Input - Models and Techniques
- 1 Slides
- 2 Readings
- 3 Reading Critiques
- 3.1 Vineet Raghu 11:41:01 9/19/2015
- 3.2 Kent W. Nixon 23:07:21 9/20/2015
- 3.3 Adriano Maron 21:27:27 9/21/2015
- 3.4 Ameya Daphalapurkar 0:18:18 9/22/2015
- 3.5 Manali Shimpi 0:36:27 9/22/2015
- 3.6 Chi Zhang 20:59:32 9/22/2015
- 3.7 Matthew Barren 21:13:32 9/22/2015
- 3.8 Mingda Zhang 23:16:59 9/22/2015
- 3.9 Zinan Zhang 23:20:56 9/22/2015
- 3.10 Shijia Liu 23:58:00 9/22/2015
- 3.11 Long Nguyen 1:30:18 9/23/2015
- 3.12 Priyanka Walke 1:32:14 9/23/2015
- 3.13 Lei Zhao 1:36:34 9/23/2015
- 3.14 Samanvoy Panati 2:12:58 9/23/2015
- 3.15 Xinyue Huang 2:17:13 9/23/2015
- 3.16 Ankita Mohapatra 7:45:21 9/23/2015
- 3.17 Zihao Zhao 7:55:00 9/23/2015
- 3.18 Jesse Davis 8:13:26 9/23/2015
- 3.19 Sudeepthi Manukonda 8:40:25 9/23/2015
- 3.20 Mahbaneh Eshaghzadeh Torbati 8:46:38 9/23/2015
- 3.21 Darshan Balakrishna Shetty 8:55:25 9/23/2015
- A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices, Stuart K. Card, Jock D. Mackinlay, and George G. Robertson, ACM Transactions on Information Systems, Volume 9, Issue 2, 1992, pp. 99-122.
- Multi-Touch Systems that I Have Known and Loved, Bill Buxton
- Low-cost Multi-touch Sensing Through Frustrated Total Internal Reflection, Jefferson Y. Han, ACM UIST 2005.
- A Three-State Model of Graphical Input, Bill Buxton, INTERACT 1990. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North-Holland), 449-456.
Vineet Raghu 11:41:01 9/19/2015
Multi-Touch Systems that I Have Known and Loved This webpage describes a history of multi-touch systems, and describes that immense variety in multi-touch interfaces that are possible today. In addition, the page points out how long multi-touch technology has been developing (over 20 years), and it demonstrates that this is typical for a new technology such as the mouse. I think that the most important takeaway from this page is that no single design decision is suitable for every task. The prime example given here is tablet input using a stylus versus using the multi-touch screen. The stylus is beneficial when you want fine movement, or when you want to have a thinner input device that won’t block the screen. However, it could be clumsier to use when playing a fast paced game for instance, and the benefits will not be visible any longer. Finally, the author gives a detailed chronology of every multi-touch interface known to the author that has been developed in the past 30 years. This history will also be a useful tool to discuss these types of interfaces in the future as it allows researchers and companies to understand what types of interfaces have been attempted and what their successes and failures have been. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices This paper presents a graphical and analytical framework for the design space of various input devices. This framework can be used to compare devices based upon their inherent limitations from human to device bandwidth and from device to task completion. Specifically, the framework allows researchers to display the current input device design space, and then the framework allows researchers to take results from performance studies in order to characterize regions of the space. For the characterization task, the authors focused upon two aspects of performance: device footprint, and device bandwidth (speed). Footprint typically referred to the real physical size of the device in the workspace, which could be zero for virtual devices. Bandwidth or speed referred to both the human muscle group used to operate the device, the application the device was used for, and the inherent bandwidth of the device itself. Through the development of bandwidth analysis, the authors demonstrate both how to compare the performance of devices in a standardized way, as well as demonstrate how to drive new innovations using promising areas of the design space. This paper appeared to be a very landmark paper in terms of providing a novel way of modeling different input devices in terms of their inherent effectiveness. The headmouse and mouse comparison was a very interesting and useful result from the analysis framework provided. The authors of the paper mentioned several times that they were trying to keep the model as simple as possible so that it could be generalized in future work depending upon the research goal, so that was done well. The only thing that could be mentioned would be how to compare these types of devices across other types of tasks that may not be modeled well by Fitts’ Law. Though that was not as big of a concern at the time of publishing (1991), for current input streams it can be a much more applicable concern.
Kent W. Nixon 23:07:21 9/20/2015
A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices This paper included and overview of a variety of existing input methods analyzed through what was attempted to be used as a universal classification and comparison system. While the author stated that three of the attributes he used – toolkits, taxonomies, and performance studies – were already widely used in design analysis, he felt that design space analysis aided in system comparison as well. After discussing the function and utility of the various attributes/description system, the author went on to demonstrate their efficacy but utilizing the defined system to make assumptions concerning the usability of various control methods for specific tasks – such as selecting a word or a character. While the majority of the paper was quite dry, I felt that the final section where he utilized the visualization/characterization techniques in a few samples was quite instructive. It also began to suggest that different tasks may be more suited for a certain kind of input, but not suited to another. Multi-Touch Systems that I Have Known and Loved This article provides a brief history as to the nature of modern multi-touch interfaces, and touch interface in general. This is prefaced by the author's own remarks regarding the usefulness of touchscreen systems as he understands them. The part I agreed with most was when the author was discussing how touchscreen interfaces are poorly suited for some use cases – such as in cars. I have seen and disliked the recent trend of touchscreens being added to vehicles, and I am glad I am not the only one who finds them to be not only unintuitive, but also dangerous.
Adriano Maron 21:27:27 9/21/2015
A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices: This paper proposes a systematic way for analyzing and evaluating the design of input devices by breaking them down into a set of properties, such as degrees of freedom and combination of actions. Those properties can be combined in order to provide a set of sentences (intended actions) that can be expressed by a particular device. Such combination is a point in the design space. As a new contribution, the authors extend such abstraction to include the device performance as a new parameter to be considered in the design space. For testing points in the design space, this paper relies on the concept of effectiveness (how well the device conveys the desired message). In this context, effectiveness is a combination of Desk Footprint, Pointing Speed, Pointing Precision, Errors, Time to Learn, Time to Grasp the Device, User Preference and Cost. The authors exemplified their analysis with Desk Footprint and Bandwidth, where they could easily identify good and bad input devices. When considering Desk Footprint, some devices, such as the mouse, needed a footprint proportional to the screen size, while a trackball had a constant footprint (i.e., not influenced by screen size). As for bandwidth, human bandwidth (how precisely the muscles in use can be controlled), application (degree of precision required by the application) and device bandwidth (physical limitations of the device). In summary, this is a good paper that takes several device properties and organize them in such a way that their features can be individually analyzed or combined with other features to reason about the effectiveness of input device prototypes that would be suitable for a (set of) applications. ================================================ Multi-Touch Systems that I Have Known and Loved: This article provides a survey of touch/multi-touch technologies in order to put into perspective all the small research advances made towards the technology we have today. The author contributes with 2 important analysis about multi-touch technologies: a characterization of all features usually attributed to multi-touch technologies, and a historical survey about the different technologies that explored such characteristics. The first contribution of this article has the goal of expose the tradeoff between the strengths and weaknesses of (virtual) multi-touch technologies. The author analyses individual characteristics of such technology in order to provide a starting point that can be used by users and designers when reasoning about the applicability of their user interfaces. One of the points emphasized in the text is that touch interfaces require visual attention from the user. Therefore, in situations such as driving, touch-screen interfaces might not be a good approach. However, the number of cars with this technology increases every year. The second contribution is provided in terms of a survey about touch/multi-touch technologies. Although it became popular in 2006, with the announcement of the iPhone, researches on the topic started as early as 1965. It is possible to notice that many of the devices served specific purposes, and no ultimate generic touch interface was yet proposed. The main takeaway from this article is that multi-touch systems provide a great deal of usability and rich user experience. However, the number of different characteristics usually attributed to multi-touch devices make it more complicated to evaluate and compare different technologies. This article provides good points that should be considered when applying such technology.
Ameya Daphalapurkar 0:18:18 9/22/2015
The paper titled ‘A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices’ takes in consideration a means to systemize the devices by using the morphological analysis of the design space of various input devices by taking input devices as points in a design space. The paper proposes that other than the three usual lines of development of toolkits taxonomies and performance studies, this method can be used to combine the results for analysis. Toolkits help with a wide range of problems right from construction, execution to architectural and specification techniques but still they are limited with respect to the design decisions. Taxonomies were provided by Buxton and Beacker but were limited to continuous devices. Performance Studies discovered facts about the mouse with regards to the Fitts Law. Morphological analysis techniques were in a way used in some shades by Bertin and Zwicky as well. Mackinlay, Card and Robertson aaplied the approach to input devices. Generation of the design space for analysis is an important aspect. Primitive movement vocabulary represents input devices into six tuples and focuses on the dependencies. Composition Operators like merge, layout and connect are other different terms for combinations of different devices which is cross products of devices or collocation of different devices or even mapping onto other devices. Set of possible combinations of these operators constitutes the design space for input devices. Expressiveness and effectiveness are the testing points in design space. Different devices occupy a certain amount of space on disk which is called as the footprint. Bandwidth is the other merit for an input device. It is relative to the application, device and human. Paper thus critiques the devices in terms of various testing points. It also proposes the scope for new input devices to beat the mouse. Thus the analysis can play a huge role in the paradigm. ********* The paper titled ‘Multi-Touch Systems that I Have Known and Loved’ by Bill Buxton sheds light over various multi touch devices and the research carried out over them. Paper starts with the principles over multi touch technologies as to how a single new technology is not often the cause of overall success. Paper also lists some of the contrasts between the touch tablets or touch screens with respect to the directness a screen presents to the overlaid surface. Singular and continuous actions are another part of the contrasts. Accuracy of the touch of the user which he needs to position has significant effect on interaction. Depending on whether it is a cursor or a finger or two fingers the degrees of freedom highly vary. The other important factors that influence and matter are size and orientation. Additional aspects to a touch are the approach, force vector and pressure sensitivity. Touch can also be differentiated with respect to the points or the gestures and can be interacted via stylus or finger. Look and feel is another significant factor in touch displays. The paper further demonstrates various chronologies of the multi touch and the respective work fields.
Manali Shimpi 0:36:27 9/22/2015
Multi-Touch Systems that I Have Known and Loved:In this document the author discusses about the multitouch technologies.The author drawssome distinctions in terms of touch tablets vs touch screens. The difference between them is that of directness. In same multitouch device , the interaction can be continuous or discrete in nature.Location specificity has significant role in effective interaction. Size is important to determine what type of gestures are suited for the device. Vertically mounted surfaces are better suited than horizontal.The author describes the other aspects of touch which are degree of touch/pressure sensitivity, angle of approach and force vectors.It is also important to know the size of the area being touched.The author also distinguishes briefly about touch with fingers, hands and objects like stylus.Author describes some of the problems with touch screen such as handheld devices require both hands to operate , our fingers are not transparent and it is difficult to write or paint with fingers.At the end the author sums up with briefly describing the chronology of touch screen.--------------------------------------------A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices:In this paper, the abstractions are made for generating design space and their testing that is comprehension of different input devices is done.an idealized assumption is made which is functions oof application program express semantics of interaction.In case of interaction of humans with embedded systems, there are two ideas in modelling the language of input device interaction. Primitive movement vocabulary and set of composition operators.The design space for input device is the set of composition operators with primitive vocabulary.The designs can be evaluated according to their expressiveness and effectiveness.There are two effectiveness metrics, footprint and bandwidth.Footprint is the amount of space required by the device on the desk.The muscle group connected with the input device impose limitations on the bandwidth of the device.The analysis in the paper suggests direction for developing device to beat mouse using bandwidth of fingers.
Chi Zhang 20:59:32 9/22/2015
Critiques on “A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices” by Chi Zhang. At the time of this paper getting published, it’s deemed as appropriate to do a systematic summarization of all input devices and craft the technologies from them into a body of engineering and design knowledge. In this paper, the authors actually use a design space analysis to compare all sorts of input devices. And the comparison or analysis reflects on many aspects like footprints, human bandwidth, pointing precision, time to learn the device and so on. They provided with methods to generate points in the design space. They have shown how designs could be critiqued in terms of expressiveness and effectiveness. The present analysis allows one to generate and calculate the consequences of interesting regions. It allows one to concentrate prototyping and engineering efforts in areas where analysis shows promising possibilities. It’s quite a useful summarization and it produces a good way to compare different input devices. ----------------------------------------- Critiques on “Multi-Touch Systems that I Have Known and Loved” by Chi Zhang. This paper tells us about the history of multi-touch system. This author is quite enthusiastic about this system as he gives out many insightful comments and his own ideas about why he loves this system. The authors give us a detailed introduction of the disadvantages and advantages of this system and also variants of the multi-touch system. Several features are talked about to illustrate the differences between variants of multi-touch system. It’s a good survey paper or introduction paper to multi-touch systems. To me, I did learn things from this paper and get more interested in this kind of technology.
Matthew Barren 21:13:32 9/22/2015
A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices Summary: Card, Mackinlay, and Robertson, expand on the previous manners of evaluating human machine interactions through input devices by adding a morphological analysis of the design space. They discuss the limitations of previous evaluation methods, and introduce a supplementary process to examine input devices in a new light. A morphological analysis of the design space is an interesting evaluation method because it incorporates a host of variables in order to examine input devices. In the past, scientists have used toolkits, taxonomies, and performance evaluations to review input devices, and this method expands upon those to consider how well the design space of an input device is used. Card, Mackinlay, and Robertson view input devices as having an implicit language that allows for communication to flow between humans and machines. In the evaluation of devices they analyze fundamental components of the design space, the primitive movements and the composition of the device. Additionally, they look at other practical factors such as, desk footprint, pointing speed, and pointing precision. In the paper, they compare mouse, hand, and head mouse selection of targets. The disparity between head mouse and the other two input devices is drastic. The head mouse, a more complicated and expensive item, has far slower selection speed and is less accurate. Card, Mackinlay, and Robertson make a point to note that the input device must be evaluated in context of its application. With this in mind, the head mouse may be a worse design for standard users to select object. Suppose, that an individual is unable to lift their hands, use their hands accurately, or does not have hands. In this context, the head mouse now becomes a viable alternative because in context it meets the user’s needs. In considering the language through which humans speak to machines, mouse and keyboards provide a very primitive set of vocabulary to communicate. The question then becomes is there are reason to expand the language through which we communicate to a computer, and if so, how do we achieve this. One field that is being applied to many devices is through speaking to computers. Although the syntax currently is somewhat structured. In the future, computers may be trained to have a larger and more personalized set of communication abilities with users, and thus allowing users to bring the communication between computers and machines to a more direct level. Multi-Touch Systems that I Know and Loved Bill Buxton Summary: Buxton looks at the different features, considerations, and attributes of touch screens. Additionally, he looks at the shortcomings that persist in touch screen technology. Finally, Buxton briefly discusses major landmarks of touchscreen technology. Touch screens are integrated so fully into device use that future generations will most likely touch old device screens looking to manipulate icons with no success. In the multi-touch paper, Buxton discusses the different considerations and attributes to touch screens. Most of these features are deftly considered when developing a device that will utilize a touch screen. For example, the iPhone6S provides all of the previous features, such as multi-touch, continuous and discrete actions, orientation shifts, etc., but it also implements new technology such as pressure sensitivity. This new feature greatly extends the opportunity for how users communicate to devices. In considering the limitations that currently exist among touch screens, accuracy is one that is difficult to overcome. As Buxton mentions, “there is a reason that we don’t rely on finger painting.” The reason is that humans sometimes struggle to manipulate and select objects on a touch screen. In considering this, there are many applications that can work to minimize this issue, by providing users with additional freedom to personalize the interface. For example, imagine an individual who has very large fingers or has a hand tremor, both of which would make it difficult for selecting buttons on a touchscreen keyboard on a mobile device. In this instance, the keyboard could be expanded to only display part of the keyboard at a time to allow the user to have an easier time with selecting letters. Additionally, Buxton discusses how touch screens negate to consider blind individuals. If one is blind, they rely on a sense of touch and/or hearing to access objects. Although technology cannot currently support this, some sort of dynamically raising screen would bridge this gap. A screen that could raise certain features so the user could touch and feel around the pieces of the screen. Users who are not blind would also benefit because over time many individuals would recognize these features without using sight. One area that could be further developed in the touch screen industry is creating a screen that provides an easier source to directly write or draw with a finger or stylus. In mobile devices, current touch screens have limited friction, which makes it difficult to write with a stylus or a finger. This differs from paper, where the user can feel more directly the vibration of the pencil as it scrapes across the surface of the paper. If touchscreen designers could provide a screen friction, users may be able to more accurately write on touch screens.
Mingda Zhang 23:16:59 9/22/2015
A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices This paper proposed some novel ideas to categorize existing input devices to further assist the design and creation of new input devices. From my perspective, the concept was really innovative, but the most significant influence of this paper was its efforts to quantify and visualize the characteristics of current input devices. One thing to notice is that the original paper is published in 1991 and many breakthrough technologies have been developed ever since. Some predictions in the paper seem to be not completely accurate in today's viewpoint, thus we need to pick the valuable thoughts from the paper. As described, traditionally input devices are studied based on taxonomies and performances. Although these categorization is intuitive, it does not provide useful information for creating new devices. Card et al. thus decided to use morphological functions as criteria and designed diagrams to represent various input devices. In essence, types of effective primitive controls are limited, such as position change or rotation, and combinations of these actions are also finite, such as merge composition and connect composition. By drawing a 2D diagram, Card et al. realized that many possibilities are neglected by designers. To further derive these ideas, the authors focused on quantifying some of the existing devices to make them more comparative. This modeling is really successful although some of the basic assumptions are more or less arbitrary in my point of view. However, this work is still useful in guiding new input devices design, especially when trying to achieve similar tasks with existing devices. Using the model in the paper, it is quite easy to make some back-of-envelop calculation to make an acceptable estimation before spending too much time and efforts. Multi-Touch Systems that I have Known and Loved The author of this article has been working in interface design for a long time and in fact, he was born early enough to witness the rising and falling of many technologies. In this article, he actually pointed out some of the misunderstanding as well as progress in the design of touch systems. According to the author, no silver bullet exists for all situations and every invention has its own advantages as well as draw backs. In fact, this article does not introduce any new concepts but reviews and summarizes the fields comprehensively. An important thing I've learned from the article is the so-called long-nose effect in innovations. It is just impossible to come up with brilliant, brand new ideas from no where. All great inventions are just the collections of minor improvements based on previous design. The author chronologically showed a series of representative touch-based systems and listed their specifications and comments. It is really a lot of fun to walk through the history. I am wondering if the author will add Apple's latest product with 3D touch to this list.
Zinan Zhang 23:20:56 9/22/2015
1. For “A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices”--------------- This paper firstly summarizes the generation methods by compare the mouse and a simple radio’s design. And then the authors explore the design space with two aspects: footprint and bandwidth. Finally they use the Fitts’s law as a test. In the paper, the author say that the mappings implied by specific input device designs can be evaluated according two basic criteria: expressiveness and effectiveness. Expressiveness is easy to understand. It means that the input and the output should be matched. What the users input must be correctly expressed when the orders are output. It is obviously that the device has to obtain this aim as a good design. However, the second criteria, effectiveness, are far beyond what I have thought it was. In my opinion, what the effectiveness may include is the efficiency of the device transform the human movement into electric signal. But the authors include desk footprint, pointing speed, pointing precision, errors, time to learn and so on. Not only the sides of device factors are included, but also think about the human side’s factors such as human muscles movements. Indeed, when facing problem of design, we should think about both the designed device and the users. A design is good not only because itself design is user-friendly, but also because it is designed for the characteristic of the most users. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 2. For “Multi-Touch Systems that I Have Known and Loved”-------------------- This paper is very interesting. It manly talks about the author’s opinion about the multi-touch systems. He states the difference between different kinds of multi-touch systems and claims that not all the multi-touch systems are the same. Then he talks about the advantage of this kind of system and also the deficiency. Before I read this paper, the only thing that I think is relevant to the multi-touch systems is its wonderful design and user-friendly. However, every handy design will come at a price more or less. As the system becoming more and more advance, the accumulation of complexity in a single device is bound to happen. That is, it will be much more difficult for the processor of a single device to run the system. The requirement for the device processor will be stricter and it also means that the applying of the multi-touch systems will somehow restricted by the development of the processor. And another deficiency is that users interact just with a picture of ideal device rather than the ideal device itself. I think that is to say people will trapped in the virtual world. We imagine that our technology is developing rapidly but it does not in reality. So the author use the description of the “there is no free lunch” vividly illustrating the bad effect of the multi-touch systems.
Shijia Liu 23:58:00 9/22/2015
Section 1: A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices.Research on morphological analysis has reached the point where a number of successful point designs have been proposed and a variety of techniques have been discovered. Nowadays, there are a lot of type of input devices. It is now appropriate to make sense of this variety and analyze portions of the design space so as to understand the morphological analysis and identify promising opportunities for new design. This paper proposes an organization of the morphological analysis and illustrates it with a series of examples. The goal of morphological design space analysis is to find abstractions both for generating the design space and for testing the designs contained therein with a host of experiments and some instances. In this article, the author have stated that how to systemize the input devices knowledge and illustrate how to find a path to generate points in the design space and follow the structure of the design space and its consequences as the mainline. Section 2:Multi-Touch Systems that I Have Known and Loved. In this article, the mainly part is the author list the majority of representative product and inventions about the Multi-Touch and Related Work by chronological order. We can clearly have the realization of how the multi-touch developed and how they affect the people live from almost 50 years ago until now. Furthermore, at the beginning of this article, we can see some defiinition and a couple of explanation of the object which were easy to confuse. In addition, we were given some attributes and some other thoughts about touch screen and multi-touch, in different situation and for distinct group of users we can have different results and conclusions. However, all in all, the touch screen also the multi-touch stand a significant position in our life now, understanding and weighing the relative implications on use of properties is necessary in order to make an informed decision and we still have a host of work to explore and move on.
Long Nguyen 1:30:18 9/23/2015
Reading Critique for A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices: the main purpose of this paper is to find a way to systematize knowledge about input devices. The paper show that devices have two metrics: footprint and bandwidth, which can effectively specify regions and generate points in design space. Using two examples, the paper clearly illustrate bandwidth of human muscle group and how much time tasks with different parameters is measured. Also, there is a great idea of how to model input device by using tuples in sets, and systematize different ways how a human and machine can connect together. Authors summarize it with table, which give an easy and visionary way for readers to understand. I believed this paper opened a promising research area in the past HCI. *************************************** Reading Critique for Multi-Touch Systems that I Have Known and Loved: This paper describes author's idea about history of multi touch system, how it appeared evolved from time to time. The most contribution in this paper is the way author distinguish multiple characteristics of touch devices, how each of the characteristic can be applied in some specific situation. Furthermore, "everything is best for something and worst for something else" is a really good thought not only about touching device but also for general devices. Lastly, the paper goes through many important touching device from 1965 until now, giving a good and throughout grasp and reference for new readers trying to extend knowledge in this area
Priyanka Walke 1:32:14 9/23/2015
Reading critique on A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices A variety of input devices from the Human machine interface technology have been discovered and are readily available in the market. Many of the current engineering faculties organize these designs according to those insights of knowledge that have been responsible for the design of such devices. This paper also describes an approach used for ordering or organizing these input devices based upon certain set of vocabulary and composition operators described below. The basic reason behind this classification or taxonomy of the input devices is to gain a higher level of understanding about their application, their importance to each other and most importantly to provide a single source of information or platform for their analysis and study of new designs. The paper describes that human, a user dialogue action & an application are the 3 agents that facilitate the interaction between the humans & the machines. The input device is represented as a 6 tuple < M, In, S, R, Out, W> used for mapping. The composition operators are broken down into merge, layout & connect composition in order to give a complete view of the various and enormous aspects that have been taken into consideration. Along with the input device, it also takes the human factor into consideration by stating the advantages of user preference, cost, time to learn, errors & pointing precision. It states that the device footprint is not just an important means but also plays an important role while designing new devices. The author maps various human body parts as input device controllers to a graph and points out that the fingers deliver the finest performance over others. The paper however has a few flaws like the mapping of the human body parts as input device controllers is not precisely explained. It does not provide a clearer understanding of the working of the design and hence cuts down the thought of generating any new design out of this process. Secondly, the comparisons between the head mouse and the mouse were of no good. A different example may have served the purpose. It definitely gives a lot of references to some important articles, however, the key idea of it is not clearly expressed. Hence, it can be concluded that even though with a couple of major drawbacks, the paper mentions an important concept pf designing a common space for exploring the input devices. Reading critique on Multi-Touch Systems That I Have Known and Loved-Bill Buxton This paper mainly focuses on the discussion about Multi-Touch Systems & Touch Interfaces, their related terms, advancements and also the differences between them. Its simple notation is easy to understand as it mentions about the different researches carried out in that field and also points out that the Touch Interface and Multi Touch Systems exists since past 25 years. The concept of a mouse that was introduced by Engelbart and English in 1965 received appreciation and was widely used in the 1980’s. This was the period for an improvement in the field of touch interfaces including the one point touch input of vector information, soft machines, multi-touch screens & tablets, gesture recognition, sensor frame which we the researches being done at that time. The paper explains the concept of Touch Systems in order to enhance some useful discussions on that topic. It describes different attributes of these systems, difference between the touch pad & touch screen, multi-touch & multi-person, the location specificity, degree of freedom etc. The author also explains that these touch systems involve many more features like the aspects of force, angle and degree of touch than just mere contact & position. The recent invention of iPad Pro with a pencil can serve as an example for this as it detects both touch and press. The size, multi-touch, pencil are the features that are applauded along with the existing QWERTY keyboard. It can be pointed out that affordances are possible in case of devices operated mechanically and hence, they facilitate feedback. However, this is not possible in case of touch screen devices as we cannot exactly predict where we have touched. That is why we end up turning towards the screen several times and this cannot be translated into a habit while using the keypad. Hence, we can summarize that mere replacing a device by another does not guarantee the precision of the results in every scenario which makes it necessary to understand the difference in between the devices. Even the use of bi-input devices as mentioned in the Bi-Manual Task (University of Toronto), does not guarantee an excellent user experience unless a strong combinations is delivered.
Lei Zhao 1:36:34 9/23/2015
Paper 1: The main idea of this paper is to compare different kinds of input devices. The authors do the comparison in terms of: 1), footprint, it means the space required by this device; 2) human bandwidth, which means the limitation of input; 3) point speed; 4) pointing precision and 5) and the time required to learn how to use this device. This paper classifies the input devices into two categories: discrete entry devices such as keyboard and continuous entry devices such as a mouse. I think the very important conclusion of this paper is that the mouse beat all the other devices in terms of speed. I also think this paper can be a good guide line for future input device researches as a metric. Paper 2: This paper basically provide us with the history and an overview of multi-touch systems. The paper argues why it is important to investigate such system is that there are many restrictions on using multi-touch systems. This paper also introduces some properties of this system, such as touch sensitive and gesture recognition. Based on my own experience, I do not think the potential of touch system has been fully exploited in commodity product, for example, although the touch pad on mac book is very popular, people still do not feel as comfortable as using a traditional mouse.
Samanvoy Panati 2:12:58 9/23/2015
Critique 1: A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices The paper is about visualizing the input device designs as points in a parametrically described design space, thereby systematizing those devices through morphological design space analysis. This has a huge importance because it analyzes the basic semantics of one component of artificial intelligence, i.e., input devices. We first learn about the developing abstractions for bringing order to knowledge about input devices. Three lines of development were discussed – toolkits, taxonomies and performance studies. Then we dive into fourth line of development called morphological design space analysis. The goal here is to find abstractions both for generating the design space and for testing the designs present in them. The analysis done was inspired by the research done by Mackinlay, Card and Robertson. The dialogue is between human and a machine with the help of input devices. The intended dialogue from the human must be encoded into a machine representation and then fed to the application. This process is modeled as the interaction between three agents. 1) A human 2) A user dialogue machine and 3) An application The language of input devices can be modeled using a primitive movement vocabulary and a set of comparison operators. These two key ideas are discussed in detail in the paper. An input device is considered as a transducer from the physical properties of the world into logical parameters of an application, according to Baecker and Buxton. The input device can be represented as a six tuple. <M, In, S, R, Out, W> where M is a manipulation operator, In is the input domain, S is the current state of the device, R is the resolution function, Out is the output domain set and W is a general purpose set of device properties. An analysis of a simple radio is taken as an example to explain these concepts. Composition operators are also explained using this example. There are three kinds of composition operators- merge composition, layout composition and connect composition. Input device taxonomy is described based on the analysis on simple radio. Expressiveness is the main property that is required for the user to understand and give the right input. Effectiveness is required to convey that input with felicity. These two are the basic criteria using which the input device designs can be evaluated. Among many effectiveness metrics, footprint and bandwidth are the ones discussed in this paper. Footprint is the amount of space the input device requires on the desk. For a mouse, it is therefore the image of virtually the entire screen. Many input devices are compared and among them, mouse and tablet are very expensive in footprint related to the others. On the other hand, bandwidth depends on three elements – the human, application and device. These topics are discussed with the experiments conducted by different researchers and finally the movement time is given as a function of Fitts’ index of difficulty. MovementTime = K+(IMID) Where K is constant, IM is the reciprocal of bandwidth and ID is the index of difficulty. This illustrated a way of systemizing the knowledge of input devices which can be used to compare and test many designs. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Critique 2: Multi Touch Systems that I have Known and Loved This paper is about the evolution of Multi touch and about different aspects, attributes and parameters required for understanding the complexity of it. Multi touch is not a new invention. It dates back to 1982. The author explains different aspects to distinguish different forms of multi touch. Those include Touch-tablets vs touch screens, discrete vs continuous touch, location specificity, degrees of freedom. If some technology senses 1 finger, it means it has 2 degrees of freedom, if it senses 2 fingers then it has 4 degrees of freedom. The size of the device also matters because the number of fingers and hands that can be used depends on it. The orientation whether the device is horizontal or vertical is also important. The friction between the fingers and the screen, the pressure, the angle with which the touch was made are all important attributes. Using them, different tasks can be done in various ways. Some more aspects are multi point vs multi touch, multi-finger vs multi-hand, multi-person vs multi-touch, point vs gesture, stylus vs finger, hands and fingers vs objects. All of these aspects are clearly distinguished. The author believes in the statement that everything is best for something and worst for something. For example, the mouse is not best for everything. It is better for most of the tasks than the other devices. The main advantage of touch-screen is that instead of using a device with different buttons, we interact with the picture of devices. The main disadvantage is that you are interacting with a picture of a device and not the device itself. So it works as an advantage and disadvantage. You cannot use a touch-screen without looking at it but it is different in the case of ideal devices. If there is too much sunshine, the screen may be blurred and may not be clearly visible. There are many devices that are invented during the evolution of multi touch. Some of the interesting ones are discussed here. Touch Screen Technology where a workable mechanism of touch screen was used. PLATO IV Touch Screen Terminal which was developed in University of Illinois in 1972. Single touch technology was used in it but there were no pressure sensitive interfaces. Flexible Machine Interface – This was the first multi-touch system designed for giving human input to machine. It was developed in 1982 at University of Toronto. Soft Machines was the first paper in user interface literature that explained everything about touch screen interfaces which are called soft machines in it. Multi-touch Screen was developed in Bell Labs. It used a transparent capacitive array of touch sensors. Apple desktop Bus – This is an early version of USB. It supported plug-and-play and also many input devices like mouse, joysticks, trackballs, keyboards but it can’t distinguish between them. Simon was the world’s first smart phone developed by IBM. It relied on a touch-screen driven user interface. The Haptic Lens is a multi-touch sensor that can be deformed if pushed harder. It comes to the normal form when released. Fingerworks has a range of touch tablets including the gesture pad with multi-touch sensing capabilities. Diamond Touch was developed in 2001 at Mitsubishi Research Labs. It is capable of distinguishing the person’s hands and fingers along with pressure and location. SmartSkin is an architecture for making interactive surfaces developed in 2002. Iphone is a smart phone released by Apple for the first time in 2007. It has outstanding industrial design and smooth interaction. It uses pinch gesture to zoom in and zoom out a map or photo. Microsoft surface is an interactive table surface in which the images are displayed by rear-projection and input is captures optically by cameras. It is capable of sensing multiple fingers, hands and identifying various objects. Surface 2.0 is the newer version of surface developed by Microsoft. It can see everything placed on the surface including shapes, barcodes, text, drawings, etc.
Xinyue Huang 2:17:13 9/23/2015
A morphological analysis of the design space of input devices The paper gives a systematic and engineering way about the input devices. It also introduces some merits about the expressiveness and effectiveness. There are a lot of existing input device such as typewriter keyboards, mice, headpiece, etc. The paper introduces morphological design space analysis to integrate the multiple lines of development. Morphological design space analysis is used to comprehend different input devices in a parametrically described design space. The paper also introduces about how to generate the design space. It mentions two key ideas in modeling the language of input device interaction, the first one is a primitive movement vocabulary and the second one is a set of composition operators. Movement can be represented as a six-tuple. Composition operators consist of merge composition, layout composition and connect composition. Beyond design space, the author introduced some testing criteria from aspects of expressiveness and effectiveness. The paper illustrates two kinds of merits: footprint and bandwidth. The footprint is a certain amount of space on a desk for an input device. Bandwidth is another merit and it is related with three elements: human, application, and device. The paper also introduces the experiment on bandwidth of the human muscle group. In the final part, the paper also presents two examples which show the promise of design space. Multi-Touch Systems that I have Known and Loved The author has done research related with multi-touch. The author help us refine and distinguish many concepts and provides us with many outstanding systems. For example, the author help us distinguish between touch-tablets and touch screens. The author also introduces some concepts highly related with multi-touch such as location specificity, degree of freedom which is related with richness of interactions. Different performances and actions will be made on single-finger and multi-finger, multi-hand and multi-finger, and multi-person and multi-touch. The author also gives a rich list of multi-touch related work such as electroacoustic music first developed. In 1965 a workable mechanism for developing a touch screen is described. The first multi-touch system is developed in 1982. Then the following year a vision based system is developed which could track the hands and enabled multiple fingers. From the time then, research related with multi-touch increase. More recently, multi-touch systems are applied in many areas such as music, games, drawing, mobile phones and computers.
Ankita Mohapatra 7:45:21 9/23/2015
Reading critique on A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices: This paper’s goal was to come up with a general or abstract way of both generating interfaces and comparing them. The design space parameters that the authors developed in this paper are strictly morphological (related to structure and form), and a “language” of device input interaction was devised to discretize the morphology of input devices. The parameters on the vertical axis of the design space were the “primitive moves” in the language, and different styles of arrows were used to indicate “composition operators,” that combined the primitives of the language into “sentences.” By creating the space and plotting existing input devices, it’s possible to see visually what kinds of devices have not yet been created and what characteristics of those devices should be explored further. By the end of the paper, the authors had emerged with examples of how observations in the design space could expose where more direct transduction from human movement to input device language would dramatically reduce the completion time in comparison to the performance of current input devices of the time. ======================================================================================================================================================================================================== Reading Critique on Multi-Touch Systems that I Have Known and Loved: Beyond the description offered by the title, this compilation of the history of multi-touch systems also addressed issues in the discourse surrounding multi-touch systems. Some hints that the author was interested in giving the reader a deeper understanding of HCI were his uses of the buzz-phrases “long nose of innovation” and “Everything is best for something and worst for something else.” It was interesting that the author targeted those who think the mouse is replaceable as fools; it was suggested that the complements to the mouse’s weaknesses are the real areas to look for progress, rather than fail to duplicate the mouse’s strengths. As stated above, Buxton clears up some terminology that apparently gets muddled in HCI discussions, especially those terms relevant to multi-touch. The descriptions of location specificity, degrees of freedom, orientation, and angle of approach/friction detection in an HCI context illuminated some obvious things and offered some new information to me: Touch screens as they exist do not give any physical feedback and so cannot, in most cases, be used with hands alone. Many interfaces today allow few degrees of freedom, and cannot really capture the complexity of real, physical cues. The same interface can function better or worse, or at least differently, depending on its orientation, independently of the interface’s awareness of its orientation (e.g., using a vertically positioned tablet prevents accidental palm touching, which is not addressed by the fact that an iPad or other tablet knows what position it is in). Finally, recognizing approach angle and friction were simply interesting potential inputs that have been never seen or used in a real-world application. There are many subtle differences in the way interfaces work that need to be distinguished accurately. Overall, the paper offered an interesting glance at how limiting our current interfaces are.
Zihao Zhao 7:55:00 9/23/2015
This article mainly propose a method use morphological analysis to discuss the design space of input devices. It uses the footprint and the bandwidth as its two main function to analyze it. The main advantage in it is that it can systematically analyze the prospect of some input devices on some aspects. According to the calculation, the head mouse has less advantages than hand mouse due to the bandwidth of muscle group of neck is less than half of the hand and finger muscles. I think the view proposed by this article is quite novel nowadays, the interface technologies develops quickly and we it would be helpful for us to know the prospect of some input device by calculating, this gives us a theory and will prevent us to do something useless. Moreover, the morphological analysis is also useful for developing interfaces. Interface design should take morphological analysis into account because a design will be useless if it is not easy to control. There is a question arises after reading this paper, I remember Prof. Wang said that hand mouse is more easy to use than finger since controlling a mouse only uses our finger while we have to use the muscle group of our elbow when we control the input device by finger. However, this contradicts with the statistics on this paper, it says that the bandwidth of fingers is 3 times greater than a hand mouse. —————————————————————————— The author is an expert in multi-touch system and he gives us an thorough analysis of the development of multi-touch system. Although the multi-touch system seems to be ubiquitous in recent years, but it has been invented by a few generations. Before it has been applied in the commercial products, many researchers and scientists have made great contribution on it. Moreover, the author always emphasize the axiom that “Everything is best for something and worst for other”. He mentioned that although the multi-touch system brings some convenience for people, it need people to focus on its feedback to keep your eyes on the screen. This may cause inconvenience because you can not touch the physical button to control the device blindly. I can not agree more with the author that multi-touch system is not always better than some mechanical devices. Although the virtual keyboard is convenient on some mobile devices, I enjoy the happiness using mechanical keyboard. Since I cannot feel the position of the characters, I have to stare on my screen which will cause me a lot of trouble. For example, when I used a old fashioned mobile phone, I can feel the position of the numbers and I can dial my friends blindly and it is impossible with a virtual keyboard.
Jesse Davis 8:13:26 9/23/2015
Multi-Touch Systems that I Have Known and Loved This article/paper is takes an in-depth look into multi-touch systems by trying to cover many basic topics that are important in its industry. The article begins by going into the “long-nose of innovation” subject, which is: most important technological/interface discoveries/designs don’t get become common place until 20-30 years after they’ve been discovered due to refinement, production viability, and consumer interest. After that the article gives some definitions that are important for multi-touch systems such as Touch-Tablets vs Touch Screens (Touch Screen – direct interaction with touched object; Touch Tablet – touching a surface that is not overlaid on the screen), Discrete vs Continuous (Discrete – touching that results in feedback/feedforward that results in the gesture being self-revealing towards what it actually does; Continuous – examples given: swiping to browse image gallery, pinching to zoom in/out), the importance of location and size, degrees of freedom as well as orientation, as well as several variations of multiple users/fingers/points/touches for various actions. Near the end of the article they briefly cover additional important pieces of information such as: if we are blind to the devices screen we are unable to use it, the emphasis about being able to see what you’re doing vs feel what you’re doing. The article closes with a timeline of several pieces of multi-touch related technology and work related to it. I think the format of the article could be reworked to have a thought-process that flowed more fluidly, but as it is the article wasn’t bad. A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices This selection attempts to break down the design process of input devices into an abstract science. It first gives a detailed model for which input devices can be broken down into. The model consists of 6 important variables: manipulation, input domain, current state, resolution function, output set, and general properties. These are considered 6 key variables when designing an input model and they exemplify this by analyzing a simple radio in figure 1 and elaborating on the variables. In the next section, after creating a way in which to characterize input models, they come up with additional variables with which to measure input device performance including: desk footprint, pointing speed (also, bandwidth), pointing precision, error percentages, time to learn, time to grasp, user preference, and cost. The rest of the section is spent breaking down these performance measurements into more scientifically sound calculations.
Sudeepthi Manukonda 8:40:25 9/23/2015
Human Computer Interface. It is evident from the name that it provides means of communication between each other. There has been a lot of research and is still going in the viewpoint of optimising the communication between each other. The paper in particular talk about various types of input devices and the design issues related to them. There is a wide variety of input devices that are available in the market and the morphological analysis of each is what this paper focusses on. The author talks about the level of abstractions that one level has introduced to the next level. The author also talks about toolkits, taxonomies, performance studies, morphological design space, eta which are the key factors in determining the efficiency of the input devices. The basic level of HCI is human interacting with the embedded computer. In this basic case, a human, the machine and an application that the user is indicating to use are the agents. This paper mainly deals about the input devices. An input device is defined as a device which convert the physical properties of the request into the logical parameters of the application. The input device has been represented using a six tuple. (M, In, S, R, Out, W) where M is the manipulation operator, In is the input domain, S is the current state, R is a resolution function, Out is the output domain and W is a general purpose set. Together this tuple will give all the properties related to the input device. The design space for the input device has also been defined. The input devices are the key part in putting forth any sort of communication between a human and a computer. Therefore substantial amount of time and energy are going on to generate an ideal design for the input device. Once the design had been put forth, it undergoes several testing phases. The testing is done to test two main criteria- expressiveness and effectiveness. There are several tests and analysis to do this. They include the desk footprint( The amount of area that is covered by the device on the desk), pointing precision( how small can an object be pointed at), Errors( how minimal are the errors), time to learn( the time taken by the user to get accustomed to the device), time to grasp( the time taken by the user ti get engaged with the device) and the cost. All these factors enable the developer or the researcher to estimate the admissibility of the input device. The characterisation of the input device for effectiveness is bases not eh following. The bandwidth of the human muscle group to which input device transducer is added, the accuracy required by the application and the bandwidth of the device. These are the other parameters that determine the efficiency of the inout device. Threrfore it is understood that major story work is going on in the fiend of optimising the communication between the human and an embedded system. It is very important and relevant to the current world scenario with increasing demands and interaction features. ----------------------Bill Buxton Of Microsoft has given and overview of all the types and history of multi-touch technologies, attributes and systems and this comprises the article Multi-Touch Systems that I Have Known and Loved. The use of touch has been existing side for a really long time now and that forms the basis of multi-touch technology. One of the first touch-sensitive ideas was credited to IBM in 1960’s itself. In 1984 Bill Buxton, along with a team at the University of Toronto, developed a multi-touch tablet that had more performance as an interface than the rest. To add to Buxton’s bag, his contribution included application of Fitt’s Law to Human Computer Interfaces. He talks about some terms that one has to know while dealing with multi-touch technology. Buxton interestingly provided some explanations in terms of contrasts. He talked about the implementations of touch interface, the nature of the touch signal, the accuracy of the touch position, the environment the touch is being implemented on, the degrees of freedom, the orientations issues, etc. Touch is what human has been accustomed to and thesis the easiest and the fastest mode of communication in the real world. As the populations is increasing, the need of communication has increased in its diversity and context. This demands us to carry more devices for the different purposes for each other. Multi-touch on the other hand reduces this potential problem by incorporating the touch feature on the device which can help to include multiple features onto one device improving the performance. The touch screens have been modified to make it look as close as it can get to the reality to make it more accessible and increase human convenience. The other interesting feature about this is, the person working on the touch doesn’t realise that he is actually working on the image of the real world object or the virtual object but not the object itself. QWERTY for example. The look and the feel are no where compromised. There are certain points that have to be noted while using touch screens. We are all blind at times and to maximise the visibility while using the touch screens some points have to be noted. The smaller the device, the more obscure the finger is while using the touch feature. In this article Buxton clear indicates the history and chronology of the touch screen technologies and multi-touch. He talks about PLATO IV Touch Screen Terminal by IBM, Tactile Array Sensor for Robotics to sense shape, Flexible Machine interface, Soft Machine which is the first technology that puts forth the basic idea behind the touch interface, etc. All the insights into the touch technology have greatly helped the developer to understand the key features and the history of the amazing technology that we’ve been using till date, and where the innovations are still going on.
Mahbaneh Eshaghzadeh Torbati 8:46:38 9/23/2015
A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices • Summary (2 sentences): As I read the paper and search through the Internet for this topic, I realized that this paper proposes a way for input device classification. In this paper a space is designed based on Primitive movement vocabulary and composition operators. Then each input device can be placed in this space for ease of understanding the input device interactions. Foe evaluation, some metrics such as expressiveness and effectiveness are also designed and explained. These metrics are defined for evaluation and testing part. In the next parts other important metrics as the factor of effectiveness like footprints are explained. Footprint relates to the amount of space required by the input device on a desk. I do not want to go through the details, but in the next part of the paper the writers used the Fitt’s law to footprint and propose a way to test input devices. All these steps are done to justify the effectiveness and the design of the design space proposed in this paper. • Why is/isn’t the paper important? As I saw, this paper has many citations on the internet. It proposes a design that many paper uses for explaining the behavior of their input designs. Moreover it is continue of other works which are toolkits, taxonomies and performance studies. It shows that this design is based on a long-term research with strong fundamentals. • What new results, techniques or methodologies does it offer? • It proposes a space design for input devices that ease the understanding of information and users’ reaction each input device can transfer. It also justifies this space effectiveness by using Fitt’s law. • How does the paper relate to today’s technologies? All papers propose a new discovery on input devices or propose a new input device can use this design to simply show the behavior of the device. It is used as a way of representing the new HCI devices in papers. • Does the paper relate to your own work? It is identical to feature space we have in Artificial intelligence in which we also recognize the actins and their interactions and the affects they have on each other. Then we discuss the algorithm run time and memory space based on this feature space. • What about blind spots? If you had a chance to re-do the word, how would you have done it differently? • I am new in this field of study. I think that the abstract and introduction is hard to understand for me. However, the rest of the paper was easy to understand. The writer used many examples and figures that make definitions and concepts understandable. ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- ----------------------------------- Multi-Touch Systems That I Have Known and Loved-Bill Buxton The main concern in this paper is Multi-Touch Systems & Touch Interfaces and different researches have been done in the. The writers also reviewed Touch Interface and Multi Touch Systemsin recent years. They explained that during 1965 and 1980’s the concept of mouse was appreciated and create a new way for improvement of touch interfaces such as soft machines or multi-touch screens. In next part, the writer explains Touch Systems. It describes many differences between the touch pad & touch screen, multi-touch & multi-person, the location specificity, degree of freedom etc. It also mentions definition we have in other papers such as affordances. It mentions that affordances are possible in case of devices operated mechanically and it can facilitate feedback. The writer also added that the reason we turned towards the screen was that is not possible in case of touch screen devices as we cannot exactly predict where we have touched. In conclusion, we can say that, we should understand the difference between devices to replace one device by the other one. This is mainly because we can not guarantee the precision of the results in every possible scenarios.
Darshan Balakrishna Shetty 8:55:25 9/23/2015
A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices: This paper mainly discusses and presents the morphological classification and ordering of the input devices in a design space. The aim is to provide taxonomies of the design space of input devices in order to understand their application better, how important they are with respect to each other and establish a common platform for analysis and design improved input devices. Traditionally, lines of developments are toolkits, taxonomies and performance studies but the author adds the fourth dimension that is the morphological design space analysis. The author tries to provide a fair amount of background for each of the lines of development. The goal of the paper is to find the abstractions for generating the design space and for testing the designs which were generated. The paper introduces a test method for evaluating the model according to two main principle: expressiveness and effectiveness. Author also discusses about the footprint and bandwidth to illustrate how regions of the space can be systematically analyzed. A good point in this paper is that it uses calculations to reason about the design space, which makes this paper more convincing. Mathematical proof can effectively show the correctness of this paper.----------------- Multi-Touch Systems that I have Known and Loved: The author provides the history of multi-touch systems on how they came into picture and its development. The paper exposes different types of multi touch system and also the drawbacks of each of the type. The paper discusses the properties of the multi touch systems like the touch sensitive, gestures recognition, whether it’s discrete or continuous, location specificity. The multi touch system gained lot of popularity nowadays because of the direct mapping between the physical operation and the virtual operation. The user selects the things which he can see directly without any in between motor. The paper was a good read to understand the background of multi touch systems.