paper.
Overview:
An estimated 66 million U.S. citizens submitted their vote in the 2006 Presidential Election using a direct recording electronic (DRE) system. Though they are widely used, little research has been done to prove they are more usable than more traditional methods of voting. This paper compares usability data from a DRE with that of other methods (level machines, punch cards, paper ballots).
Experiment 1:
The first experiment presented the usual DRE voting system. Subjects were presented first with an instruction screen. After that, they were able to vote on each item/proposition in the ballot. Navigating through each page was done using a "Next Page" and "Previous Page" button. After all items had been voted on, all of their selections were summarized on a screen so users could double-check their choices. From there, the ballot could be submitted. After submitting their votes, participants completed a survey (System Usability Scale, measuring satisfaction). The first experiment composed of two separate parts.
Experiment 1A:
In this experiment, the subjects were divided into two groups. The first group was instructed to vote whichever way that they wanted. The second group was given a piece of paper that instructed them how to vote on each issue. Each participant voted using the DRE and an additional method (lever machine, paper ballot, punch card).
Undirected, Directed with no roll-off.
Experiment 1B:
This experiment was similar to the previous, except for one aspect. The subjects were divided into three groups, instead of two. The third group was also given a piece of paper that instructed them how to vote on each issue, but on some issues they were told to not vote.
Undirected, Directed with no roll-off, Directed with moderate roll-off.
Results:
There wasn't a large distinction among the average voting times between the DRE and other methods. The only distinct improvement was with the lever machine. Also, people with more computer-experience took less time to vote on the DRE than other participants with less experience. Based on the results of the SUS, they found that participants preferred using the DRE to all other voting methods, regardless of any individual characteristics (age, computer-experience, etc). They also found that the DRE didn't reduce the number of voting errors that occurred. In conclusion, they found that changing the voting technology didn't result in less voting errors.
Experiment 2:
Voters rarely choose to vote on every issue that they are presented with on a ballot. The further they go down the ballot, the less likely it is that a voter will vote in a given race. Experiment 2 focused on comparing the traditional "sequential" voting design with a system where users could start on an overview page and jump to the individual elections that they wanted to vote on. Though it obviously would reduce the time users spent voting, would it also affect usability or increase voting errors?
Again, participants were divided into two groups. The first group voted using the "sequential" voting system. The second group used the new webpage-like system. The same information-conditions were used: undirected, directed with no roll-off, directed with moderate roll-off. In addition, a fourth condition was added--directed with additional roll-off. In this experiement, all participants voted three times: first using the DRE, then using one of the three traditional methods, then again with the same type of DRE. This time, no surveys were given after voting.
Results:
Of course, they found that the average completion time for the direct DRE (269.9s) was lower than that of the sequential DRE (442.3s); however, no reliable differences were found between the direct DRE and the other traditional voting methods. No differences were determined in any of the three directed information conditions. For the undirected condition, they found that the sequential voting method (910s) was much slower than the direct voting method (205s). This is because participants that used the direct DRE system voted in far fewer races than those using the sequential DRE.
They also found that voting errors occurred more often on the direct DRE than on the sequential DRE. This is due to the fact that almost 25% of participants using the direct DRE prematurely submitted their ballots before they intended. Regardless of the voting method used, over 34% of all ballots that were cast contained at least one error.
Though the direct DRE was much faster than the sequential DRE, the subjective usability ratings for the sequential system were higher. This was attributed to the fact that the direct DRE systems were inaccurate and resulted in more voting errors.
Comment #1
Comment #2
Comment #3
Electronic Voting Machines versus Traditional Methods:
Improved Preference, Similar Performance
Sarah Everett, Kristen Greene, Michael Byrne, Dan Wallach,
Kyle Derr, Daniel Sandler, Ted Torous
Link to CHI 2008 paper.
Overview:
An estimated 66 million U.S. citizens submitted their vote in the 2006 Presidential Election using a direct recording electronic (DRE) system. Though they are widely used, little research has been done to prove they are more usable than more traditional methods of voting. This paper compares usability data from a DRE with that of other methods (level machines, punch cards, paper ballots).
Experiment 1:
The first experiment presented the usual DRE voting system. Subjects were presented first with an instruction screen. After that, they were able to vote on each item/proposition in the ballot. Navigating through each page was done using a "Next Page" and "Previous Page" button. After all items had been voted on, all of their selections were summarized on a screen so users could double-check their choices. From there, the ballot could be submitted. After submitting their votes, participants completed a survey (System Usability Scale, measuring satisfaction). The first experiment composed of two separate parts.
Experiment 1A:
In this experiment, the subjects were divided into two groups. The first group was instructed to vote whichever way that they wanted. The second group was given a piece of paper that instructed them how to vote on each issue. Each participant voted using the DRE and an additional method (lever machine, paper ballot, punch card).
Undirected, Directed with no roll-off.
Experiment 1B:
This experiment was similar to the previous, except for one aspect. The subjects were divided into three groups, instead of two. The third group was also given a piece of paper that instructed them how to vote on each issue, but on some issues they were told to not vote.
Undirected, Directed with no roll-off, Directed with moderate roll-off.
Results:
There wasn't a large distinction among the average voting times between the DRE and other methods. The only distinct improvement was with the lever machine. Also, people with more computer-experience took less time to vote on the DRE than other participants with less experience. Based on the results of the SUS, they found that participants preferred using the DRE to all other voting methods, regardless of any individual characteristics (age, computer-experience, etc). They also found that the DRE didn't reduce the number of voting errors that occurred. In conclusion, they found that changing the voting technology didn't result in less voting errors.
Experiment 2:
Voters rarely choose to vote on every issue that they are presented with on a ballot. The further they go down the ballot, the less likely it is that a voter will vote in a given race. Experiment 2 focused on comparing the traditional "sequential" voting design with a system where users could start on an overview page and jump to the individual elections that they wanted to vote on. Though it obviously would reduce the time users spent voting, would it also affect usability or increase voting errors?
Again, participants were divided into two groups. The first group voted using the "sequential" voting system. The second group used the new webpage-like system. The same information-conditions were used: undirected, directed with no roll-off, directed with moderate roll-off. In addition, a fourth condition was added--directed with additional roll-off. In this experiement, all participants voted three times: first using the DRE, then using one of the three traditional methods, then again with the same type of DRE. This time, no surveys were given after voting.
Results:
Of course, they found that the average completion time for the direct DRE (269.9s) was lower than that of the sequential DRE (442.3s); however, no reliable differences were found between the direct DRE and the other traditional voting methods. No differences were determined in any of the three directed information conditions. For the undirected condition, they found that the sequential voting method (910s) was much slower than the direct voting method (205s). This is because participants that used the direct DRE system voted in far fewer races than those using the sequential DRE.
They also found that voting errors occurred more often on the direct DRE than on the sequential DRE. This is due to the fact that almost 25% of participants using the direct DRE prematurely submitted their ballots before they intended. Regardless of the voting method used, over 34% of all ballots that were cast contained at least one error.
Though the direct DRE was much faster than the sequential DRE, the subjective usability ratings for the sequential system were higher. This was attributed to the fact that the direct DRE systems were inaccurate and resulted in more voting errors.
Sunday, March 22, 2009
Sixth Reading Assignment
Comments:
Comment #1
Comment #2
Comment #3
Emotional Design
Donald A. Norman
Summary:
In this book, Norman continues his discussion of "proper design." He states in his previous book that products shouldn't be frustrating, confusing, or irritating. Here, he explains that good designs must also be fun, attractive, and pleasurable. Why do we continue to use something that may not necessarily be the easiest to use?
Norman notes that designs appeal to us on three different levels:
The author uses the teapots to illustrate the idea of different levels of emotional design. The middle teapot is enjoyable to look at (visceral). Both the teapots in the middle and on the right are easy and fun to use (behavioral). The teapot on the left is referred to as the "teapot for masochists," and it tells a story (reflective). Though a product might not appeal to its user on one level, it might on another. This is why we keep around and continue to use things that aren't necessarily the easiest to use.
Discussion:
In my opinion, this book was pretty boring. It may appeal to some, but I found it difficult to continue reading. He definitely seems to contradict some of the points that he made in his previous book (The Design of Everyday Things). I guess it's alright to make things that don't necessarily work, as long as they look "pretty?" Honestly, I think most of this was common sense. Of course you want your design to be functional, but you're also going to make it look as appealing as possible.
The section on robots was pretty interesting, though. The concept of emotions in robot design was something that I had never given much thought. Norman does a good job of explaining how essential robotic emotions are for them to be useful or function properly/effectively. Unfortunately, programming real emotions into a machine is something that I think we are a long way away from doing.
Ranking:
#1- The Design of Future Things
#2- The Mole People
#3- The Man Who Shocked the World
#5- Emotional Design
#4- The Design of Everyday Things
#6- The Media Equation
#7- Doing Ethnographies
Comment #1
Comment #2
Comment #3
Emotional Design
Donald A. Norman
Summary:
In this book, Norman continues his discussion of "proper design." He states in his previous book that products shouldn't be frustrating, confusing, or irritating. Here, he explains that good designs must also be fun, attractive, and pleasurable. Why do we continue to use something that may not necessarily be the easiest to use?
Norman notes that designs appeal to us on three different levels:
- Visceral- the initial impact of a product, about its appearance, touch, and feel
- Behavioral- function (what it can do, what it is meant to do), performance (how well it does those desired functions), and usability (how easy it is to understand how it works and how to get it to perform)
- Reflective- self-image, personal satisfaction, and memories
The author uses the teapots to illustrate the idea of different levels of emotional design. The middle teapot is enjoyable to look at (visceral). Both the teapots in the middle and on the right are easy and fun to use (behavioral). The teapot on the left is referred to as the "teapot for masochists," and it tells a story (reflective). Though a product might not appeal to its user on one level, it might on another. This is why we keep around and continue to use things that aren't necessarily the easiest to use.
Discussion:
In my opinion, this book was pretty boring. It may appeal to some, but I found it difficult to continue reading. He definitely seems to contradict some of the points that he made in his previous book (The Design of Everyday Things). I guess it's alright to make things that don't necessarily work, as long as they look "pretty?" Honestly, I think most of this was common sense. Of course you want your design to be functional, but you're also going to make it look as appealing as possible.
The section on robots was pretty interesting, though. The concept of emotions in robot design was something that I had never given much thought. Norman does a good job of explaining how essential robotic emotions are for them to be useful or function properly/effectively. Unfortunately, programming real emotions into a machine is something that I think we are a long way away from doing.
Ranking:
#1- The Design of Future Things
#2- The Mole People
#3- The Man Who Shocked the World
#5- Emotional Design
#4- The Design of Everyday Things
#6- The Media Equation
#7- Doing Ethnographies
Fifth Reading Assignment
Comments:
Comment #1
Comment #2
Comment #3
The Man Who Shocked the World
Thomas Blass
Summary:
This book discusses the life of Stanley Milgram and his studies in the field of social psychology.
Overall, I thought this book was interesting. In particular, I thought his "familiar stranger" study was very applicable. In my case, I see most of the same people everyday at the rec center. Have I ever spoken with any of them? No. The same could be said for any large class on campus. My management class has over 300 people in it, but there are hardly many people interacting with each other.
Some people think his obedience experiment was borderline unethical. Certainly, discovering that you are capable of doing such things could be traumatizing. As with anything, there are ethical lines that shouldn't be crossed, but I'm unsure how the experiment could be changed.
The "six degrees of separation" idea can also be applied to Wikipedia. In particular, I remember a thread about this on texags.com. The idea was that any Wikipedia page/topic could be accessed from the front page in under six links. The forum thread was several pages long, and links were found for every case presented... a lot of them were pretty random, too.
In my opinion, this was a decent book. I've never read anything about social psychology before, so I thought the experiments were pretty interesting. It seemed to ramble along in some places, but I suppose that is to be expected.
Ranking:
#1- The Design of Future Things
#2- The Mole People
#3- The Man Who Shocked the World
#4- The Design of Everyday Things
#5- The Media Equation
#6- Doing Ethnographies
Comment #1
Comment #2
Comment #3
The Man Who Shocked the World
Thomas Blass
Summary:
This book discusses the life of Stanley Milgram and his studies in the field of social psychology.
- Obedience to authority: In this study, subjects were instructed by someone of scientific authority to deliver different levels of electrical shocks to other protesting "participants." He found that 65% of these subjects were willing to deliver the highest voltage shock (450V).
- Small-world method: This experiment attempted to prove that any two random individuals could be linked through a series of acquaintances. He determined that an average of six people were required to connect two people. This phenomena is sometimes referred to as the "six degrees of separation."
- Lost-letter technique: Milgram created an experiment to investigate how helpful people would be in a given situation. He did this by writing letters and addressing them to both favorable and unfavorable organizations. Then, the letters were distributed ("lost") around the city. He found that people were more likely to mail letters that were addressed to favorable organizations, rather than mailing those addressed to unfavorable organizations.
- Familiar stranger: This study investigated the social interactions between people that saw each other on a regular basis. They found that though people might share daily experiences, they are unlikely to interact or speak with others. They attributed this to the stimulus overload that occurs from living in an urban environment.
Overall, I thought this book was interesting. In particular, I thought his "familiar stranger" study was very applicable. In my case, I see most of the same people everyday at the rec center. Have I ever spoken with any of them? No. The same could be said for any large class on campus. My management class has over 300 people in it, but there are hardly many people interacting with each other.
Some people think his obedience experiment was borderline unethical. Certainly, discovering that you are capable of doing such things could be traumatizing. As with anything, there are ethical lines that shouldn't be crossed, but I'm unsure how the experiment could be changed.
The "six degrees of separation" idea can also be applied to Wikipedia. In particular, I remember a thread about this on texags.com. The idea was that any Wikipedia page/topic could be accessed from the front page in under six links. The forum thread was several pages long, and links were found for every case presented... a lot of them were pretty random, too.
In my opinion, this was a decent book. I've never read anything about social psychology before, so I thought the experiments were pretty interesting. It seemed to ramble along in some places, but I suppose that is to be expected.
Ranking:
#1- The Design of Future Things
#2- The Mole People
#3- The Man Who Shocked the World
#4- The Design of Everyday Things
#5- The Media Equation
#6- Doing Ethnographies
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)