Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]

skip to main content
10.1145/3616961.3617802acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmindtrekConference Proceedingsconference-collections
poster

Find Your Match - Collaboratively Carrying A Pair of Horizontal Screens Towards Convivial Interactions

Published: 02 November 2023 Publication History

Abstract

Moving in synchrony, full-bodied involvement, eye contact, a common goal, and a shared sense of achievement are all widely argued as important qualities for fostering social connection and team building. Yet it is surprising how few interactive products, devices or environments combine all of these possible shortcuts or catalysts for fostering interpersonal bonds. To help address this, we present a novel installation offering multiple participants the shared control of a walk-up-and-use interface, simultaneously engaging both with digital media content and being co-present with other users. Central to this was a pair of fabric projection screens that offered or required multiple people to lift them in order for projected animations to be in focus. Half of each projection was controlled by an accelerometer rolling on the surface of the screen, whereas the other half of the display was controlled by a second accelerometer rolling on the surface of another screen. Thus providing a puzzle-like activity for participants who physically manipulated their screens and discovered a composite image comprising two matching halves. Based upon observations conducted at an informal exhibition this approach shows promise for fostering conviviality but seems to offer too complex an interaction for casual users.

References

[1]
Nick Bryan-Kinns and Fraser Hamilton. 2012. Identifying mutual engagement. Behaviour & Information Technology 31, 2: 101–125.
[2]
Alan Dix. 1994. Computer Supported Cooperative Work: A Framework. In Design Issues in CSCW, Duska Rosenberg and Christopher Hutchison (eds.). Springer London, London, 9–26. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-2029-2_2
[3]
Eva Hornecker and Jacob Buur. 2006. Getting a grip on tangible interaction: a framework on physical space and social interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’06), 437–446. https://doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124838
[4]
Katherine Isbister. Connecting through play | Interactions. Retrieved November 24, 2021 from https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2946999
[5]
Robert W. Lindeman and Steffi Beckhaus. 2009. Crafting memorable VR experiences using experiential fidelity. In Proceedings of the 16th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (VRST ’09), 187–190. https://doi.org/10.1145/1643928.1643970
[6]
Lynn H.C. Love. A Three Person Poncho and a Set of Maracas: Designing Ola De La Vida, A Co-Located Social Play Computer Game.
[7]
Kerry L. Marsh, Lucy Johnston, Michael J. Richardson, and R. C. Schmidt. 2009. Toward a radically embodied, embedded social psychology. European Journal of Social Psychology 39, 7: 1217–1225. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.666
[8]
John Michael, Luke McEllin, and Annalena Felber. 2020. Prosocial effects of coordination – What, how and why? Acta Psychologica 207: 103083. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.actpsy.2020.103083
[9]
Robb Mitchell. 2022. Near-Instant Prototyping of Multi-User Digital-Physical Interactions. https://doi.org/10.14236/ewic/EVA2022.11
[10]
Yvonne Rogers and Siân Lindley. 2004. Collaborating around vertical and horizontal large interactive displays: which way is best? Interacting with Computers 16, 6: 1133–1152. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.intcom.2004.07.008
[11]
Bertrand Schneider, Patrick Jermann, Guillaume Zufferey, and Pierre Dillenbourg. 2011. Benefits of a Tangible Interface for Collaborative Learning and Interaction. IEEE Transactions on Learning Technologies 4, 03: 222–232. https://doi.org/10.1109/TLT.2010.36
[12]
Todd Strong and Dale N. LeFevre. 2006. Parachute games with DVD. Human Kinetics.
[13]
Erin J.K. Truesdell and Brian Magerko. 2023. Three Design Themes for Collaborative Alternative Controllers. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on the Foundations of Digital Games (FDG ’23), 1–8. https://doi.org/10.1145/3582437.3582473
[14]
Brygg Ullmer, Orit Shaer, Ali Mazalek, and Caroline Hummels. 2022. Weaving Fire into Form: Aspirations for Tangible and Embodied Interaction. Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA.
[15]
Jelle van Dijk and Caroline Hummels. 2017. Designing for Embodied Being-in-the-World: Two Cases, Seven Principles and One Framework. In Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI ’17), 47–56. https://doi.org/10.1145/3024969.3025007
[16]
Mary Flanagan. 2006. Giant Joystick. Retrieved September 20, 2019 from https://maryflanagan.com/work/giant-joystick/

Index Terms

  1. Find Your Match - Collaboratively Carrying A Pair of Horizontal Screens Towards Convivial Interactions

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    Mindtrek '23: Proceedings of the 26th International Academic Mindtrek Conference
    October 2023
    381 pages
    ISBN:9798400708749
    DOI:10.1145/3616961
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all 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 third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 02 November 2023

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. Tangible interaction
    2. collaborative interaction
    3. physical computing

    Qualifiers

    • Poster
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Conference

    Mindtrek '23

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate 110 of 207 submissions, 53%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • 0
      Total Citations
    • 39
      Total Downloads
    • Downloads (Last 12 months)39
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)0
    Reflects downloads up to 16 Nov 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format.

    HTML Format

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media