Interface Aesthetics Week 4 Augmented Reality. Interface Aesthetics 04/02/07

Transcription

1 Interface Aesthetics Week 4 Augmented Reality

2 Augmented reality

3 Augmented reality Based on seeing the real environment. Combines real and virtual realms.

4 AUGMENTED REALITY Vision

5 Vision AUGMENTED REALITY [Terminator 2, 1991]

6 AUGMENTED REALITY

7 AUGMENTED REALITY A brief history of augmented reality

8 AUGMENTED REALITY The first see-through head mounted display [Sutherland, 1965]

9 AUGMENTED REALITY State of the art

10 AUGMENTED REALITY HIT Lab New Zealand

11 HIT LAB NEW ZEALAND

12 AUGMENTED REALITY Applications

13 Medical devices AUGMENTED REALITY APPLICATIONS Ultrasound project, UNC Chapel Hill, State et al.

14 Ultrasound project, UNC Chapel Hill, State et al.

15 AUGMENTED REALITY APPLICATIONS Assembly instructions

16 [Feiner et al., 1993]

17 [Feiner et al., 1993]

18 State et al., UNC Chapel Hill

19 AUGMENTED REALITY APPLICATIONS Annotating the environment

20 Windows on the world, Feiner et al., 1993

21 Feiner et al., 1997

22 Feiner et al., 1997

23 AUGMENTED REALITY APPLICATIONS Expressions

24 Surface drawing, Schkolne et al., 2001

25 AUGMENTED REALITY Technologies

26 AUGMENTED REALITY Video see through HMD [adopted from Billinghurst & Ollila] video video cameras graphics monitors combiner

27 AUGMENTED REALITY Video see through HMD Sony Glasstron HMD with video camera and head tracker [courtesy of Piekarski]

28 AUGMENTED REALITY Optical see through HMD [adopted from Billinghurst & Ollila] images from monitors real world optical combiners

29 AUGMENTED REALITY Optical see through HMD [Xybernaut display]

30 AUGMENTED REALITY Form factors

31 Magic morphin mirror, Blumberg et al., 1998

32 Magic morphin mirror, Blumberg et al.,

33 Mobile AR, HIT Lab New Zealand

34 Mobile AR, HIT Lab New Zealand

35 AUGMENTED REALITY Milgram s reality-virtuality continuum

36 [Milgram et al., 1994]

37 AUGMENTED REALITY Pros and cons

38 EVALUATING AUGMENTED REALITY Three conditions: 1. Face to face 2. Projection display 3. Augmented reality [Billinghurst et al., 2004]

39 [Billinghurst et al., 2004] Face to face Projection display Augmented reality

40 [Billinghurst et al., 2004] Pointing/picking gesture behaviors same in AR as FtF

41 [Billinghurst et al., 2004] AR slower than FtF but ease of use similar to FtF Ease of use

42 AUGMENTED REALITY Effects of a wearable display on face-to-face communication [McAtamney & Parker, 2006]

43 AUGMENTED REALITY Three conditions: 1. No wearable 2. Wearable present but inactive 3. Wearable present and active [McAtamney & Parker, 2006]

44 AUGMENTED REALITY Presence of the HMD had no effect on the interaction, but the information displayed to the wearer did. [McAtamney & Parker, 2006]

45 AUGMENTED REALITY The wearer was distracted by the information being presented to them on the head-set and was less able to give their attention to the conversation. [McAtamney & Parker, 2006]

46 AUGMENTED REALITY The non-wearer appeared to notice the loss of attention to a lesser extent but felt that the wearer was not concentrating as much when the wearable display was switched on. [McAtamney & Parker, 2006]

47 AUGMENTED REALITY Commercial products

48 SkyScout AUGMENTED REALITY [Celestron, 2006]

49 AUGMENTED REALITY Siemens VDO

50 AUGMENTED REALITY New generation of interaction designers will be needed

51 AUGMENTED REALITY Visual interference

52 AUGMENTED REALITY Visual interference The more similar the patterns, the greater the visual interference. [Laramee & Ware, 2002]

53 VISUAL INTERFERENCE Performance degraded significantly when transparency exceeded 50% [Harrison & Vicente, 1996]

54 VISUAL INTERFERENCE Both text contrast and background contrast affect text readability. [Scharff et al., 2000]

55 AUGMENTED REALITY Depth of focus [Laramee & Ware, 2002]

56 AUGMENTED REALITY Augmented reality and beyond

57 AUGMENTED REALITY

58 [Stranger than Fiction]

59 AUGMENTED REALITY Trajectory of augmented reality Computer mediated reality [Mann, 2007]

60 AUGMENTED REALITY Possible computer mediated reality [photos from Agarwala et al, 2004]

61

62 Course exhibition INTERFACE AESTHETICS The Artifact and the Poster to be exhibited and critiqued at the course exhibition on May 7th, 2007.

63 INTERFACE AESTHETICS COURSE EXHIBITION Select your track Tangible Media Ambient Media Augmented Reality

64 Course exhibition INTERFACE AESTHETICS Apply it to a topic of your research interest (e.g., tools for communication, learning/education, information visualization, etc.). Create a mockup with paper, clay, styrofoam (or any other material) that embodies your original idea, concept, or design. Do not worry about the technical implementation, but be prepared to discuss to whom, for what, how, and why your design matters.

65 AUGMENTED REALITY Break into groups BLUMENSTOCK, JOSHUA EVAN OTTO, OWEN OEHLBERG, LORA DAILEY, ALEXANDER CHENG, DEBBIE AGRIN, NATHAN SIMS, CHRISTOPHER O. BUI, PHONG D AIPPERSPACH, RYAN A EARP, MATTHEW EVAN TAM, IVAN DEMERJIAN, ZAVEN AGOB FERRARIO, MARIANO YU, GERALD PERKEL, DAN JOSLING, JOHN M LIM, KEVIN MATEO EUN KYOUNG CHOE MCVEIGH-SCHULTZ, JOSHUA R. LINDHOLM, KATRINA WONG, JOANNE FAYE KAPLUN, VLAD

66 In-class INTERFACE AESTHETICS - Discuss which track -Brainstorm -Sketch -Present

67

68 INTERFACE AESTHETICS Homework for week 5 Find examples of type in your environment. - Successful type: text with a feeling or tone that fits its purpose. - Unsuccessful type: text with a feeling or tone that does not fit its purpose. Take a clear, straight photo of each found type example and post the photos to the course blog.

69