slides - Media Interaction Lab

CRISTAL
Design and Implementation of a Remote
Control System Based on a Multi-touch
Display
Thomas Seifried1, Michael Haller1, Stacey D. Scott2,
Florian Perteneder1, Christian Rendl1,
Daisuke Sakamoto3, Masahiko Inami3
1 Upper
Austria University of Applied Sciences
2 University of Waterloo
3 Keio University
Motivation
Motivation
How to control that many different devices?
How to retain group interaction with virtual media?
Solution: Many Devices
Many devices = many buttons!
www.artlebedev.com
Solution: Many Devices
Touchscreens!
Many devices = many buttons!
www.amx.com
Solution: Group Interaction?
How could a „collaborative remote“ look like?
CRISTAL
Previous
Work
Home Control
Remotable 1
Beijar et al.
Sketch and Run 2
Sakamoto et al.
1) Beijar, J., Leinerud, D., Nilsson, R., Thorin, P., and Weimar, G. Remoteable: Managing a Built-in Media Center with
the Table Top Surface. Conference Supplement of Tabletop '07, (2007).
2) Sakamoto, D., Honda, K., Inami, M., and Igarashi, T. Sketch and run: a stroke-based interface for home robots.
Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Human factors in computing systems, ACM (2009), 197-200.
Interaction via video
Hyperplant [1]
Tani et al.
Interactive Video in FlySPEC [2]
Liao et al.
1) Tani, M., Yamaashi, K., Tanikoshi, K., Futakawa, M., and Tanifuji, S. Object-oriented video: interaction with
real-world objects through live video. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing
systems, ACM (1992), 593-598.
2) Liao, C., Liu, Q., Kimber, D., Chiu, P., Foote, J., and Wilcox, L. Shared interactive video for teleconferencing.
Proceedings of the eleventh ACM international conference on Multimedia, ACM (2003), 546-554.
CRISTAL
Goals
Develop a user interface that:
• Controls all electronic devices in a living room
and
• Supports group interaction
Why Tabletop?
• Ubiquitous
• Multi-User
• Supports group interaction
Instant Feedback
The video image itself is the interface1
Camera image
1) Tani, M., Yamaashi, K., Tanikoshi K., Futakawa M., and Tanifuji S., “Object-oriented video: interaction with realworld objects through live video,” Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems,
Monterey, California, USA (1992), pp. 593-599.
Many different devices
• Many electronic devices:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Lights
Window blinds
Audio
Displays / TV
Digital Picture Frames
Robotic vacuum cleaner
• But they work very different
• Needed: Easy to understand interaction metaphor
Controlling Devices
Video image:
• User recognize devices easily
• Provides area for interaction
Gesture-based input:
• Discrete States
• Continuous Value
• Location/Speed
• Media selection
on/off
audio volume 0 – 100%
Path for vacuum cleaner robot
play Movie Bolt on TV
Gestures - Continuous
Controlling speaker volume
Gestures - Continuous
Direction of Input
• Axis aligned (a)
• Object aligned (b)
Gestures - Continuous
Object oriented approach:
How to increase, how to decrease a value?
Idea: Top & bottom of real object
Media Selection
?
Media Server
Media Selection
Media Selection / Display
Media Selection
Tabletop is not well suited for watching a movie!
Tabletop is for choosing a movie!
Simulate DVD boxes:
• DVD cover
• additional information and
• a preview
Media Selection / Display
Basic Idea: World in Miniature1
Destination
Display
Source / Access
Interface Screenshot
1) Biehl, J.T. and B.P. Bailey. ARIS: An Interface for Application Relocation in an Interactive Space. Proceedings of
Graphics Interface, 2004, 107-116.
Pilot
Study
Pilot Study
• Qualitative Study
• Primary Goals:
• Evaluate the usability and design decisions
• Direction of interaction
• Viewing angle of video
• Procedure:
1. Tasks (Observation)
2. Semi-structured Interview
3. Questionnaire
Participants & Apparatus
• 16 participants (12 male, 4 female)
• Controlled laboratory setting
Direction of interaction
Preferred direction of interaction:
?
Axis aligned
Preferrence:
4 of 16
Object aligned
12 of 16
None
0
Video angle
Preferred viewing angle:
?
„Birds eye“
„Perspective“
None
12 of 16
2 of 16
2 of 16
Evaluation Results
Overall:
• Very positive feedback
• 15 of 16 rated 4 or 5 (good, very good)
• Rating by controlled device:
1 = very bad
5 = very good
Conclusion
Future Work
Conclusions & Future Work
• Live video image very useful
• Privacy concerns
• Devices not covered by video image
Conclusions & Future Work
• Bulky hardware
• Cluttered coffee table
Future Work
Thank you
Thomas Seifried
[email protected]
Media Interaction Lab
http://mi-lab.org