UIST

Response to [Interaction techniques for ambiguity …] by Mankoff et al.

One Sentence

This paper surveyed existing input ambiguity resolving mechanisms and developed OOPS – a toolkit that addressed the problems in these mechanisms.

Key Points

• … some problem in interaction causes the system to do something other than what the user intended (our ultimate definition of error);
• The four ambiguity problems:
  • Adding alternatives: what the user wants to specify is not presented;
  • Occlusion: choice mediators cover important information;
  • Target ambiguity: the target users are going against is not clear;
  • Errors of omission: the users’ input is completely omitted.
• The two prevailing mediation strategies:
  • Repetition: the user repeats her input until the system correctly interprets it;
  • Choice: the system displays several alternatives and the user selects the correct answer from among them.
• OOPS takes a step further by allowing recognizers to produce arbitrary input events that are dispatched through the same input handling system as any raw events produced by mouse or keyboard;

Take-Away

A large part of the paper has been trying to point out that the OOPS’ as an individual toolkit can be generalized and reused. In the language of development, this is easily convincing. But what if it is not a software technique but a design idea? How can we claim the design of a particular interaction is ‘reusable’?

Response to [Sensing Techniques for Mobile Interaction] by Hinckley et al.

One Sentence

This paper presents the design of interaction techniques integrated in a mobile device as well as the implementations of these techniques by sensors.

(“We describe sensing techniques motivated by unique aspects of human-computer interaction with handheld devices in mobile settings.”)

More Sentences

The paper mainly considers three set of sensors: proximity range, capacitive touch, and tilt.

The paper demonstrates sensor-enhanced mobile interaction techniques in four scenarios (voice memo detection, portrait/landscape display mode detection, tilt scrolling & portrait/landscape modes, and power management) where they focus on the usability aspect – whether the designed technique is beneficial, and how to address the issues that arise from the design.

Key Points

Inspriation

Writing:

• … and demonstrate several new functionalities engendered by the sensors, …
• … the tokens that form the building blocks of the interaction design …
• … convert the raw data into logical form …
• By implementing specific examples, we explore some new points in the design space, uncover many design and implementation issues, and reveal some preliminary user reactions as well as specific usability problems.
• … resulting in a combination of a general-purpose device with many capabilities, and an appliance-like device with a specific use.
• … by naturally phrasing the task into a single cognitive chunk.

Thinking:

• There are two mental models about device tilting/changing orientations: 1) the device is a static ‘painting’ whereby the user has to rotate it towards the ideal viewing orientation; 2) the device has flowing contents whereby the user does not have to worry about how to hold the device;
• The tone of this paper – very exploratory and critical. For their own proposed techniques, they did not campaign for them, but instead, try to break themselves all the way until there is no more possible improvement.

Response to [Monte Carlo Methods …] by Schwarz et al.

One Sentence

This paper presents a Monte Carlo method for processing uncertain input probabilistically.

(“This paper presents a set of techniques for tracking the state of interactive objects in the presence of uncertain inputs”)

More Sentences

Users’ input is taken as samples, weighted and dispatched to interactive objects whose state machines process this input, resulting in a set a sampled states and optional action requests (potentially to be executed). Then a mediation process handles the decision of rejecting/deferring/accepting certain action requests before finally execute them on the interface.

Key Points

• In this paper, we focus on how to interpret uncertain input with respect o interactor state and on giving appropriate feedback to accurately reflect this uncertainty.
• Monte Carlo methods span a range of specific techniques but share the property that probability distributions are approximated by a set of samples over that distribution.

Inspirations

• Can we consider the ‘pipeline’ of interaction? In some sense, certainty is the ‘tip’ or the final phase of interaction (one interaction move ends after it) but uncertainty expands this ‘tip’ to a phase with fuzzy boundaries – even irrelevant input is considered to tolerate the ambiguity. Such ambiguity might be due to an intermediate phase of the process where the user tries to accomplish something. Norman’s stages might help explain some. While both certainty and uncertainty are explicit, how about the implicit – input that cannot be measured by (un)certainty?
• After all, how much have the uncertainty-aware techniques improve? Does it really make a difference?
• Very good observation of new/old technologies: ‘however, new interaction technologies violate the standard assumption that input is certain‘

Response to [SideBySide: Ad-hoc Multi-user… ] by Willis et al.

One Sentence

This paper introduced an technique of  using handheld projectors to realize multi-user interaction without instrumentalizing the environment.

(“We introduce SideBySide, a system designedfor ad-hoc multi-user interaction with handheld projectors.”)

More Sentences

The basic idea is: each projector emits and receives fiducial markers using infra-red light. The spatial relationship of the marker images serves as the interaction input. Each projector only needs to observe different users’ markers to sense each other’s actions, thus dispensing with any sorts of network communication.

Key Points

Inspirations

• Mobile+MultiUsers seems an exciting area;
• Throughout the paper, there are occasional pure participant-free quantitative test, e.g., “We recorded the transmission time of 100 event markers while both projectors were in a static position…”;
• The LIMITATIONS AND TRADEOFFS is the the blue print for writing such sections;

Notes of [NaviRadar: A Tactile… ] by Rumelin et al.

One Sentence

This paper presented a pedestrian navigation method of using tactile feedback to inform users 1) the direction to the destination and; 2) the distance to the next turning point.

(“We introduce NaviRadar: an interaction technique for mobile phones that uses a radar metaphor in order to communicate the user’s correct direction for crossings along a desired route.”)

Inspirations

[About Writing]

• Note the first paragraph of the Introduction – very nice background intro;
• Note the beginning of the second paragraph in the introduction – clearly state the technological goal (and contribution);
• Each study section starts with stating the goal;

[About Study]

• The logic of their two study:
• The goal is to navigate, the derived goal is to tell users 1) the distance to the next crossing (where the user has to turn) and the direction in which to travel.
• The first study studied the subgoal; the second studied the goal;
• Question: if they get rid of the first study, is that ok?
• What to stress in the first study?
• The variations of a simple, proposed technique;
• …