Task Assignment on Tabletop Computer

STUDENT : CHAYAN KUMAR DEB

PROGRAMME : Post-Graduate Diploma Programme

DIPLOMA PROJECT

COLLABORATIVETASK ASSIGNMENTON TABLETOP COMPUTERSponsor : ABB, Bangalore

GUIDE : MANOJ NEELKANTHAN

COMMUNICATION DESIGN FACULTY ( NEW MEDIA DESIGN)

National Institute of DesignGandhinagar

2012

The

Eval

uat

ion

Ju

ry r

eco

mm

end

s C

HA

YA

N K

UM

AR

DEB

fo

r th

e

D

iplo

ma

of

the

Na

tio

na

l In

stit

ute

of

De

sig

n

IN C

OM

MU

NIC

ATI

ON

DES

IGN

(N

EW M

EDIA

DES

IGN

)

her

ewit

h, f

or

the

pro

ject

tit

led

"C

OLL

AB

OR

ATI

VE

TASK

ASS

IGN

MEN

T FO

R T

AB

LETO

P C

OM

PUTE

R"

on

fu

lfilli

ng

th

e fu

rth

er r

equ

irem

ents

by

*

Ch

airm

an

Mem

ber

s :

*Su

bse

qu

ent

rem

arks

reg

ard

ing

fu

lfilli

ng

th

e re

qu

irem

ents

:

Reg

istr

ar(A

cad

emic

s)

collaborativetask assignment

ontabletop computer

collaborativetask assignment

ontabletop computerDesigning for a computer which is more ‘collaborative’ than ‘personal’

chayan debNew Media Design 2010-12National Institute of Design, India

Guide: Manoj Neelkanthan

Professor Manoj Neelkanthan of NID, Bangalore for giving ideas and advice throughout the project duration.

Dr. Sanjay Tripathi, Junaid Asad, Wagesh Kulkarni, Shyam Jayakrishnan and Gaurav Bhargva of HCI & Usability Research Group of ABB, Bangalore for being super-cool supportive colleagues.

Dr. Jignesh Khakhar of NID, Gandhinagar for all the tutoring in the last 2 years.

Syed Fawaz Ahmed of NID, Gandhinagar for the constant criticism.

Lakshya Shrivastava, Suvani Suri and Khushboo Sinha of NID, Gandhinagar for lending ears.

Nikhil Joshi of NID, Gandhinagar and Kunal Bhattacharya, Santosh Nayak, Harshwardhan Singh and Gunjan Choudhury, old friends from KIIT University, Bhubaneswar for the help during prototyping.

My parents, family and Tulika Choudhury for all the love and support.

acknowledgements

Acknowledgements1 Synopsis 1.1 Abstract 2 1.2 Sponsor 3 1.3 Timeline 4 1.4 Motivation 4 1.5 Project Brief 5

2 Introduction 2.1 Background 8 2.2 Purpose 9

3 Understanding 3.1 Definitions 12 3.2 Research 3.2.1 Questions 15 3.2.2 Precedent Studies 16 3.2.3 Secondary Research 19 3.2.4 Interviews 25 3.3 Research Reflections 27 3.4 Consolidation & Re-evaluation 28

4 Design Directions 4.1 Idea Generation 32 4.2 Design Goals 34 4.3 Design Considerations 35 4.4 Design Decisions 37 4.5 Interaction Guidelines 40

5 Design Developments 5.1 Information Architecture 46 5.2 Wireframes 47 5.3 Technology 55 5.4 Prototype 58

6 Analysis 75

7 Conclusion 79

Glossary 83 Image Credits 85 References 87

contents

collaborative task assignment on tabletop computer 1

1synopsis

1.1 Abstract1.2 Sponsor1.3 Timeline1.4 Motivation1.5 Project Brief

chayan deb2

The project looks into the distinctive properties of the new medium- Tabletop Computers (also called Surface Computers), which have generated lot of interest in the Interaction Design, Human-Computer Interaction and Computer Supported Co-operative Work community in the last few years. The attempt is to leverage on the horizontal form-factor and multi-touch properties of the tabletop computer. It offers an unconstrained display orientation and a group interface with egalitarian access. The ‘personal’ computer we know disappears and gives way to a more ‘collaborative’ computer.

Activities like Task Assignment which ideally should be done at table discussion, actually happens over network on personal computers even though there is no constraint on common time and space. Such scenario exhibits the definite fallout of the wide-spread electronic network. Research[4] has shown that collaboration done face-to-face (as compared to computer-mediated) is faster in reaching consensus, richer in terms of quality of communication and tends to be more satisfying for the group.

The table, as an ubiquitous furniture, affords placement of objects on it, affords spreading, piling and organizing those objects, affords pulling of chairs around it to sit and relax or work together, and most importantly it affords face-to-face collaboration amongst a small group of collocated individuals.[25]

A tabletop computer, which combines the productivity benefit of a computer with the social benefits of around-the-table interaction, can facilitate activities like task assignment which require face-to-face collaboration. This project is an attempt at bringing such tasks back at a table. This project is about making Task Assignment activity possible face-to-face on a computer which is more ‘collaborative’ than ‘personal’.

Microsoft Surface 2.0 (now called Microsoft PixelSense) has been used for the purpose.

The project, while underway, was being documented on:Diploma Project Bloghttp://diplomaprojectblog.tumblr.com/

1.1 abstract


abb

ABB is an engineering multinational company operating in more than 100 countries. ABB operates mainly in power technologies, industrial automation and robotics. ABB carries out research at its 7 Corporate Research Centres across the globe.

hci & usability research group

The HCI & Usability Research Group is a part of the Corporate Research. It is a 15 member group comprised of HCI Researchers, Interaction Designers, Human Factors Specialists and Usability Engineers working from Bangalore, India and Västerås, Sweden.

The group has a two-fold approach- They continuously work on improving the usability and interaction of the existing and new ABB products. They also work on upcoming technologies and futuristic ideas which could shape the way HCI evolves in the industrial context.

1.2 sponsor

Fig. 1: At the HCI & Usability Research Lab, ABB Bangalore

chayan deb4

1.3 timeline

Mar Apr May Jun Jul

3rd Guide Visit7/28/12

2nd Internal Review7/7/12

2nd Guide Visit6/5/12

1st Internal Review5/17/12

1st Guide Visit4/30/12

Registration3/15/12

Research 3/12/12 4/27/12

Analysis 4/16/12 5/4/12

Concept Generation 4/23/12 5/18/12

Wireframing 5/21/12 6/1/12

Prototyping 6/4/12 7/31/12

Evaluation 7/16/12 7/20/12

The author had previously undertaken a project involving gestural interactions* and attempted at building a multi-touch table in another project#. It motivated him to explore more into Natural User Interfaces, more specifically in Tabletop Computers.

Since most of the previous explorations on Tabletop Computers have looked into education, hospitality, entertainment, performing arts and consumer electronics domains, the author focused this project on the possible use in office environments for supporting small group collaborations.

1.4 motivation

*The Memory Lane Project- http://cargocollective.com/chayandeb/The-Memory-Lane-Project#Multi-touch Table- http://cargocollective.com/nmd/filter/interactions/Multitouch

Fig. 2: Project timeline


original project brief

The project aims to study and understand the emerging field of Natural User Interfaces and design interactions for probable application for industrial users.

evolved project brief

The project aims to:

1. Study Tabletop Computers as an emerging area in Natural User Interfaces, understand and build on its distinctive properties like its horizontal form factor and multi-touch abilities.

2. Understand the advantages of face-to-face collaboration over computer mediated collaboration.

3. Design for a Task Assignment application on the Tabletop Computer which could leverage on the advantages of FtF communication.

1.5 project brief


2introduction

2.1 Background2.2 Purpose

chayan deb8

The wide spread use of electronic network in the last two decades has changed the way we communicate with each other. Computer mediated (CM) communication has permeated our professional and personal lives[34]. In office/work scenarios, CM communication has kind of become a norm owing to the numerous advantages it has over traditional communication modes- like independence from time/space constraints, ease of reproduction/reference etc. Research[4] has shown that face-to-face (FtF) communication as compared to CM communication is richer in terms of quality of information. In many work scenarios, however, speed and ease of communication is more important than the quality of information. CM communication has proved to be excellent in such scenarios. CM communication has been so pervasive that even in scenarios where it is not required, users prefer CM communication over the traditional modes.

Considering project management activities in office scenario- Presently, all such activities are efficiently done asynchronously on project management tools[15]. Typical project management activities like task division

and assignment have been conventionally done over FtF discussions. However, today task assignment activities are done over CM communication using project management tools, even though the concerned persons are in same office.

Taking a typical scenario- Few managers, all in the same office, have to discuss and assign multiple tasks to their team members. Usually such task assignment happens over multiple iterations on shared project plans or on client-server applications. Every person involved in the task assignment activity accesses the plan and makes changes according to his/her estimation. With every change, the others make changes in their plans till a common consensus is met. All these happen over CM communication. Ironically, to reach a consensus in such a task assignment activity, all managers end up in a meeting to discuss and assign tasks face-to-face. This reiterates the research findings which state that FtF communication is more effective than CM communication in dissemination of work-related information to colleagues[7] and is faster in reaching consensus in groups[24][37][9].

2.1 background


The purpose of this project is to bring the activities like task assignment, which are best done face-to-face, back on a table so that they can be done in the best possible way.

Evolution of medium like the tabletop computer has opened up possibility of bringing face-to-face communication into CSCW. The project is an attempt to make task assignment application on a tabletop computer, design for the associated human-computer interaction and human-human interaction, deriving the best of FtF and CM communication.

2.2 purpose


3understanding

3.1 Definitions3.2 Research3.3 Research Reflections3.4 Consolidation & Re-evaluation

chayan deb12

Preliminary investigation included enquiring into and defining of few important terms related to the project premise:

natural user interfaces (nui)

Natural User Interfaces is an emerging computer interaction methodology. According to Bill Buxton, An interface is natural, if it “exploits skills that we have acquired through a lifetime of living in the world.”[20] NUI focuses on natural human abilities like touch, vision, voice and motion as modes of interaction. The idea is to make the interface invisible so that the interaction is intuitive and the learning curve is negligible.

Comparing NUI to Graphical User Interface (GUI) or Command Line Interface (CLI) - The input modality i.e. Keyboard, Mouse which is central to GUI/CLI disappears in NUI and focus shifts to the interaction style. In NUI, the users ‘directly manipulate’ the content, controls like buttons, windows etc. are secondary.

direct manipulation

Direct Manipulation is a human–computer interaction style which involves continuous representation of objects of interest, and rapid, reversible, incremental actions and feedback. Direct Manipulation, though conceptualized in 1983[32] when computer interfaces were moving from CLI to GUI, still

holds good in today’s context at the juncture between GUI and NUI.

Direct manipulation may be defined as a direct mapping between the semantic level of the dialogue and the syntactic level. The syntax of operations should correspond to a metaphor of the semantic change in the data and the screen representation of objects should mirror their internal state.[26]

In NUI, the attempt is to bring the metaphor of semantic change even closer to the screen representation of objects.

tangible user interfaces (tui) / tangible interaction

Tangible User Interfaces is an emerging computer interaction methodology. Hiroshi Ishii of MIT Media Labs envisions “Tangible Bits”[17], a concept central to TUI– Physical embodiment of digital information and computation. TUIs expand the affordances of physical objects, surfaces and spaces so they can support direct engagement with the digital world.

Very precisely, Tangible Interaction = Form + Computing[3]. While form of the artefact visually signals and physically embodies functionality, expresses cues for understanding, and provides the script for interaction; computation prescribes its interactive behaviour.

3.1 definitions


tabletop (surface) computers

Tables afford placement, piling and organizing of objects on it. More importantly it affords gathering around it and calls for face-to-face collaboration. Tabletop (Surface) Computer is a hardware which combines the social benefits of around-the-table interaction with the productivity benefit of a computer.

Traditional computers are essentially ‘personal’ i.e. to be used by one person only, mobile devices like laptops, tablets and phones are even more so. Unlike the ‘personal’ computers, tabletop computers are for group usage- While its form factor and size calls for assembly around it, multi-touch capabilities and unconstrained display orientation offers egalitarian access to a small collocated group.

Tabletop system embodies the “board” of Mark Weiser’s vision of the three types of ubiquitous computing device. Weiser foresaw the emergence of wearable centimeter-size “tabs”, handheld decimeter-size “pads” and meter-size “boards”.[38]

project management

Project management is the discipline of planning, organizing, securing, managing, leading, and controlling resources to achieve specific goals. The primary challenge associated with project management is optimization of allocation of tasks. Task oriented project management is a good practice. Proper division and allocation of tasks is an important part of it.

chayan deb14

Fig. 3 The CSCW Matrix

computer-supported cooperative work (cscw)

CSCW is a generic term, which combines the understanding of the way people work in groups with the enabling technologies of computer networking, and associated hardware, software, services and techniques.

CSCW can be conceptualized using a

time-space matrix[18]. The two dimensions are: First, whether collaboration is co-located or geographically distributed, and second, whether individuals collaborate synchronously or asynchronously. Computer-mediated communication plays a central role in CSCW.

(See Fig. 3)


3.2.1 questions1. Explore properties of Tabletop Computer to know which property can be leveraged upon maximum in an office scenario.

2. In what office scenarios face-to-face collaboration is absolutely necessary? What properties of face-to-face communication make them so?

3.2 research

chayan deb16

3.2.2 precedent studiesIn order to understand the existing scenario in the space of tabletop computers and project management, a series of precedent studies were done. It encompassed well established products to experimental projects.

commercial tabletop computer applications

Microsoft and Perceptive Pixel have successful tabletop computer hardware out in the market. The applications for them can be categorized under the following:

Multi-player games:- Multi-Touch based games- Object Recognition based games

Visualization applications:- Map based visualization application- Large Data visualization application- Catalogue presentation application

Sonicspreeby Ergonomidesign and Connecta

Sonicspree integrates traditional games with real dice into a multi-touch, multi-user experience. Players roll the dice to start a matching game in which songs need to be paired with their album covers using the Spotify music service, with more than 10 million songs to choose from.

(See Fig. 4)

Fig. 4 Sonicspree


The Real Estate Agentby Seven Steps

The Real Estate Agent supports realtors and their clients in finding the right real estate property to buy or rent. It allows the user browse through train stations, museums, schools or restaurants using Bing Maps.

The Real Estate Agent shows all relevant information in a 360° interface, thereby enabling a multi-user experience.

(See Fig. 5)

Fig. 5 The Real Estate Agent

chayan deb18

commercial project management packages

Gartner has placed Microsoft Office Project Server/Microsoft Project as “Strong Positive”, the highest possible rating, in its Magic Quadrant. Gartner Magic Quadrant (MQ) is

an acclaimed research tool which provides a qualitative analysis into a market and its direction.[14]

All the interviewees who were interviewed during the research used Microsoft Office Project Server or Microsoft Project for their project management purpose.

Microsoft Office Project Server is a client-server project management solution which uses Microsoft SharePoint as its base and Microsoft Project as its client application. A web-based version is also available. It has support for all major project management

functions like scheduling, issue tracking, reporting, document management, resource management. The 2010 release has ribbon interface similar to all Office products and has relatively flatter learning curve than other project management software tools.

Microsoft Office Project Server / Microsoft Projectby Microsoft

Fig. 6 Microsoft Project


3.2.3 secondary research

types of table in collaboration

Analysing the typical collaborative uses of traditional tables, a heterogeneous pattern of activities emerges, which is highly dependent on the actual form of the table as well as its position in the architecture of the place. Three types of tables with different purposes and supported activities can be differentiated[22]:

1. Meeting Table: The primary activities on a meeting table are related to communication. Every participant has a defined private space and there’s a public space at the centre. However information pertaining to everyone at table is not shown at the public space. Due to the size of the table, and hence, different viewing angles, the presentation of public information is usually shifted away from the public area table to a wall-sized display.

2. Collaboration Table: In contrast to the meeting table, the collaboration table is not primarily geared towards communication, but it emphasizes actually working with or on the table’s surface. Typically, it is used by fewer collaborating people at the same time than a meeting table, so it is smaller in size. Smaller size ensures equal access to manipulation and retrieval to all. There’s hardly any private space on a collaboration table. Also, to raise the activation level of participants they often stand around the table in contrast to sitting. Consequently, the duration of work periods are shorter.

3. Ambient Table: The primary activity of ambient table is to support opportunistic encounter and quick ad-hoc work for small groups. They are found all over, mostly in public. Ambient tables are public artefact; however the work done on those, in most cases, are of private nature.

chayan deb20

traditional tabletop work practices

A look at the work practices on a traditional tabletop[25] informs a lot:

1. More turn-taking happens and there is more participation from all group members in FtF collaboration around tables[28].

2. Studies show that the orientation of items on tables plays important communicative and coordinating roles, in addition to impacting legibility[19].

3. Pointing gestures on shared tabletops, generally dubbed as “finger talk”, are of significant importance[29].4. Work around tables tends to transition between periods of closely-coupled group work and times of more individual activity[23]

[10].

5. Groups tend to informally treat the centre of a table as a shared public space, while considering the spaces nearest to themselves as areas reserved for individual use[30].

6. Legitimate peripheral participation happens, by which novice group members benefit from observing more experienced members’ actions[21].


evolution of tabletop computers

The concept of tabletop computers is not new. They have been there for now almost two decades. Looking into the evaluation of tabletops:

1992ClearBoard- NTT Human Interfaces Lab

Application: DrawingLeveraged feature: Table for single person use, Direct Manipulation

1992The Active Desk- University of Toronto

Application: Electronic draftingLeveraged feature: Table for single person use, Direct Manipulation

1997metaDESK by Tangible Media Group, MIT Media Lab

Application: 3D VisualizationLeveraged feature: Tangible Interfaces

chayan deb22

1998BUILD IT- Peter Droxler

Application: 3D Visualization for ArchitectureLeveraged feature: Tangible Interfaces

2001Diamond Touch- Circle Twelve Inc., MERL

Applications: Brainstorming and decision making for construction management companyLeveraged feature: Table for collaboration, Large display real estate

2002Smart Skin- Jun Rekimoto

Leveraged feature: Freehand manipulation, Capacitive sensing


2007Surface- Microsoft

Application: Games, VisualizationLeveraged feature: Multi-touch, Large screen real estate

2011Surface 2 (Later renamed PixelSense)- Microsoft

Application: Games, Visualization, Portfolio displayLeveraged feature: Multi-touch, Large screen real estate, Thinner form-factor

The history of evolution of tabletop computers shows 3 paradigm shifts[13]:1998—from lab prototypes to real-world applications2001—from single-touch to multi-touch and tangibility2009—from projection to direct-display technology

Fig. 7-14 Evolution of tabletop computers

chayan deb24

computer-mediated communication vs. face-to-face communication

Communication, being central to any interaction design project, had to be well understood. Computer-mediated (CM) communication is the fundamental mode of communication in CSCW, as opposed to the traditional face-to-face (FtF) communication. Both, CM communication and FtF communication has their pros and cons. A good way to understand both of them is to compare them[6]:

3.CM groups take longer to complete the allotted task[8][16][24][33][37]. (might be due to the time taken to type is greater than to talk[16])

2. In a given time period CM groups produce fewer remarks than FtF groups. CM groups have a tendency of giving more suggestions, orientation, opinions, formal expressions[16] and fewer spontaneous questions[23].

3. There is lesser agreement in CM communication[16] and FtF is faster in reaching consensus in groups[24][37][9].

4. There is reduced normative social pressure in CM groups, and hence there is greater equality of participation in CM groups[24][33].

5. Perception (understanding) of partner and task is poorer in CM groups[1][36].

6. In CM communication, evaluation of the communication partner is poorer under conditions of limited time[2]. Evaluation of the medium is influenced by the type of the task.

7. There is higher incidence of uninhibited behaviour in CMC groups[33]. CMC induces a state of de-individuation, which in turn leads to uninhibited behaviour.

8. FtF communication is more effective than CM communication in dissemination of work-related information to colleagues[7].


3.2.4 interviewsTo gain richer insights into task assignment activity and user behaviour undertaking it, few interviews were conducted. An interview guide was prepared based on the understanding from secondary research and some contextual observation.

participants

The 3 participants, whose part of the job is to manage a team, were conveniently sampled for interviewing:

1. Santosh N., Male, Age 28Team Leader in a mid-tier IT services company

2. Asha G., Female, Age 32Program Manager in a mid-tier HR consultancy company

3. Soumyajit S., Male, Age 36Project Manager in a top-tier IT services company

interview guide

1. Could you please give a brief introduction of yourself and your organization?

2. Please tell about the role you play in your organization.

3. How long have you been in managerial role?

4. What are the most challenging tasks as a manager?

5. As a manager, in which activities do you collaborate with your peers and your team members?

6. In which of this collaboration, you need to have a face-to-face collaboration?

7. Which project management tool do you use? Have you ever used any other project management tool?

8. You do a lot of activities using project management tool. Do you think, for all of these activities a tool is inevitable?

9. Do you think any of these activities can be better done without a project management tool?

10. What limitations does your project management tool have?

11. How do you rate the tools you have used, say out of 10?

chayan deb26

excerpts from interview

Insightful excerpts from the 3rd interview (with Soumyajit S.)-

CD: What are the most challenging tasks as a manager?SS: You see... project management is a very broad term. As you go ahead managing resources, project management becomes a way of life. You look at things from point of view of a project manager. It’s like... you don’t discriminate like...this is a project management task and this is not a project management task. But yes, among the more conventional project management tasks...I think the ones which involve collaboration are the ones which are most challenging. You see...in an individual task, you put your own efforts. You know about your strengths and weaknesses, your schedule, your state of mind and things like that. But in an activity which requires collaboration...there are lot of factors which you don’t have an idea about. Social factors come into play...and handling that is the most difficult part.

CD: In which of this collaboration, you need to have a face-to-face collaboration?

SS: Almost all collaborative activities at some point or other involve face-to-face collaboration. Personally speaking, I don’t get that sense of seriousness...you know that feeling that I am actually doing something worthwhile, unless I meet or speak to a person face-to-face. I don’t know...probably this sounds very old-worldish, but yes...that’s the way I feel. That is why I make it a point to conclude or finalize things on a face-to-face meeting. It really gives you the true picture...when I see the face of a person in front of me; you know...I can read a lot into it. I know if someone means what he or she is saying.

CD: But you do see the face in a video call too...

SS: Well...that is true. But...I don’t know, it really doesn’t seem real enough to read more into it. Virtual is virtual. There are limits to it.

CD: Anyway, coming back to the question... for which specific tasks face-to-face collaboration is absolutely essential.

SS: I can tell you about the case of task assignment...you know, I totally feel that task assignment can only be efficiently done on a face-to-face conversation. I am really unsure why in the first place we ever try doing such things over the network.

CD: Why do you think so...

SS: Ok, then. First, I’ll explain how task assignment happens. The team leads breaks the work into modular tasks and estimates the time each of them require. Now many tasks are inter-related and there are lot of dependencies. None of the leads can stand-alone do this activity of estimating and assigning tasks. So...they do it on a shared plan on Microsoft Project. And anytime one team lead makes changes in the plan, others are affected and they see if they can accommodate such changes, and they in turn make other changes. This keeps on happening until a consensus is reached. But you see...reaching a consensus over a mediated conversation is really never happens. It ultimately comes down to a meeting. In the meeting it is much easier to get the differences settled...and come down to a consensus. So, my point is that if task assignment anyways, happens in the face-to-face meeting...then what is the point iterating it over the network.


Answering the questions (raised in 3.2.1) from the secondary research learning and insights from the interviews:

1. The four most distinctive features of tabletop computers are: i Multi-touch capability ii Object recognition iii Large screen real estate iv Form-factor of a table

From the history of evolution of tabletop computers (3.2.3.1) and at the precedent studies (3.2.2) it can be derived that the current tabletop applications are focusing in the area of entertainment, education and hospitality, and the most leveraged features of the hardware are its multi-touch capabilities and its large screen real estate.

The very form-factor of the hardware, which distinguishes it as a computer which is ‘collaborative’ and not ‘personal’, is under-leveraged. The probable paradigm shift in computing, from ‘personal’ to ‘collaborative’ can be possible if built up on the form-factor of the tabletop computers.

2. All project management tasks are majorly done using CM communication. FtF communication is required in places which require discussion and planning- task assignment is one of them. Though project management tools support task assignment activities, most of the times the final assignment happens in a FtF meeting.

But again, existing meeting table does not offer the capabilities of computing which the individual have on their work desk. (The individual laptops/handheld devices at a meeting table in no manner helps in the discussion, actually, it limits the FtF collaboration)

In FtF communication, the participants become aware of each other’s intent. Intent is something which is rarely communicated in CM communication, though there’s eye contact in many CM modes like video conferencing.

FtF communications are more effective in disseminating task related information amongst colleagues[7] and are faster in reaching consensus in a group[24][37][9].

3.3 research reflections

chayan deb28

mindmap

The understanding gained through secondary research and precedent studies, insights from the interviews and the rudimentary ideas that had emerged from the research reflections- All of them had to be consolidated and depicted in one place in order to take it further. Mindmap served as a tool to enable the same.

The mindmap, in addition to acting as a consolidation mechanism of the previous research, also provided stimulus for crystallization of design ideas. These ideas then acted as the basis for brainstorming. It also acted as an infographic support for explanation of the project.

3.4 consolidation & re-evaluation

Fig. 15 Mindmap


re-evaluation of project brief

The consolidation of outcome of secondary research, precedent study and interviews into a mindmap prompted a re-evaluation of the project brief. The initial project brief was very open-ended and it had to be narrowed down to a specific usage scenario.

1. The author’s personal interest in the area of Tabletop Computers (Sec. 1.4) helped narrow down the wider premise of NUI to a Tabletop Computers.

2. Precedent study in the area of Tabletop Computers revealed explorations in the domain of entertainment, education, hospitality, etc. where the multi-touch properties and the large screen real estate is leveraged upon, leaving scope for exploitation of the table-like form-factor of the hardware (Sec. 3.3). Building up on the table-like form-factor of hardware prompted to understand face-to-face communication, its properties, its pros and cons with respect to computer-mediated communication.

3. The sponsor’s interest and the research reflections (Sec. 3.4) drove the project to design for a task assignment application which could leverage on the advantages of face-to-face communication.

Each of the above points is dependent on each other and fed into each other, and they developed in parallel and not in the strict order as stated.

Abbreviating the above points to state the project brief (Sec. 1.5):

The aim of the project is to

1. Study Tabletop Computers as an emerging area in Natural User Interfaces, understand and build on its distinctive properties like its horizontal form factor and multi-touch abilities.

2. Understand advantages of face-to-face communication over computer-mediated communication.

3. Design for a Task Assignment application on the Tabletop Computer which could leverage on advantages of FtF communication.


4designdirections

4.1 Idea Generation4.2 Design Goals4.3 Design Considerations4.3 Design Decisions

chayan deb32

brain storming

The mind map served as an infographic depicting the road map of the project and as a consolidation of understanding and ideas.

Using the mind map, the author briefed 4 colleague researchers and conducted a brainstorming session to generate more focused design ideas.

4.1 idea generation

Fig. 16 Brainstorm synthesis


synthesis

The ideas emerged in the brainstorming were synthesized into 5 major categories:

The ensuing discussion reiterated the potentiality in designing a task assignment application for the table top computer. Also, the quality of the ideas pertaining to task assignment was well received.

Fig. 17 Ideas from brainstorm synthesis

chayan deb34

1. To get the best of “meeting table” and “collaboration table”[22] on the table meant for task assignment. (Sec. 3.2.3)

2. To leverage on the “social” benefits of FtF communication and “productivity” benefits of CM communication (Sec. 3.2.3) in the design for human-human interaction and human-computer interaction during task assignment on tabletop computer.

3. To bring the task assignment activity back on table and help users reach consensus on task assignment activities faster.

4.2 design goals


public & private information

Users on a traditional table naturally divide the work surface into distinct regions for personal work and for group objects and activities[30] (Sec 3.2.3). Simultaneously supporting both group and personal tasks on the tabletop computer is crucial to designing effective application for task assignment.

managing display elements

This is a fundamental question in CSCW, especially related to tabletop computers: Whether the common controls are to be kept centralized or are to be replicated?The design for task assignment application needs to consider this question.

occlusion

On tabletop computers, occlusions created by the user’s hand decrease interaction performance with menus. The key design criteria are to avoid these occlusions and to adapt the menu placement to the user’s handedness and position on the tabletop.

democracy

In FtF groups, status differences in group members often determine participation[24]

[33], with higher status members participating more. (Sec. 3.2.3) The designed application has to be democratic; it should allow everyone on the table to have equal access to the information on screen; thereby attempting to ease if not attenuate the differences. Hence, the displayed information should have unconstrained display orientation.

metaphors

The metaphors are meant to make inanimate artefact approachable and usable, at a conceptual level. The tabletop computer can be considered a “Full Metaphor”[12] and the attempt is to make all the elements as close as possible to the full metaphor.

4.3 design considerations

chayan deb36

skeuomorphs

In order to retain the feel of working (with documents) on a table, the concept of skeuomorphism[35] has to be incorporated on the task assignment application for the tabletop computer. Skeuomorphs are more visual where as metaphors are conceptual.

A brief background on skeuomorphism: A skeuomorph is a derivative object that is designed in such a manner, it retains the structure of the original object. Design of a skeuomorph requires an optimal balance of aesthetics and usability. An example of skeuomorph would be the UI of present day music players which have the look and feel of actual physical music players

complete with circular knob for controlling volume. Another example would be the virtual keyboard for touch devices which are embossed, give clicking sound feedback like physical keyboard and even have dents on F and J keys. There are some associated disadvantages as well. Skeuomorphs, since mimic real world objects, improper usage might provide false affordance and limit functionalities. Excessive usage of skeuomorphs may add too much visual noise.

Skeuomorphs work well with multi-touch devices, since they are greater ‘direct manipulation’ device than mouse/trackpad driven computers. The design of the task assignment application have an optimal usage of skeuomorphs.

Fig. 18 Dents on F and J keys on the virtual keyboard of iPad


Key decisions on design of the task assignment, which took into account the design considerations (Sec. 4.3):

public & private information

For fluid transition of digital documents in between states of public and private accessibility on a tabletop computer, 4 gestures have been proposed[25]: Release, Relocate, Reorient and Resize.

Conceptually, each of the above gestures mimics the interactions with paper documents.

ReleaseIf user A “holds” an electronic document and user B attempts to take it, then if user A continues to hold the document, user B will come away empty-handed. However, if user A releases his touch from the document, user B will successfully acquire it.

ReloacteWhen the document is in User A’s private area, it is inaccessible to other users. By moving the document to the center (public) section of the table, it becomes publicly accessible.

4.4 design decisions

chayan deb38

ReorientWhen User A’s document faces him it is not accessible to other users. User A rotates his document to face the center of the table in order to make it publicly accessible.

ResizeUser A’s small document is inaccessible to other users. User A enlarges his document, thereby making it public.

on managing display elements

Research in the area of management of display elements on tabletop computers[25] has been debated long and hard on the pros and cons of common and centralized control. Considering factors like ease of collaboration, usability, usage of screen real-estate, user preference; replicated controls are found to fare better than centralized controls.

occlusion

The behavioural difference between left and right-handed users have an effect on screen coverage[5], but the design for the project has been done for right-handed user. Circular menus have invocation point i.e. point of touch of finger tip or stylus tip is the centre. Referring to a full 360° circle of possible item

placements around an invocation point, 92° of the circle are occluded on average[27].

For the project the occlusion area has been rounded off to 90°. The menu has been made square instead of round, with each option displayed in square tile instead of circular pieces. The real estate offers bigger real estate than circular pieces.

democracy

Deciding on addressing the democracy of the application has been a challenge. Instead of limiting all tasks in a single document (entries in rows of a single spreadsheet), it was decided to represent the tasks independently. The intention is to reduce the control onto one user.

Fig. 19 -22 Managing public & private information on tabletop computers


metaphors

The attempt was to come up with a ‘full metaphor’, where the user needs to make no analogy at all—to their mind, the virtual system is the physical system: they manipulate an object and the world changes in the desired way, as in ‘‘Really Direct Manipulation’’[11]. However there has been a limitation on the capabilities of the hardware, the decided metaphor of “cards” for each task, were actually “noun and verb metaphor” instead of full metaphor.In “noun metaphor” an analogy is made to the physical shape /look/sound of object(s) in the system. However, the actions employed on/with that object are either not analogous or only weakly so. Conversely, in some systems, the analogy is to the act being

performed (the ‘‘verb’’), largely independent of the object it is being performed on. Noun and verb are now related, with an appeal to analogy, but the physical and virtual objects still differ [11].

skeuomorphs

In order to retain the feel of working with (paper) documents on table, each of the tasks have been skeuomorphed as paper documents (card) with ability to be flipped or physically moved across a table, piled, etc. Though, some more functionality (which are unlike physical documents) have been decided upon: like zooming in/out to reveal/hide information, menus to edit,interaction of users with the dashboard, etc.

chayan deb40

4.5 interaction guidelinesThe study of tabletop computers as a multi-touch device revealed that the interaction design for it is very different from that for tablets. Unlike tablets, tabletop computers are meant for multiple users and hence the larger size.The author collated the understanding into a set of guidelines to be kept in mind while designing an application for tabletop computer:

1. Use 360° application design

i Make sure everyone can use content, avoid facing it toward only one side of the display.Enable people to change the direction content faces. Don’t lock content to a particular screen direction.

ii Make sure everyone can reach and use key application elements from all sides of the unit.

iii If the application is freely oriented (has no top or bottom), enable people to change content orientation within the application.

Fig. 23 -25 Guidelines for 360o application design


2. Understand how people share screen space

i Make it clear to everyone when an important application wide change occurs.

ii Make sure one person’s touch interactions don’t unexpectedly affect other people’s experience.

iii Enable people to move and share controls; do not attach shared controls to one side of the display.

iv Communicate content possession through placement; if new content belongs to a particular person, place it in front of them on the screen. If the group shares a piece of content, place it in the centre.

3. Support different levels of collaboration

i Enable several people to simultaneously use content and controls. Do not block progress by requiring everyone to use a common set of controls; allow people to break up portions of the task by physically dividing up and sharing the controls.

ii Do not segment the screen into areas tied to particular functions.

4. Understand how people share Surface applications

i Ensure the number of people using an application doesn’t affect its functionality

ii Enable new people to join without disrupting the experience for people already using the application.

Fig. 26 -27 Guidelines for sharing screen space

Fig. 28 Guidelines for supporting levels ofcollaboration

chayan deb42

4. Use direct touch interactions

i. Do not redefine standard direct touch interactions e.g. move, flick, rotate, pinch-zoom.

ii. Interactive elements must be properly sized for finger and object touches.o Any item that responds to people’s touch, a touch target, must be at least 18mm in size in all directions (18mm x 18mm).

Allow at least 3mm between minimally sized touch targets.

5. Use objects to enhance experience

i. Make on-screen objects behave like physical objects.

ii. Use interaction metaphors that start with physical manipulation then extend it beyond what is possible in the real world embracing the possibilities of the digital world.

iii. Mimic the real world in your transitions by using notions such as mass, acceleration, friction, viscosity, and gravity.

6. Always respond to touch

i. Give people subtle visual hints as to what the interaction should be.

ii. Use just-in-time chrome to guide interaction. Just-in-time chrome means that controls reveal themselves only when needed.

iii. Ensure instant gratification by acknowledging touch and by providing engaging sensory feedback.

iv. Provide visual hints for unseen content.

v. Provide visual hints that prevent people from doing “wrong” actions.

vi. Use guidance animations to reveal functionality.

Fig. 29 Guidelines for using direct touch interactions

Fig. 30 In a photos application one may be able to move photos around the screen with a flick (mimicking real world interactions) and can zoom into the photo with a simple manipulation (only possible in the virtual world).


7. Create experiences that are built on content

i. Make content the interface- Do not replace direct touch interactions with UI controls such as buttons, menus and sliders.

ii. Make interactive elements easy to identify and ensure focus on experience.

i1i. Make smooth transitions. Avoid unintentional or destructive major transitions

8. Orientation and layout

i. There is often no “absolute direction” within tabletop computer applications; there is no explicit top, bottom, left, or right.

ii. Unlike the conventional grid-layout, the tabletop computer applications should be based on grid-free layouts since they encourage curiosity, direct touch interactions, and exploration.

iii. Use depth to show priority, order, or focus among content items.

iv. Use scale, shadow and transparency for leveraging on skeuomorphism.

Fig. 31 Smooth transitions


5designdevelopments

5.1 Information Architecture5.2 Wireframes5.3 Technology5.4 Prototype

chayan deb46

Based on the various features and concepts, a layout structure was chalked out for the task assignment application to define where

these features will be available and how they will be used. This was used as a guideline for building the functional wireframes.

5.1 information architecture

Fig. 32 Information architecture


Screen-level schematics representing the skeletal framework for each page were created. The wireframes helped visualizing the functioning of various screens and the layout of the different functional blocks.Balsamiq Mockups has been used for creating the wireframes.

Task Assignment application logo on the horizontal accordion menu of the Microsoft Surface, along with other existing applications.

5.2 wireframes

chayan deb48

The landing page of the task assignment application shows the unassigned tasks as task cards and two login screens along with them. Two, because that is the minimum number of users required for discussion to go ahead.

The whole screen in this stage is “public”.


The login screen, apart from the usual username/password textboxes and the login button, has an “Add login screen” and a “Delete login screen” so that there can be as many login screen as number of users around the tabletop computer. Initially there will be two login screens, as shown previously. The “Delete login screen” button in the initial two login screens will be deactivated, since at least two users are required for a discussion to take place.

chayan deb50

Once, the user logs in, his/her dashboard appears. The user can pull the dashboard according to his/her position on the table and dock it there. Once docked, a specified area around the dashboard becomes “private” for the user.


The dashboard displays the essential parameters associated with task assignment: The tasks which have been recently added into the dashboard, Gantt chart associated with them, list of team members, availability details etc.Numerous parallels have been drawn from the most popular tool currently used for the purpose: Microsoft Project.

chayan deb52

Each task instead of being represented as an entry in spreadsheet has been skeuomorphed as a physical document- as a task card. The details in the task card have been informed by the Microsoft Project. The more important details are up front and the lesser ones can be seen on the back side of the task card. The task card can be zoomed in or out to reveal more or less details.

chayan deb54

2700 menu to handle occlusion for a right handed user. 1st and 2nd level of the menu structure for a task card has been showed.


hardware

- Samsung SUR40 with Microsoft PixelSense Popularly called Microsoft Surface 2.0

Microsoft Surface 2.0 is a 40 inch computer vision based interactive surface. The

PixelSense platform consists of software and hardware products that combine vision based multi-touch PC hardware, 360-degree multiuser application design, and Windows software to create a natural user interface. The hardware has been manufactured by Samsung and is commercially called Samsung SUR40 with Microsoft PixelSense.

5.3 technology

Fig. 33 Samsung SUR40 with Microsoft PixelSense

chayan deb56

software

- SDK for Microsoft Surface 2.0- Microsoft Visual Studio 2010- C#

The Microsoft Surface 2.0 SDK is a set of tools which enables creation of application for the Microsoft Surface 2.0 hardware. The language used is C# and the IDE (Integrated Development Environment) used is Microsoft Visual Studio 2010.

Fig. 34 Screenshot of a sample project from Microsoft Surface 2.0 SDK


Applications developed using the SDK have to be registered in the Surface Shell before they start appearing in the menu on the Surface Shell. An XML having same name as the application is automatically created with the application, and it needs to point to the correct exe file.

The Microsoft Surface Application Design and Development has a very active forum on the Microsoft Developers Network (MSDN): http://social.msdn.microsoft.com/Forums/en-US/surfaceappdevelopment/threadsPrior to using Microsoft Surface 2.0 SDK for prototyping, few other softwares were tried.

Prior to using Microsoft Surface 2.0 SDK for prototyping, few other technologies were tried.

The first trial was with Flash/AS3. The problem with it was the envisioned unconstrained orientation of the elements could not be achieved. Additionally, the touch was glitchy on Flash/AS3 and it could not handle too many touches.

Post Flash/AS3, OpenExhibits was tried. OpenExhibits is a open source advanced multi-touch framework for AS3. The problem with OpenExhibits was that, it’s being meant for museums and exhibitions, had very limited interaction possibilities. Majorly, it was for displaying information, and the scope for developing other interactions using OpenExhibits was narrow.

chayan deb58

Fig. 35 Prototyping phase

The wireframes were realized into a high fidelity functional prototype on Microsoft Surface 2.0. The prototypes were developed using the Microsoft Surface 2.0 SDK.

5.4 prototype


Microsoft Surface’s Surface Shell Mode start-up page. The Microsoft Surface has two modes: Windows Mode and Surface Shell Mode. In Windows Mode, Surface acts like a normal windows computer. All developed surface applications are deployed on the Surface Shell Mode.

The Surface Shell’s start-up page, in tandem to the fluid and borderless interface of the surface applications, shows a water screen saver.

Fig. 36 Screenshot of Surface Shell start-up visualization

chayan deb60

After the Surface Shell Mode starts up, a horizontal accordion menu shows the application icons, along with a brief description of the application. The user can swipe and browse through the accordion. The menu has to be customized to display the developed application.

The first screen shot is of the accordion menu and the second is of the opening of Task Assignment application from the menu.

Fig. 37 Screenshot of the customized accordian menu on Surface Shell start-up page


On opening up the Task Assignment application, the landing page shows up 2 things: The tasks cards corresponding to all unassigned tasks, and two login screens. As mentioned earlier, the minimum number of users is two, hence the two login screens on the landing page.There is an option to add/delete login screens. Users can thereby have as many login screens as the numbers of participants on the discussion. In the beginning, the delete login screen option is disabled.

When the users aren’t logged in, the whole area is public. Once the user logs in, the area adjoining the dashboard become private area for that particular user.

Fig. 38 Screenshot of the landing page of Task Assignment application

chayan deb62

When the user taps on the text field a virtual keyboard come up, letting the user identify himself/herself by entering username and password.

Fig. 39 Screenshot and photo of a user loggin in using the on-screen keyboard


Once the user logs in, his/her dashboard appears. So there would be as many dashboards as the users.

Fig. 40 Screenshot showing two dashboards of two logged in users

chayan deb64

Fig. 41 Two users logged in and discussing tasks.

chayan deb66

In addition to rendering each task with properties of physical card, more properties can be added leveraging on the capabilities of the hardware. The task cards can be of various sizes (say 3). Smaller sizes show fewer (more important) details. The user can pinch & zoom into the task card to reveal additional details. Information having lesser importance can be put on the back of the card. They can be flipped like an physical card.

Fig. 42 A user zooming and flipping a task card to see more details


Essentially, there are three areas-Task List, Gantt Chart and Resources. The task list shows the recently added tasks. It can be vertically swiped to see the previously added tasks. The selected task is highlighted and it’s corresponding Gantt chart is displayed in the Gantt chart area. The Gantt chart area is horizontally swipable. The resources area shows each member in the team, their corresponding details like name, usage percentage, billing rate, etc. It also shows total man hours allocated and available for the whole team. The dashboard is customizable, where the user can add certain parameters according to his/her needs.

Fig. 43 Details of the user dashboard

chayan deb68

Fig. 44 Vertical/Horizontal swiping on the task list area and Gantt chart area of the dashboard


The user may collect task cards and stack them in his/her private area before putting them in the dashboard. The design draws parallels from work practices on traditional table. The area on the table around a person is by default considered to be private. In that area, the user keeps his/her notepad or any other artefact which is private to him/her.

Fig. 45 Screenshot of Task cards stacked in the private area of a user

chayan deb70

Fig. 46 Screenshot and photo of Occlusion free menu for a task card


Fig. 47 Screenshot and photo of scrollable list

chayan deb72

Logging out from the dashboard. As soon as the user logs out, the new tasks are all synced with the user’s planner, and the individual members can be notified (on email) about the new tasks assigned.

Fig. 48 Photo and screenshot of logging out from dashboard


Fig. 49 Task assignment prototype being evaluated in lab


6analysis

chayan deb76

So far no evaluation methods specific to tabletop computer applications have been developed. The most frequent types of evaluations are comparative studies and heuristic evaluations[31].

Comparing task assignment activity on tabletop computer to the existing project management tool, the major differences are in qualitative directions. Added to it, the current stage of prototype limits its ability to be tested by users to deduce quantitative results. Task assignment on tabletop proposes to reduce the required iterations by taking lesser time and making it more satisfying for the users. The current application builds on the advantages of FtF communication to address the most crucial pain point in task assignment- reaching consensus, faster. FtF communications have proven to be faster in reaching consensus[4].

Evaluating the project heuristically, researchers at the HCI Research Lab in ABB, Bangalore pointed that the novelty lies in bringing the social benefits of face-to-face discussion to a scenario which often doesn’t shape-up good over computer-mediated communication. The current way of undertaking a task assignment activity looks more like thrusting the advantages of CM communication in a use case where it doesn’t work. Task assignment works better over FtF communication, but again the aid of computing in the activity cannot be denied. That way, tabletop computer is looks like a best fit to do a task assignment activity.


Hype cycle has used to combine multiple perspectives on tabletop technology into one overview of the tabletop phenomenon and possible future trends[13]. Looking ahead in the future, the tabletop computer systems can expect large scale adoption in the next decade, owing to the decreasing hardware

prices and the ongoing attempts to bring the original tabletop tasks back to table, but with the added power of computing. It can be expected that the tabletops can be used for other scenarios too which require FtF collaboration.

Fig. 50 The hype cycle of tabletop computing research, technologies and products over the last, present and next decade


7conclusion

chayan deb80

When the project kicked off, I was very unsure about where the project would conclude. The brief I had worked out with my guide at NID and my mentor at ABB was very open ended and gave me good scope to explore the area of NUI, TUI and Tabletop Computers. Though it was difficult, in retrospect, I am satisfied that I worked it in a top down manner i.e. starting wide and then working down to a specific area.The precedent study and literature reviews helped me fathom the existing commercial landscape as well as the progress in research area. The interviews helped me pinpoint my project to the use case to task assignment.

The prototyping phase witnesses exploration in few familiar technologies like Flash, AS3 and OpenExhibits framework before I ventured into the C# based Microsoft Surface 2 SDK.

The project concluded as a prototype of the task assignment application on a tabletop computer for project managers to discuss and allocate tasks. Apart from being a platform for managers to discuss and assign tasks, the application can be designed to act as a platform for team members to view unassigned task and gauge the project development. The table is being imagined at

a place where apart from task assignment meetings, casual discussion can also take place. Team members can, individually or in a group, flip through the unassigned tasks in their project over a cup of coffee.

Looking at the project from a higher level, tabletop computers can possibly fit in many office scenarios which are now done over computer-mediated communication but can be better done over face-to-face communication. The problem of traditional FtF communication missing out on productivity benefits of computers can be addressed by the use of tabletop computers. Putting it in another way, scenarios which have to bring the best of traditional FtF communication and CM communication can be done on a tabletop computer.From the implementation point of view, most but not all of the ideated features could be realized. Some of the features were implemented using the Microsoft Surface 2 SDK and some were video prototyped and finally collated into a single video demonstrating the idea.

The video can be viewed at:http://cargocollective.com/chayandeb/Task-Assignment-Tabletop-Computers


As an ending note, I would like to briefly state my learning from the project.

As a designer, the problem finding activity is a very crucial part. In project scenarios, like the present one, the problem is wicked- It needs to be found before solving. Finding the problem is equally important and difficult as solving it.

As a researcher, it’s crucial to read. Read a lot. But reading is just the first step. To take it forward, it is essential to write. Writing is difficult because one needs to be clear headed to articulate something on paper.

Apart from the learning as a designer and researcher, I learned a few things as a person:

At times, it helps being clueless. Exploring without expectation of the final outcome is the most honest exploration.

Being observant is good, but it’s more important to absorb what is observed. Again, writing exercises makes it easier to absorb.It’s a skill which is necessary everywhere- The ability to zoom in and zoom out i.e. seeing the ground level and seeing the bigger picture.


HCI: Human-Computer Interaction

CSCW: Computer Supported Co-operative Work

NUI: Natural User Interface

TUI: Tangible User interface

FtF: Face-to-Face

CM: Computer Mediated

Surface: Microsoft Surface 2.0 (now called Samsung SUR40 with Microsoft PixelSense or simply Microsoft PixelSense)

glossary


All images are credited to the author unless otherwise specified here.

Fig. 3 CSCW Matrixhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-supported_cooperative_work

Fig. 4 Sonicspree by Ergonomidesign and Connectahttp://www.ergonomidesign.com/CASES/Interaction-Design/Sonicspree-Massive-Multi-touch-Gaming-Experience.aspx

Fig. 5 The Real Estate Agent by Seven Stepshttp://www.sevensteps.nl/html/chapter_A8853BF5-525D-4E6D-8F8C-D1F919FCC874.htm

Fig. 7 ClearBoardhttp://tangible.media.mit.edu/project/clearboard/

Fig. 8 Active Deskhttp://www.billbuxton.com/ActiveDesk.html

Fig. 9 metaDESKtangible.media.mit.edu/project/metadesk/

Fig. 10 BUILD ITPeter Troxler

Fig. 11 Diamond Touchhttp://www.circletwelve.com/

Fig. 12 Smart Skinhttp://www.sonycsl.co.jp/person/rekimoto/smartskin/

Fig. 13 Microsoft SurfaceMicrosoft

Fig. 14 Microsoft Surface 2.0http://www.microsoft.com/en-us/pixelsense/pixelsense.aspx

Fig. 23-31 Microsoft Surface 2.0 Design and Interaction Guidehttp://www.microsoft.com/en-us/download/details.aspx?id=26713

Fig. 33 Samsung SUR 40 for Microsoft PixelSensehttp://www.samsunglfd.com/product/spec.do?modelCd=SUR40#self

Fig. 50 Hype cycle for tabletop research, technologies and products over three decadesTabletops: Interactive Horizontal Displays for Ubiquitous Computing by Christian Müller-Tomfelde and Morten Fjeld

images


[1] Adrianson, L. and Hjelmquist, E. (1991). Group Processes in Face-to-Face and Computer-Mediated Communication. Behaviour & Information Technology.

[2] An Experiment in Synchronous Terminal-to-Terminal Discussion. Human-Computer Interaction.

[3] Baskinger, Mark and Gross, Mark (2010). Tangible Interaction = Form + Computing. Interactions, January 2010, Vol. 17, Issue 1.

[4] Bernard, Michael, Chuang, Ta-Tao and Ali, Shahid (2000). Does Computer-Mediated Collaboration Really Improve Group Communication? Our General Findings. Usability News, January 2000, Vol. 2, Issue 1.

[5] Bieber, G., Abd Al Rahman, E., Urban, B. (2007). Screen Coverage: A Pen-Interaction Problem for PDAs and Touch Screen Computers. ICWMC 2007.

[6] Bordia, Prashant (1997). Face-to-Face Versus Computer-Mediated Communication: A Synthesis of the Experimental Literature. The Journal of Business Communication, Vol. 34, No. 1, January 1999.

[7] Cheng Ean, Lee (2010). Face-to-face Versus Computer-mediated Communication: Exploring Employees’ Preference of Effective Employee Communication Channel. International Journal for the Advancement of Science and Arts, 2010, Vol. 1, No. 2.

[8] Daly, B. L. (1993). The Influence of Face-to-Face versus Computer-Mediated

Communication Channels on Collective Induction. Accounting, Management and Information Technologies.

[9] Dubrovsky, V. J., Kiesler, S. and Sethna, B. N. (1991). The Equalization Phenomenon: Status Effects in Computer-Mediated and Face-to-Face Decision-Making Groups. Human-Computer Interaction.

[10] Elwart-Keys, M., Halonen, D., Horton, M., Kass, R., and Scott, P. (1990).User Interface Requirements for Face to Face Groupware. Proceedings of CHI (Human Factors in Computing Systems), 1990.

[11] Fishkin, K., Gujar, A., Harrison, B., Moran, P., Want, R. (2000). Embodied User Interfaces for Really Direct Manipulation. Communication of ACM, January 2000.

[12] Fishkin, Kenneth P. (2004). A Taxonomy for and Analysis of Tangible Interfaces. Journal of Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, September 2004.

[13] Fjeld, Morten and Müller-Tomfelde, Christian (2012). Tabletops: Interactive Horizontal Displays for Ubiquitous Computing. IEEE Computer, Vol. 45, Nr. 2.

[14] Gartner Magic Quadrant for IT Project and Portfolio Management (2010). http://www.gartner.com/technology/media-products/reprints/microsoft/vol14/article21/article21.html

[15] Grudin, Jonathan and Poltrock, Steven

references

chayan deb88

(2012): CSCW - Computer Supported Cooperative Work. In: Soegaard, Mads and Dam, Rikke Friis (eds.). “Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction”. Aarhus, Denmark: The Interaction Design Foundation.

[16] Hiltz, S. R., Johnson, K. and Turoff, M. (1986). Experiments in Group Decision Making: Communication Process and Outcome in Face-to-Face versus Computerized Conferences. Human Communication Research.

[17] Ishii, Hiroshi and Ullmer, Brygg (1997). Tangible Bits: Towards Seamless Interfaces between People, Bits and Atoms. CHI 1997.

[18] Johansen, R. (1988). Groupware- Computer Support for Business Teams. The Free Press, New York.

[19] Kiesler, S., Zubrow, D. and Moses, A. M. (1985). Affect in Computer-Mediated Communication: An Experiment in Synchronous Terminal-to-Terminal Discussion. Human-Computer Interaction.

[20] Larsen, Larry (2010). CES 2010: NUI with Bill Buxton. http://channel9.msdn.com/Blogs/LarryLarsen/CES-2010-NUI-with-Bill-Buxton

[21] Lave, J. and Wenger, E. (1991). Situated Learning: Legitimate Peripheral Participation. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge.

[22] Magerkurth, Carsten and Tandler, Peter (2002). Augmenting Tabletop Design for Computer-Supported Cooperative Work. Fraunhofer Institute for Integrated Publication and Information Systems.

[23] Mandviwalla, M. and Olfman, L. (1994). What Do Groups Need? A Proposed Set of Generic Groupware Requirements. Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 1994.

[24] McGuire, T. W., Kiesler, S. and Siegel, J. (1987). Group and Computer-Mediated Discussion Effects in Risk Decision Making. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology.

[25] Morris, Meredith June (2006). Supporting Effective Interaction with Tabletop Groupware. Stanford University.[26] Nielsen, Jakob (1992). A Layered Interaction Analysis of Direct Manipulation.

[27] Brandl, P., Seifried, T., Leitner, J., Haller, M., Doray, B. and To, P. (2009). Occlusion-Aware Menu Design for Digital Tabletops. ACM CHI Interactivity, 2009.

[28] Rogers, Y. and Lindley, S (2004). Collaborating Around Large Interactive Displays: Which Way is Best to Meet? Interacting with Computers, 2004.

[29] Rogers, Y., Hazlewood, W., Blevis, E., and Lim, Y. (2004). Finger Talk: Collaborative Decision-Making Using Talk and Fingertip Interaction around a Tabletop Display. Proceedings of CHI (Human Factors in Computing Systems), 2004 Extended Abstracts. [30] Scott, S.D., Carpendale, M.S.T., and Inkpen, K. (2004).Territoriality in Collaborative Tabletop Workspaces. Proceedings of CSCW (Computer Supported Cooperative Work), 2004.

[31] Shaer, O. and Hornecker, E. (2009). Tangible User Interfaces: Past, Present, and Future Directions. Foundations and Trends in Human–Computer Interaction, Vol. 3, Nos. 1–2, 2009.

[32] Shneiderman, Ben (1983). Direct Manipulation: A Step Beyond Programming Languages. University of Maryland.

[33] Siegel, J., Dubrovsky, V., Kiesler, S., and McGuire, T. W. (1986). Group processes


in Computer-Mediated Communication. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.

[34] Simon, A.F. (2006): Computer-Mediated Communication: Task Performance and Satisfaction. The Journal of Social Psychology.

[35] Skeuomorphic User Interface Design (2011). http://www.articlesbase.com/software-articles/skeuomorphic-user-interface-design-what-is-skeuomorphic-user-interface-design-5095679.html

[36] Straus, S. G. and McGrath, J. E. (1994). Does the Medium Matter? The Interaction of Task Type and Technology on Group Performance and Member Reactions. Journal of Applied Psychology.

[37] Weisband, S, P. (1992). Group Discussion and First Advocacy Effects in Computer Mediated and Face-to-Face Decision Making Groups. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes.

[38] Weiser, Mark (1991). The Computer for the 21st Century. Scientific American, February 1991.

Chayan Debwww.chayandeb.com

Task Assignment on Tabletop Computer

Documents

Transcript of Task Assignment on Tabletop Computer