Requirements and Design Space for Interactive Public Displays

Transcription

1 Requirements and Design Space for Interactive Public Displays Jörg Müller, Florian Alt, Albrecht Schmidt, Daniel Michelis Deutsche Telekom Laboratories University of Duisburg-Essen Anhalt University of Applied Sciences

2

3 2

4 The Audience Funnel

5 Comparing Public Displays

6 Calm vs. Engaging Displays Calm Displays Should slide effortlessly between center and periphery of attention Should blend into the environment Should be easy to ignore Engaging Displays Should be fun to interact with Should engage, inspire and entertain the audience Should attract attention Displays may not be used at all if they fail to attract attention 5

7 (Not) Attracting Attention Bottom-up: Compute features from visual field Combine to saliency map Winner-take-all Inhibition of return Which features? Behavioural urgency Bayesian surprise Abrupt appearance, moving, looming stimuli Change blindness: Blank image, change perspective, slow change, change during blink, change while occluded Top-Down: Expectations: Banner/Display blindness Social: Honeypot effect Goal: Look for departure time 6

8 Tools vs. Toys Tools Traditionally, public displays are viewed as tools. For tools, motivation for use is some external goal The most important criteria for tools are usefulness and utility. What to opimize: Time (Less is better) Errors Toys The most important criteria for toys are motivation. What to opimize: Conversion rates Fun Interaction times (More is better) It seems more appropriate to see public displays as toys rather than tools 7

9 (Intrisic) Motivation Challenge and Control Channel between to little and too much challenge Optimally, challenge should adapt to skills of user User needs to know that he controls the display Curiosity and Exploration Curiosity arises when something is unclear, incomplete or uncertain Channel between to little and too much uncertainty Choice Channel between to little and too much choice Even the appearance of choice helps Fantasy and Metaphor Collaboration 8

10 Interaction in the Public The presentation of self People want to maintain their role Displays are a stage, design for introvert and extrovert people Control of access to self People do not like to be unduly approached Data privacy People do not like to be spied upon Social behavior People do not like to stand in the way of others Public Nature of Space You can not control the environment of the display 9

11 The Real Context of Public Displays

12 Poster Window Design Space Metaphors Mirror Overlay

13 (Framed) Poster Often still non-interactive Sensing capabilities allow for implicit and explicit interaction Aligning with users expectations of public displays Issues: Display blindness Example: CityWall 12

14 Window Window to a (remote) real or virtual location Users look inside, other side may look outside as well Examples: Hole-in-Space Exertion Interfaces 13

15 Mirror Reflective surface Allows for embedding user in different context Strong potential to encourage interaction Examples: Magical Mirrors MirrorBoard 14

16 Overlay Content displayed in another context Integrated with the environment Examples: Everywhere Projector E.g., Jumping Frog 15

17 Facial Expression Remote Control Design Space - Interaction Modalities Gesture & Body Posture Touch Presence

18 Interaction Modalities (I) Presence Audience Sensing Example: Hello.Wall Body Position Identify presence in an exact position Example: Cylindrical Displays Body Posture Assessing user approaching a display Facing or simply passing-by Example: Public Ambient Interactive Display Facial Expression Recognizing a user s mood Example: Fraunhofer SHORE 17

19 Interaction Modalities (II) Gaze Tracking a user s gaze path Example: Reflective Signs / Xuuk EyeBox2 Speech Sense keywords in ongoing conversations Estimation of number of people in close vicinity Gesture In-direct, explicit interaction Example: The Pendle, Magical Mirrors

20 Interaction Modalities (III) Remote Control Browsing, adding, or modifying content Example: Touch Projector Keys Low hurdle to interact Example: Opinionizer Touch Direct interaction Example: City Wall 19

21 Taxonomy implicit Mental Models Interac2on Modali2es Presence Body position Poster Windows Mirror Overlay Hello.Wall, BluScreen Cylindrical Screens Palimpsest, Videoplace, Vision Kiosk Body posture Jumping Frog Facial Expression Hole-in-Space emir Gaze ReflectiveSigns Speech Gestures Interactive ambient public display, Pendle Magical Mirrors Diaper Selector, Traveling TicTac-Toe Remote Control Touch Projector explicit Keys Opinionizer Touch CityWall ShadowBoxing 20

22 Take-away Message Requirements Phase Model to describe audience interaction Important Factors: Attention Motivation Interaction in the Public Design Space Important Metaphors are: Posters Windows Mirrors Overlay Thanks! Questions? 21