Upload
jens-grubert
View
89
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Jens Grubert delivered the presentation on August 28th, 2013 during the 15th edition of MobileHCI, International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services in Munich, Germany. ABSTRACT: We repeated a study on the usage of a magic lens and a static peephole interface for playing a find-and-select game in a public space. While we reproduced the study setup and procedure the task was conducted in a public transportation stop with different characteristics. The results on usage duration and user preference were significantly different from those reported for previous conditions. We investigate possible causes, specifically the differences in the spatial characteristics and the social contexts in which the study took place.
Citation preview
Playing it Real Again: A Repeated Evaluation of Magic Lens and Static
Peephole Interfaces in Public Space
Jens Grubert, Dieter Schmalstieg
Institute for Computer Graphics and Vision, Graz University of Technology
(How) do individuals use a Magic Lens interface in public space if they can use an established interface?
switchable
Interfaces can be switched at any time.
Magic Lens (ML) Static Peephole (SP)
Research Questions
Confirmatory Which interface would be used longer?
Which interface participants would prefer?
Exploratory (How) does the setting influence the usage?
Design of Experiment
Between-subjects design
Factor: location PUV: public space
(transit area, Vienna), n=10
PUG: public space (transit area, Graz), n=8
LAB: laboratory, n=8
Dependent variables Usage duration
Preference
PUV
PUG LAB
Findings Confirmatory
Which interface would be used longer?
ML was used significantly less compared to both PUG and LAB
(Kruskal-Wallis p < .001, post-hoc pairwise Mann-Whitney U)
PUV PUG LAB44% 76% 68%
Findings Confirmatory
Which interface participants would prefer?
“I enjoyed using the ML view in the environment”
ML was enjoyed significantly less compared to PUG
(Kruskal-Wallis p < .001, post-hoc pairwise Mann-Whitney U)
PUV PUG LAB3.5 5 4
Why those differences?
Spatial and Social Context: PUV
Spatial and Social Context: PUG
A closer look at the spatial and social settings
PUV: Mainly waiting area
Perceived social distance
Passers-by partly in peripheral view of partic.
PUG: Mainly transit area
Central square under CCTV
Passers-by behind partic.
PUV
241 passers-by
More and longer intrusions into social and personal space
PUV: 50%
PUG
691 passers-by
Very few, short interactions
no interaction glimpses stay + watch > 5 sec
22% 8%
PUG: 68% 30% 2%
PUV: 15%
Intrusion of social space Intrusion of personal space
5%
Summary
Repeated study on usage of ML and SP in public spaces
Sign. differences in usage time and preference
Potential causes: spatial and social setting
However, many potential confounding factors: personality, demand characteristics, intrinsic motivation
Future Work
Increase ecological validity of results by Promoting intrinsic motivation to use the interfaces
(real users with real needs)
Decreasing awareness of study setting Remote evaluations
Body-worn sensors
Increase external validity of results by Re-running study
Narrow down potential confounding factors More measurements: personality tests (BFI), demand characteristics
(PARH)