Exploring tangible interaction

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 dont understand the VCR and
• the VCR doesnt 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 -gt meaning
13
Research area
Aesthetic
Tangible
Direct
Semantic
Experience translation -gt meaning
Interaction -gt 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

• Moto
• tangible
• Musical
• Direct approach

Poco tangible Musical Semantic 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 didnt work More
involvement More possibilities 2 groups
24
Creative session- results

• Poco
• Clear controllable
• Natural mappings
• Very usable
• Very enjoyable

Moto Complex 2 tools didnt 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
• (X214.121, p0.03)
• Poco clips were rated higher
• (Mean rank Poco vs Moto 453 vs 419.
  Mann-Whitney U87429, p0.031)

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, p0.004)

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/pro
ject or e-mail p.r.ross_at_student.tudelft.nl