Usability Evaluation of Behind the Screen Interaction
Article No.: 15, Pages 1 - 5
Abstract
A system (VizSpace) was evaluated that extends the conventional touch table interface by decoupling the display and placing it above the touch surface to create an interaction volume beneath the display. This physically situated setup enables touch and hand interactions beneath the display, allowing users to reach inside with their hands and interact in a 3D virtual workspace. This paper presents an empirical investigation of the performance and usability of such a system. Participants were asked to perform an object translation task that compares 2D drag with 3D grasp interaction techniques whilst also varying the height of the interaction volume. Results suggest that participants completed the task faster and more accurately with the 2D drag interaction mode compared to the 3D grasp interaction mode. More importantly, the size of the interaction volume did not affect task performance but system usability and subjective perception rankings were ranked lower for the least interaction volume with the clearest viewing area. Results suggest that a larger interaction area behind the screen is more important than a clearer viewing area.
References
[1]
Aaron Bangor, Philip Kortum, and James Miller. 2009. Determining what individual SUS scores mean: Adding an adjective rating scale. Journal of usability studies 4, 3 (2009), 114–123.
[2]
Aaron Bangor, Philip T Kortum, and James T Miller. 2008. An empirical evaluation of the system usability scale. Intl. Journal of Human Computer Interaction 24, 6 (2008), 574–594.
[3]
John Brooke. 1996. SUS - A quick and dirty usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry 189, 194 (1996), 4–7.
[4]
Gerd Bruder, Frank Steinicke, and Wolfgang Stürzlinger. 2013. To Touch or Not to Touch?: Comparing 2D Touch and 3D Mid-air Interaction on Stereoscopic Tabletop Surfaces. In Proceedings of the 1st Symposium on Spatial User Interaction (Los Angeles, California, USA) (SUI ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 9–16. https://doi.org/10.1145/2491367.2491369
[5]
Marek Czernuszenko, Dave Pape, Daniel Sandin, Tom DeFanti, Gregory L Dawe, and Maxine D Brown. 1997. The ImmersaDesk and Infinity Wall projection-based virtual reality displays. ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics 31, 2 (1997), 46–49.
[6]
Florian Daiber, Eric Falk, and Antonio Krüger. 2012. Balloon selection revisited: Multi-touch selection techniques for stereoscopic data. In Proceedings of the International Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces. ACM, 441–444.
[7]
Bruno R De Araújo, Géry Casiez, Joaquim A Jorge, and Martin Hachet. 2013. Mockup Builder: 3D modeling on and above the surface. Computers & Graphics 37, 3 (2013), 165–178.
[8]
Alexander Giesler, Dimitar Valkov, and Klaus Hinrichs. 2014. Void Shadows: Multi-touch Interaction with Stereoscopic Objects on the Tabletop. In Proceedings of the 2Nd ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction (Honolulu, Hawaii, USA) (SUI ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 104–112. https://doi.org/10.1145/2659766.2659779
[9]
Martin Hachet, Benoit Bossavit, Aurélie Cohé, and Jean-Baptiste de la Rivière. 2011. Toucheo: Multitouch and Stereo Combined in a Seamless Workspace. In Proceedings of the 24th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Santa Barbara, California, USA) (UIST ’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 587–592. https://doi.org/10.1145/2047196.2047273
[10]
Otmar Hilliges, David Kim, Shahram Izadi, Malte Weiss, and Andrew Wilson. 2012. HoloDesk: Direct 3D Interactions with a Situated See-through Display. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Austin, Texas, USA) (CHI ’12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 2421–2430. https://doi.org/10.1145/2207676.2208405
[11]
Eva Hornecker. 2008. ”I don’t understand it either, but it is cool”-visitor interactions with a multi-touch table in a museum. In Horizontal interactive human computer systems, 2008. TABLETOP 2008. 3rd IEEE International Workshop on. IEEE, 113–120.
[12]
Jinha Lee, Alex Olwal, Hiroshi Ishii, and Cati Boulanger. 2013. SpaceTop: Integrating 2D and spatial 3D interactions in a see-through desktop environment. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 189–192.
[13]
Diego Martinez Plasencia, Edward Joyce, and Sriram Subramanian. 2014. MisTable: Reach-through Personal Screens for Tabletops. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) (CHI ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3493–3502. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557325
[14]
Daniel Mendes, Fernando Fonseca, Bruno Araujo, Alfredo Ferreira, and Joaquim Jorge. 2014. Mid-air interactions above stereoscopic interactive tables. In 3D User Interfaces (3DUI), 2014 IEEE Symposium on. IEEE, 3–10.
[15]
Upul Obeysekare, Chas Williams, Jim Durbin, Larry Rosenblum, Robert Rosenberg, Fernando Grinstein, Ravi Ramamurthi, Alexandra Landsberg, and William Sandberg. 1996. Virtual Workbench - a Non-immersive Virtual Environment for Visualizing and Interacting with 3D Objects for Scientific Visualization. In Proceedings of the 7th Conference on Visualization ’96 (San Francisco, California, USA) (VIS ’96). IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos, CA, USA, 345–349. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=244979.245631
[16]
Oyewole Oyekoya, Emily Sassard, and Tiana Johnson. 2017. VizSpace: Interaction in the positive parallax screen plane. In 2017 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI). IEEE, 229–230.
[17]
J Karen Parker, Regan L Mandryk, and Kori M Inkpen. 2006. Integrating point and touch for interaction with digital tabletop displays. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 26, 5 (2006), 28–35.
[18]
Frank Steinicke, Klaus H Hinrichs, Johannes Schöning, and Antonio Krüger. 2008. Multi-touching 3D data: Towards direct interaction in stereoscopic display environments coupled with mobile devices. In Proc. AVI Workshop on Designing Multi-Touch Interaction Techniques for Coupled Public and Private Displays. Citeseer, 46–49.
[19]
Jonathan Taylor, Lucas Bordeaux, Thomas Cashman, Bob Corish, Cem Keskin, Toby Sharp, Eduardo Soto, David Sweeney, Julien Valentin, Benjamin Luff, 2016. Efficient and precise interactive hand tracking through joint, continuous optimization of pose and correspondences. ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG) 35, 4 (2016), 143.
[20]
Dimitar Valkov, Alexander Giesler, and Klaus H Hinrichs. 2014. Imperceptible depth shifts for touch interaction with stereoscopic objects. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 227–236.
[21]
Dimitar Valkov, Frank Steinicke, Gerd Bruder, and Klaus Hinrichs. 2011. 2d touching of 3d stereoscopic objects. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1353–1362.
[22]
Dimitar Valkov, Frank Steinicke, Gerd Bruder, Klaus H Hinrichs, Johannes Schöning, Florian Daiber, and Antonio Krüger. 2010. Touching Floating Objects in Projection-based Virtual Reality Environments. In EGVE/EuroVR/VEC. 17–24.
[23]
Spyros Vosinakis and Panayiotis Koutsabasis. 2018. Evaluation of visual feedback techniques for virtual grasping with bare hands using Leap Motion and Oculus Rift. Virtual Reality 22, 1 (2018), 47–62.
[24]
Frank Weichert, Daniel Bachmann, Bartholomäus Rudak, and Denis Fisseler. 2013. Analysis of the accuracy and robustness of the Leap Motion controller. Sensors 13, 5 (2013), 6380–6393.
[25]
Michael Weyrich and Paul Drews. 1999. An interactive environment for virtual manufacturing: The virtual workbench. Computers in Industry 38, 1 (1999), 5–15. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-3615(98)00104-3
Recommendations
In-Car Touch Screen Interaction: Comparing Standard, Finger-Specific and Multi-Finger Interaction
PerDis '15: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Pervasive DisplaysIn this paper, we explore a novel interaction technique for the automotive domain, distinguishing between different fingers when interacting with a touch screen, and compare it against standard and multi-finger gesture interaction. We conducted a pilot ...
Optimization of Display Content Switching Under Multiple Large-Screen Displays: A Multi-channel Interaction Usability Evaluation
Design, User Experience, and UsabilityAbstractLarge displays offer enhanced information presentation, enriching the immersive interactive experience; however, their physical distance from users poses usability problems for human-computer interaction. In order to improve interaction experience ...
PhantomPen: virtualization of pen head for digital drawing free from pen occlusion & visual parallax
UIST '12: Proceedings of the 25th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technologyWe present PhantomPen, a direct pen input device whose pen head is virtualized onto the tablet display surface and visually connected to a graspable pen barrel in order to achieve digital drawing free from pen occlusion and visual parallax. As the pen ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
November 2021
206 pages
ISBN:9781450390910
DOI:10.1145/3485279
Copyright © 2021 ACM.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].
Sponsors
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery
New York, NY, United States
Publication History
Published: 09 November 2021
Check for updates
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
- Research
- Refereed limited
Conference
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 86 of 279 submissions, 31%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- 0Total Citations
- 120Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)16
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1
Reflects downloads up to 16 Nov 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign inFull Access
View options
View or Download as a PDF file.
PDFeReader
View online with eReader.
eReaderHTML Format
View this article in HTML Format.
HTML Format