Mobile User Interfaces for Efficient Verification of Holograms
14
Teaser Image + Title Mobile User Interfaces for Efficient Verification of Holograms Andreas Hartl, Jens Grubert, Christian Reinbacher, Clemens Arth and Dieter Schmalstieg Graz University of Technology
-
Upload
jens-grubert -
Category
Technology
-
view
162 -
download
3
Transcript of Mobile User Interfaces for Efficient Verification of Holograms
Teaser Image + Title
Mobile User Interfaces for Efficient Verification of Holograms
Andreas Hartl, Jens Grubert, Christian Reinbacher, Clemens Arth
and Dieter Schmalstieg Graz University of Technology
How to identify fake money?
Hologram Verification Workflow
Pre-processing
1. Record reference images and associated camera poses under controlled lighting
Online
1. Capture relevant views
2. Compare reference view with current view (automatic or manual)
Capture single views [1]: guide users to individual
pre-selected views
Capturing Relevant Views
Capture many views [2]
[1] Hartl, A., Grubert, J., Schmalstieg, D., Reitmayr, G.: Mobile interactive hologram verifcation. ISMAR, pages, 2013 [2] T.-H. Park and H.-J. Kwon. Vision inspection system for holograms with mixed patterns. CASE, pages 563–567, 2010
Capture single views [1]: naive impl. too slow
high workload
Capturing Relevant Views
Capture many views [1]: stationary equipment or
too time consuming
[1] Hartl, A., Grubert, J., Schmalstieg, D., Reitmayr, G.: Mobile interactive hologram verifcation. ISMAR, pages, 2013 [2] T.-H. Park and H.-J. Kwon. Vision inspection system for holograms with mixed patterns. CASE, pages 563–567, 2010
?
Alignment (ALI)
Constrained Navigation (CON)
Hybrid Approach (HYB)
Summary View
User Evaluation • 3x4 within-subjects desing
• 19 participants
• IV: – 3 UIs
– 4 holograms (2 real, 2 fake)
• DV: – Task completion time
– System + user decision perf.
– Workload (TLX)
– Usability (ASQ)
– UX (AttrakDiff, IMI)
Findings: Task Completion Time
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Interface
Tim
e (
s)
HYB CON ALI
*
Findings: Performance + UX
Performance
Correct: User (~80%), System (~73%)
Including Neutral: User (~92%), System (~84%)
UX
Nasa TLX: no sign. differences (overall: ~40/100)
ASQ (ease-of-use, task duration), AttrakDiff (Pragmatic and Hedonic qualities), Intrinsic Motivation no sig. differences
User preference: CON (47%), ALI (26%), HYB (26%)
Summary
• New UIs for sampling regions rather than precisely aligning 6 DOF poses can speed up the verification process
• still too slow for most real-world applications
• Users did not prefer the fastest UI
• Automatic matching performance poor better similarity metric
