Input - Models and Techniques
- 1 Slides
- 2 Readings
- 3 Reading Critiques
- 3.1 Xiaoting Li 13:21:08 9/16/2017
- 3.2 Ahmed Magooda 19:17:23 9/16/2017
- 3.3 Jonathan Albert 15:43:51 9/17/2017
- 3.4 MuneebAlvi 16:59:26 9/17/2017
- 3.5 Krithika Ganesh 23:15:00 9/17/2017
- 3.6 Kadie Clancy 23:56:23 9/17/2017
- 3.7 Sanchayan Sarkar 17:54:49 9/18/2017
- 3.8 Tahereh Arabghalizi 20:32:40 9/18/2017
- 3.9 Spencer Gray 21:04:22 9/18/2017
- 3.10 Mingzhi Yu 22:05:19 9/18/2017
- 3.11 Xingtian Dong 22:05:30 9/18/2017
- 3.12 Charles Smith 23:30:41 9/18/2017
- 3.13 Amanda Crawford 01:08:09 9/19/2017
- 3.14 Yuhuan Jiang 01:21:16 9/19/2017
- 3.15 Ronian Zhang 01:46:45 9/19/2017
- 3.16 Ruochen Liu 06:04:13 9/19/2017
- 3.17 Akhil 08:59:49 9/19/2017
- 3.18 Mehrnoosh Raoufi 09:00:25 9/19/2017
- 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
Xiaoting Li 13:21:08 9/16/2017
1. A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices: In this paper, the authors discuss how to use a two-dimension diagram to find new designing opportunities among all of the existing input devices. The authors also show how to compare different designs based on expressiveness and effectiveness to see if researchers should devote much time and energy to a new design area. To give readers better understanding of the method and to test the method, the authors give two examples showing the comparison between mouse and headmouse. It is not easy to come up with novel and efficient input devices by simply comparing or listing all of the existing input devices. However, the highlight of the paper is that the authors illustrate a clear and straightforward method to help researchers to discover promising opportunities for new design. Researchers can easily discover new design areas in a two-dimension diagram. This paper mainly focuses on the analysis of input devices. Is there any effective method to help researchers to have comprehensive analysis of output devices? In my opinion, we can use similar method to discover new opportunities in output design. And we can carry out further research on mathematical models to evaluate output devices. 2. Multi-Touch Systems that I have Known and Loved: Unlike a published paper, this article is more like a general introduction of multi-touch systems. It states the author’s knowledge about multi-touch system and gives readers basic ideas about this area. In this article, the author first gives a list of concepts and clarify the distinctions between some of the concepts. Then the author explores the pros and cons of multi-touch systems. At the end of the article, the author gives readers a brief history of the development of multi-touch systems by listing some of the milestones in this area. This is not a research paper showing readers how to get results via carrying out experiments or via building mathematical models. This article focuses on giving readers general idea about multi-touch systems by presenting the author’s personal knowledge in this field. Readers can quickly grasp basic ideas in this area and go deeper based on the these ideas.
Ahmed Magooda 19:17:23 9/16/2017
A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices In this paper the authors are investigating the idea of formulating a design space, in which multiple devices can be mapped using a set of design parameters. By doing so comparing multiple devices can be carried out in a design based prospective and can lead to fair comparison in sense of some standardized aspects (footprint, human bandwidth). This helps in analyzing difference in performance between multiple devices and also characterizing regions of the space that can lead to new innovations.I think the paper provides a nice way of modeling different devices based on their effectiveness, also good examples have been provided in the paper. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Multi-Touch Systems that I Have Known and Loved In this paper the author base his analysis on that everything is best for something and worst for something else. The author starts by illustrates the difference between physical input devices and virtual input devices. The author also goes on by describing what called the soft machines, which describes the ability to use the same device while altering your interface based on your application. The author argues that virtual devices lack feed-forwarding, which he described as the ability to find your way to your desired control by using your fingers, which can be a plus point for mechanical and physical devices. The author then compiled a list that illustrates the advancement in virtual input devices specially touch pads and touch screens through time. I think the good thing about this paper is that it provides a compiled literature about touch devices from 60's to our present.
Jonathan Albert 15:43:51 9/17/2017
Multi-Touch: The author surveys touch technologies, focusing on multi-touch interfaces. He distinguishes various concepts in the realm of touch technology, discussing limitations and tradeoffs incumbent with such devices. While the author admits his article is more or less an open letter to people who have questioned him over the years, I think the article's structure works against that purpose. Instead of being structured like an FAQ page, data pertinent to a single questioner is buried in vaguely-named sections. The title itself is misleading, as it seems more appropriate for the technological chronicle at the bottom of the article, rather than the collection of "things to consider" that comes before. Whether the intent is to display a historical survey or catalogue dos and don'ts, the article should be written as such to properly convey its intended meaning. Nevertheless, the historical survey was interesting, particularly the items about techniques used in the PLATO IV and Neonode devices. Before capacitive touchscreens were feasible, these devices used arrays of optical sensors above the screen itself. While the implementation was likely extremely limited in its accuracy, its method of operation ingeniously brought a new form of technology closer to widespread adoption. This could mean that some modern technology, even though it may be doomed to obscurity by its "kludginess," may provide a previously-unheard-of feature that could be fundamental for a future generation. ---- Morphological Analysis: This paper aims to "continue the development of a set of abstractions... for bringing order to knowledge about input devices." The authors do this by defining terms and methods for "morphological design space analysis," going on to analyze and design certain devices with these methods. While this paper admittedly uses "simple analysis based on simple assumptions," the steps it takes to formalizing the world of design are significant. It has the potential to apply to more than just input devices, the authors claim, though the paper might have fueled more exploration into these other venues if other examples were given. I understand the authors have their expertise in pointing devices and the like. However, extrapolating the applicability of efficiency in pointing to unrelated fields is not immediately apparent. Nevertheless, I found the authors' description of what was essentially a VR head mounted display (HMD; yet the provided sketch does not include a built-in display) amusing, considering the paper was from 1991. What is more interesting is their suggestion for the need of a handheld pointer in addition to the HMD. This corroborates with the different "tiers" in VR devices--HMDs can be constructed out of cardboard, but the high-end setups include "wands" to facilitate higher-fidelity actions in the scene. Such devices could benefit from the ideas put forth in this paper.
MuneebAlvi 16:59:26 9/17/2017
Critique of A morphological analysis of the design space of input devices Summary: This paper attempts to review previous methods of analyzing input devices and then shows an alternative way which is a design space. The paper then analyzes input devices using the design space and sees how new devices can potentially result from using such a method. The use of a design space in the reading shows how it is not only useful for analyzing current input devices, but also useful for discovering potentially new input devices. Of course the design space can be applied to any field to show potential voids where more research should occur but in the case of this reading, the design spaces showed a void in terms of input devices that use fingers. I was confused however because the authors do not describe how they tested fingers and found out that they are better input devices than the headmouse or mouse. I also wonder if this is related to tablets today which use fingers as input devices. Another part of the reading which interested me was how they used the muscle groups as another way to see which devices work fastest and are the most precise. I have always thought about the human limits in human computer interactions, but I did not think about the different parts of a human which can be connected as input devices. Critique of Multi-Touch Systems that I Have Known and Loved Summary: This website attempts to define various terms in touch interfaces. It then tries to show real world examples. The website is a great find for mapping the origins of our modern touch screen interfaces. I never thought about the fact that since touch screens have no physical feedback (besides haptic) it is not possible to operate them without using our eyes and hands. This makes me a little more critical of Tesla's touch screens that they use to replace their center console. The webstie also mentions that soft interfaces are jack of all trades but masters of none. I feel this is very applicable to the millions of apps available today in google and apple app stores. This might be the reason why games on phones are extremely limited in terms of player input. For example, games that get ported onto phones (such as Grand Theft Auto) end up having touch screen buttons that abstract a lot of player input. One touch screen button performs many actions leading to a bad mapping whereas on console, controllers have a better mapping. This may also be why there is a market for physical controllers for mobile devices.
Krithika Ganesh 23:15:00 9/17/2017
A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input devices: This paper shows how one can systematize the knowledge gained about input device : 1) providing a method to generate points in design space, 2) using effectiveness and expressiveness as means to test points in the design space 3) illustrating how regions of the space can be systematically analyzed, using footprints and bandwidth which are effectiveness metrics . The author benchmarks different input devices using the design space concept and gives us a means to drive innovation in the design of input device technology. Modern devices such as multi touch systems have exploited the fact that the bandwidth of fingers beat the bandwidth of mouse. Some assumptions are made by the author in the paper for instance, to explain the concept of device bandwidth, the author assumes distance D=9.7 cm to calculate movement time for the hardest easy task with no logical backing. Also the author states that neck muscle movement, that is using the head mouse is not indeed a good idea as it has a lower bandwidth as compared to mouse , but “everything is best for something and worst for something else” as quoted in the second paper by Bill. Virtual reality uses head tracking that is when you wear a VR headset, the picture in front of you shifts as you look up, down and side to side or angle your head. A system called 6DoF (six degrees of freedom) plots your head in terms of your X, Y and Z axis to measure head movements forward and backwards, side to side and shoulder to shoulder. Hence in this case, use of a mouse would completely ruin the experience of VR. Multi Touch Systems that I have Known and Loved: The author explores multi-touch systems by distinguishing between Touch-tablets vs Touch screens, Discrete vs continuous, location specificity, degrees of freedom, size of target, orientation, single finger or multi finger, multi point or multi touch, point vs gesture, stylus or finger, hands and fingers vs objects, different vs the same, and the inter devices attributes, such as degree of touch, pressure sensitivity, angle of approach, and force vectors. He also explains different multi touch technologies in the chronological order. What interested me was the rule “Everything is best for something and worst for something”, that is a design of the product can be made just by keeping a subset of users in mind (Customizations). He states that touch screen devices lack tactile feedback, which is even true today. How many of us are successful texting in class without getting caught? :D. As one needs to see to type, one cannot multitask with touch screen devices. Also, another shortcoming, faced by all of us is: using the touch screen phone in bright sunlight. At times, the brightness on our phone is to the minimum and when we try to operate our phone in bright sunlight, we are unable to see the display and struggle to increase the brightness of the display. It would be nice if we had buttons like the volume buttons on phone to adjust brightness, to overcome this difficulty.
Kadie Clancy 23:56:23 9/17/2017
Multi-Touch Systems I Have Known and Loved: Bill Buxton, of Microsoft Research, has compiled his knowledge of multi-touch systems into a single webpage as a reference to those interested in designing interfaces of this type. Buxton shares his primary axiom in regards to the role of multi-touch systems with the existence of the mouse: everything is best for something and worse for something else. He outlines several “traps” that seem to cause confusion or discussion when it comes to multi-touch systems. These include issues like discrete versus continuous touch language, touch sensing beyond contact and position, and stylus versus finger. Buxton emphasizes that there are tradeoffs to consider with the inclusion or exclusion of these facets of multi-touch interfaces. For example, the distinction between a multi-touch system and a multi-person system is quite stark; a multi-person system may require two cursors to work effectively, but a multi-touch almost certainly would not. This website serves as a good starting point for designers who are considering multi-touch systems, or for general HCI knowledge due to the prevalence of multi-touch screens on mobile phones and tablets. Buxton also points out that there is no free lunch, and multi-touch technologies have weaknesses. For instance, the issue of multi-touch operation requiring both hands and eyes indicates that these should not be used while driving. However, there are many benefits to technologies with multi-touch input that make these devices so promising. For example, these technologies allow for “soft interfaces” which have the ability to configure interfaces on the fly to account for a variety of tasks and interfaces on one device. Buxton also includes of the chronology of multi-touch systems, which provides an interesting look at the evolution of these type of input devices. A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices: This paper discusses a method to systematize the wide variety of input devices available with morphological design space analysis. The authors attempt to integrate previous work concerning toolkits, taxonomies, and performance studies of different input devices into a single parametric design space. They begin by describing how to model this design space for input devices, which is basically the set of all possible combinations of the composition operators with the primitive vocabulary. The authors then test points in the space to characterize regions of it, pointing designers in areas with promising possibilities. The mappings that design spaces can imply are evaluated by effectiveness and expressiveness, with the authors mainly focusing on expressiveness in this paper. Expressiveness refers to how well the user’s intentions can be expressed in terms of speed and error, and interestingly, in other practical figures like desk footprint and device bandwidth. The work done in this paper is important as it provides insight into the production of novel devices, allowing designers to concentrate in areas where analysis shows encouraging results. One specific example is using the bandwidth of fingers to beat the mouse. This ties to Buxton’s multi-touch web page and his primary axiom as designers today have recognized the many benefits of using input of this type. I believe that one weakness of this paper is the exclusion of voice input in the design space. Voice command may be fundamentally different than the other types of input devices, but is still a valid way to communicate with devices and should be considered in the space with other input devices. The authors assemble theory, empirical results, and design into a single consistent framework not only useful as a way to compare current technologies, but also as a means to produce new and meaningful ones.
Sanchayan Sarkar 17:54:49 9/18/2017
CRITIQUE 1 (A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices) ::::: In this paper, the authors present a formal way of prototyping, analyzing and evaluating input device designs by considering them as points in a parametrically described design space. This paper is one of the most fundamental work as far as input devices are concerned. It provides a whole new approach in studying human-computer input interaction. The fundamental merit lies the abstraction of “input-device interaction” as sentences in a formal language. By using this, it can be easily conceptualized as a grammar with a primitive movement vocabulary and a set of composition operations acting on this vocabulary. Additionally, it does a great job in framing a nice categorization of the operators: merge, layout and connect and how they integrate with three aspects of interaction: human, machine and the application. The second and probably the best feature of this paper is the Design space construction. Figure 3, in particular, presents a comprehensive account of relating all the vocabulary, operators and their relationships. It gives the reader an excellent representation of the abstraction of the device design. It will help not just in comparing different designs but also help in prototyping possible new designs. The paper also discusses the testing parameters of the design space: expressiveness and effectiveness. While the former stresses upon the passing of correct semantics, the later stresses on the ease of interaction. The interesting thing is the test evaluating parameters can also be represented in the proposed design space framework. For example, in judging footprint of an input device, one can just increase or decrease the radii of the points in the design space to denote the level of footprint of the device. This is extremely helpful in evaluating different designs. The authors also compare the input device designs based on the bandwidth and the factors contributing to it. Whether it be certain muscle groups within humans or the precision that the task, the paper illustrates how they impact the effective bandwidth of the device. The authors provide an excellent comparison between the mouse and the head-mouse when it comes to different tasks. While the head-mouse is effective when it comes to viewing tasks, the mouse beats it when it comes to pointing tasks. This along with other illustrated examples, gives a clear qualitative and quantitative approach in comparing device designs. It’s relevance in modern context lies in evaluating finger touch screens where one can easily evaluate the precision of fingers with that of the mouse using the positions in the parameterized design diagram. The only demerit in the paper would be it did not elaborate more on the rich vocabulary it introduced in testing effectiveness of an input device like errors, cost, user preference, etc. Never the less, the paper with its’ rich set of vocabulary, is a fantastic piece of work for anytime an input design is to be thought of, prototyped or evaluated.<----------------------------------------------------------------> CRITIQUE 2 (Multi touch systems that I have known and loved)::::: This paper lays out a comprehensive evolution of touch surfaces and its’ related work. It also focusses on a lot of factors that differentiates various aspects of touch surfaces and its’ relevance in understanding the nature of the touch device. One of the merits of this paper is the vast vocabulary of factors that the author mentions in understanding the framework in which touch devices can be evaluated upon. One of the interesting points is “Discrete vs Continuous” where nature of the interface is judged by the “interacting action” it performs. For example, the same device can exhibit pop up quizzes (discrete action) or cycling through a playlist (continuous action). Many other categories like degrees of freedom, single vs multi finger, multi person vs multi touch, points vs gestures are important areas that we are dealing with now. So every time a new iPhone releases, users are curious as to what aspects are highlighted upon. Also, in the sixth sense technology, multiple users can view the same space and look at different content. Hence the issue of multi-user touch. All these are relevant today and that is why this paper is extremely important as it gives a range of factors to dwell upon. Another merit of the paper is the discussion of the pitfalls of a touch system. We can’t take things on face value. Every touch interface has its’ uses and its’ problems. The author asserts a line of caution about this. For example, in case text messaging during a power cut or an important meeting, touch surfaces would be rendered useless because it will constantly distract the user to look at it. On the other hand, if one had a simple mobile phone with keypads, one can just type the text even without looking. This is because of the immediate location feedback that the physical keyboard offers which a touch keyboard cannot offer. Therefore, I am glad that the paper highlights on these critical issues in understanding the pros and cons of touch interaction. The evolution from keyboard to Surface 2.0 shows a journey of HCI and often the best innovations are done on work that has gone into learning two decades back. For designers in this area, this paper serves as a good logbook to delve into the history of interacting devices and extract the aspects of research those devices focused on so that new ideas can spring up in solving today’s aspects of HCI research.
Tahereh Arabghalizi 20:32:40 9/18/2017
A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices: This paper addresses an abstract way of generating interfaces and comparing them. The authors consider each interface as a language (with two features: primitive movement vocabulary and the set of composition operators) for translating device interactions. The first feature of the language is the translation of physical movements to logical parameters and the second feature indicates flexibility to combine movements to richer set of interactions. The authors also discuss about methods to test input devices that are mapped in design space. It is very important to understand the level of difficulty of a device. So they introduce two metrics which are expressiveness (the way input is expressed as output) and effectiveness (the utilization level of a user’s input). The author also define the precision of a device as the completion time for the “easiest hard task” of the mouse and they use it as a reference in effectiveness of a design while this task does not seem a difficult task. In my opinion, their proposed design space cannot not apply to all input devices which was not clarified in the paper. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Multi-Touch Systems that I Have Known and Loved: In this paper, the author talks about his experiences using multi-touch systems and their issues. His definitions of different dimensions of a touch system namely degree of freedom, location specificity, orientation, angle of approach and force are very helpful for a better understanding of Human Computer Interaction (HCI) and distinctions of touch technologies. The author emphasizes on little differences in the way that various interfaces work for example using two fingers from one hand is quite different from using one finger from two different hands. Another point that the author denotes is that current touch systems still rely on vision rather than touch. For example, if someone cannot use their eyes, such touch devices are useless. In general, in this paper we can see the progress of touch technology during time and this paper is a must-read for people who want to get familiar with touch technologies.
Spencer Gray 21:04:22 9/18/2017
In the first paper, A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices, the authors build upon the previous ways to anaylze input devices: toolkits, taxononmies, and performance studies. Instead, the authors created an abstraction to generate a design space for an input device and how to test the designs in that space. This work is signifcant to the field because of the authors' ability to formalize the design spaces of input devices. Previously, the designing of input devices focused on toolkits, taxonomies, and performance studies. While these designs can have formal definitions, they are certainly not required. In addition, this paper walked through the steps of creating the formal definition to showing how it could be used on actual input devices. What I found most effective was the authors ability to critque devices in terms of expressiveness and effectiveness. Assigning metrics to both of these terms is significant because it can help designers choose between different input devices to select the best one for the task at hand. In the second paper, Multi-Touch Systems that I have Known and Loved, the author presents an informal approach in categorizing and analyzing multi-touch device interactions. The author provides a history of the devices that have shaped the development of multi touch design. While informal and not based on an expirement, this article is still significant in the HCI literature. It is important to understand the history of a type of interface in order to understand what makes that type of interface successful and what causes it to fail. Multi touch interfaces are no exception. Much like other interfaces, multi touch has been affected by the long nose of innovation. After invention, it has taken many years for multi touch to become a main stream interface. What I found most interesting in this paper was when the author mentioned feedback. Multi touch interfaces present a challenge in providing a user feedback right before the user makes an action. There are plenty of ways to provide feedback after, such as making a noise or changing the screen, but there has yet to be a good way to provide feedback before. I believe this could be an interesting research topic since all multi touch designs to date cannot provide it.
Mingzhi Yu 22:05:19 9/18/2017
The first paper describes a new principle to develop a human-machine input devices--- the morphological design space. This technique seeks to comprehend different input device designs as points in a parametrically described design space. It is a little bit hard for me to understand the how the understand how space is constructed even though the author has given several examples. Some examples are complicated. Making the design space takes some effort especially it has to exhaustily( as far as I understand). For some people who have never study HCI and know what the design space, the method requires you understand your design feature, component and many taxonomies. However, it becomes easier to understand when it comes to the testing part. The mathematical evaluation is straightforward and clear for me, such as beginner, to implement. I can kind feel how smart this paper is and how important it is in the human-computer interaction area. It adds more guidelines and an easy-to-follow solution when a designer is simply seeking a useful design. For the second paper, I will think this is a more informal review of different kinds of multi-touch system. Regardless the language (it is informal), I like how the author gave a practical point of view to each of the systems. This is exactly how I felt when I use the touch pad but never think further like him. Buxton summarized some dogma and framing. I have no disagreement with all most of them, especially for some of the dogma. However, for some of the drawback, as a user of the multi-touch system, I did not feel the same way. For example, I never feel there is a much distance between the look and feel( This may because the interface is improved a lot. Most of them are graphically well-designed. It is always a pleasure to play around with them). And the history of the multi-touch screen is also very fun to read.
Xingtian Dong 22:05:30 9/18/2017
1. Reading critique for ‘ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices’ I think this paper provides an interesting way to analyze design space of input devices and how to evaluate the devices, but the methodology is not enough to analyze today’s complex input devices. The author brought up a way to decompose a device into several simple degree, so that the function of the device can be easily represent. Than it will be much easier to analyze the device. The author also brought up some indicators to evaluate devices. Effectiveness is no longer a simple indicator to measure how fast could the device be. The author listed many indicators that are considerable. The paper has its limitation. Nowadays input devices are much more complicated than before. It is no longer enough to simply classify movement into 2D movement and rotation. And Z axis is not clear enough to represent other functions of a device. 2. Reading critique for ‘Multi-Touch Systems that I Have Known and Loved’ I think this paper is really interesting. Although some of the problems that the author brought are conquered or are not important. It is still very fascinating and inspiring. The author brought out the frame for touch screens, he described what kinds of operations might occur, what input matters. Some of them are still really important even to today’s touch screen devices. Some of the problems are still not conquered. Actually, the most inspiring part is that the author provided a guide line for touch screen devices. In the future, there might be more ways to input data. Like image identification, Apple has applied it to facial recognition and create ‘Animoji’, it can detect facial movement. I think it is definitely possible for future devices to detect the movement of human’s fingers, hands and arms by image identification. And it can be great way to operate devices. Can we define frame for 3D input? I think it is really considerable.
Charles Smith 23:30:41 9/18/2017
On: multi-touch systems The author of this article writes in a very informal way, discussing what he likes, and doesn’t like, about various touch technologies. The author spends a large part of the article defining terms. The author seems to dislike how the technology has developed today. He compares that only using your finger on a touch surface to that of fingerpainting. That finger first technology is what led to the popularity of the original iPhone which has shaped much of the world’s touch screen technology today. The author also appears to be against touch only devices, following the ‘less is more’ ideology. This can also be seen in current successful models. Replacing the physical buttons more more touch screen has been a trend in smart devices for a few years now. This model has proven to be very financially successful for many organizations. On: Design space of input devices The authors of this paper try to take input devices, and analyze the differences between them. They do this be defining many characteristics into empirical categories. This is the first paper we’ve read that looks at this many different input devices and tries to define the space that they all exist in. This is very useful for the creation of additional input devices, as then they can be compared to devices already proven similar to them. This paper while it tries to systematize information about input devices, doesn’t acknowledge the possibility of their being more import variables that were not discussed in this paper, including those that may be abstract. While it does create a complete picture using the variables at hand, there is much more that can be considered.
Amanda Crawford 01:08:09 9/19/2017
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. In our previous papers, we have explored topics within the human computer interaction subject that discusses the human performance and the use of input devices, affordance, and the designing of graphical user interfaces. The focus of this paper takes a slightly different approach in defining a morphological design to systematically categorize user input devices. Their hopes in this research, is to offer a paradigm where engineers and designers can develop new and targeted input devices, including ones that could potentially outperform the mouse within the parameters of this framework. In specific, this paper brings to light that a user does not only interact with the computer and application, but the user has to first interact with the input device. The artificial language between the user and the device can be modelled using Card's primitive movement vocabulary and composition operators. Once the language has been defined, the design space can then be generated. This paper shows the importance of creating qualitative research that can be tested. Card spent an equal amount of time developing his theory and accompany of its test space. Card shows that the design space of a user input device can be tested based on it's expressiveness and effectiveness using a set of feature merits. These feature merits are important because they convey both the pragmatism of the device and uses the human performance measures in it's estimation. The foot print of a device measures how much desk space an input device may need. It takes into account the primitive movement vocabulary, the screen size, and the C-D ratio. Surprisingly, I would say that the footprint can be used in determining whether a device is scalable. Another important feature is the bandwidth. This can be measured from three respective calculations: the human bandwidth, the device bandwidth, and the application bandwidth. The measurement from the bandwidths uses Welford's formulation of Fitt's law derived, Index of Difficulty. Notably, Card spends a great deal on choosing the appropriate task for the device in his measurement. He defined the term, "hardest easy target", and how to identify it among dissimilar tools and to negate objectivity. In my opinion, Card does an impressive job of orchestrating testing and analysis through his qualitative research. Multi-Touch Systems that I Have Known and Loved, Bill Buxton Bill Buxton discusses multi touch and it's evolvement in his article titled "Multi-Touch Systems That I Have Known and Loved". In Card's paper titled "A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space", he sought to develop a systematic approach in analyzing user input devices based on its feature merits and primitive movement vocabulary. While his work provided a strong foundation for shaping the future of user input technology in HCI, the inclusion of touch enabled technologies were weak due to it's complexity. In this paper, Buxton discusses the "Long Nose of Innovation" based on his experience working with Microsoft Research and Bell Labs and seeks to systematically structure multi touch technologies. He tackles this challenge of analyzing the multi touch by providing it's evolution. In my opinion, he is creating a paradigm that has similarities to Cards, in which we can see this in the Location Specificity defintion which is similar to Card's theory of a device's footprint. In addition, Buxton shows us that the evolution of technology is never developed over night and that there is a time and a place for technology. This was shown through the history of the multitouch which was designed initially using capacitors, then to optical sensing, back to capacitance, and ending with the Microsoft Surface using optical sensors in it's design. It's really enlightening to learn that although we may think that a tool has become obsolete, when rather the time for the technology is dependent on an unknown future of development.
Yuhuan Jiang 01:21:16 9/19/2017
Paper Critiques for 09/18/2017 == A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space == This paper proposes a line of development of human-machine interface, a morphological design space analysis, in addition to the three proposed by previous work. In order to put the the design of human-machine interface into the design space, the authors defined primitive movement vocabulary, which is a tuple of manipulation operation, input domain, device state, resolution function, output domain, and device properties. Then composition operators such as “merge”, “layout”, and “connect” are introduced. To be able to test points in the design space in order to characterize regions of the design space, the authors introduced two criteria of evaluation: expressiveness and effectiveness. This paper is important because it utilized the design space technique to analyze the design of human-machine interface. By plotting the designs as dots on the design space, not only will the plot be informative form of summarization, it will also help us discover new designs. == Multi-Touch Systems that I Have Known and Loved == This paper serves as a summary of the touch screen technology over the years. The paper begins by categorizing various properties of touch screens with some contrasting terms, such as single-finger vs. multi-finger, single-person vs. multi-touch, points vs. gesture, etc. Then, the paper suggests that the adaptability of touch screens comes at a price. Firstly, touch screens only give users the LOOK, instead of the FEEL. Secondly, there are issues with visibility. For example, blind people are not able to use touch screens. The finger obscures the screen content. The display might not be visible under strong sunlight. The most intriguing part of the paper is the summary of the attempts to implement touch-based interactions dating back to the 60s. It is surprising to me that capacitive touch screens (instead of resistive ones) were adopted as early as 1967.
Ronian Zhang 01:46:45 9/19/2017
Multi-Touch Systems that I Have Known and Loved: This paper is an introduction of the development of the Multi-touch systems (historical works and models) and also it includes the author’s own understanding of the important factors, easily-confused factors of the multi-touch technology. Even though some products we see today have fancy stores which makes people feel they appear all of a sudden, the fact is that the technology actually existed long ago.I totally agree that the different aspect of multi-touch (different device, different feature, different scenarios) should have different application. If they are well applied to the specific idiosyncrasies of tasks, they could better suits the scenario, thus have better influence on HCI and improve the interaction process. (In the lecture, prof. talked about auto-completion of text editing. Even though it might do little help on improving input speed (since the recognition takes time ), it still has its own application scenarios: for non-native speakers, the auto-completion could help complete some easy-to-forget words and decrease input time by reducing typos.) ————————————————————————————— A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices: This paper shows a systematical way of evaluating the input devices: it provides a method to generate the design space( by using primitive movement vocabulary and composition operator), and evaluates the design based on expressiveness and effectiveness (footprint and bandwidth) by generating points in the space.The paper gives a way to analysis device on design space, it uses 3 methods: footprint, bandwidth and precision comparison. In all 3 ways, it gives the same result on evaluating mouse and head as input devices. It is very inspiring and systematic. However, the paper is poorly structured: the hierarchical relationship of evaluation models/parameters is confusing (even more confusing on the last part when applying the 3 methods to compare mouse and head using reverse order!). Also, the definition would be clearer if the example goes first and followed by more explanation instead of the simple giving the complicated and hard-to-make-sense definition first. Further, it confuses the reader more by giving logically unrelated examples(title 3, “In set and Out set numeral should match” argument was followed by example “the user can’t express the request exactly”.) ————————————————————————————— Notes for Multi-Touch Systems: discrete & continuous -> graphical cues | feedback, mechanical & touch -> motor learning (muscle memory), DOF -> more input means more richness like everyday life, more sensing -> pressure & angle & vector -> human capability, more feature available -> limbs & multi-hand(even foot) & multi-person & gesture, different device -> various performance, feedback needed, distinct purpose -> distinct interaction. Notes for Design Space: Toolkits (limitation of models on design space) & Taxonomies (no definition on completeness | only continuous devices) & Performance study (no solution for task, subject, human variables) -> necessity, primitive movement vocabulary -> (Manipulation, In, S, R, Out, W), composition operator -> merge & layout & connect, expressive -> In set & Out set should be correspondence, effective -> footprint (estimate extreme-task) & bandwidth (muscle group & precision & device bandwidth -> dotting experiments -> define easy & hard), analysis mouse & head <- bandwidth & precision & footprint analysis.
Ruochen Liu 06:04:13 9/19/2017
1. A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of input Devices: In this paper, the author present the idea that the design of human-machine interfaces can be viewed as the design of artificial language for the communication between human and machine. This is paper is focused on input device, which is an important component of the artificial language. Also, this paper presents a method to help generate points in the design space. And it uses expressiveness and effectiveness as the term to evaluate the designs. Then, two effectiveness metrics, footprint and bandwidth are used to illustrate how to systematically analyze the regions of space. One of the most important parts of the paper is about the analysis of morphological design space. On the analysis, the design space is firstly generated. In a parametrically described design space, different input devices are calculated into points. As for me, the part of the paper that interests me the most is the future of input devices. Using the bandwidth of the fingers, there is possibility to design and manufacture a device to beat the mouse, which has been widely used for over forty years. For human-machine interface, it is a challenging but promising future. 2. Multi-Touch Systems that I Have Known and Loved: In this research paper, the author, Bill Buxton, illustrates the development of multi-touch technology by introduce all the related methods and work that he loves based on time line. The technology of multi-touch has both advantages and disadvantages. For the advantages, it allows maximal screen space on portable devices like mobile phones. Also, it allows a higher degree of freedom and the designs based on multi-touch are mostly adaptive. On the contrast, for the disadvantages, using multi-touch makes tactile feedback difficult to design and get, unless new screen technology is invented. It takes both the user’s eyes and hands to use multi-touch. This may restrict the application field of multi-touch. Also, there are more problems like “fat finger problem” that may reduce the precision of multi-touch. As we can find from the previous work on multi-touch, before Apple iPhone introduced multi-touch to the most of public, there was a period of over forty years for the multi-touch technology to grow and mature. There were all kinds of designs trying to fix the problems on human-machine interface. Some of them may succeed, while others may not, but they all contribute to the development of multi-touch. It is also a common rule for many other technologies. Flowerers must bud first to bloom; also, technologies must develop first to succeed.
Akhil 08:59:49 9/19/2017
A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices The author's is trying to characterize different devices through morphological space design analysis. The author's aims to overcome the limitations of the existing classification technologies such as Toolkits, Taxonomies and Performance Studies through it. The author's further explains the concept of primitive movement vocabulary and composition operators. They use expressiveness and effectiveness as a means to evaluating the devices. They further use Footprint and Bandwidth to evaluate how the devices perform when they change the size of the display. The author's analyze the speed with which we can use a device by identifying the muscle being used and how it affects the user's movement. The author's give a compelling example of the head-mounted mouse and compare it with the normal mouse. The author's use this design space in order to design the device of the future. This paper has further helped in understanding the mechanics involved behind the use of a device and the various factor's involved in it. This also analyses the shortfalls of various devices and helps researchers with data about it. Multi-Touch Systems The paper discusses about the various types of touch interfaces and devices available. The author gives a chronological order of the development of today's touch devices and also explains about its shortfalls. The author tries to differentiate between single-finger touch and multi-finger touch, Multi-hand vs Multi-finger, Multi-person vs Multi-touch, etc. He clearly states throughout the paper that one technology or device is never the best for all use-cases. He explains that multiple devices perform well in multiple situations and it we have to find out how to effectively combine them. Eg: He states that a stylus/brush might be helpful while drawing compared to touch through fingers. He also explains why the lack of feedback by touch devices should be considered as an important reason to ban them while driving. He compares the feedback mechanism of a radio box and that of a touch interface and tells us that there is no haptic feedback about what is going to happen. The author further explains how touch input might be different in different viewpoints such as User, Device-Independent graphics and feedback. He also states the drawbacks of touch interfaces like we cannot use it without focusing our attention on it and how the screen dims on sunshine. Some of these limitations have been overcome since the time the author had published the paper.
Mehrnoosh Raoufi 09:00:25 9/19/2017
A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices: To systemize the human-computer interface design, in the past, they have developed a set of abstraction i.e. toolkits, taxonomies and performance studies. In this paper, they focus on systematizing human-machine interface technology. The paper explains that a morphological design space analysis is to generate the design space in which the goal is to comprehend different input device designs as points in a parametrically described design space and then testing the designs. It is introduced that the interaction between human and computer can be modeled as the interaction in an artificial language among at least three agents; a human, a user dialogue machine, and an application. They have represented a set of primitives vocabulary to describe input device movements. The other development is to provide a set of composition operators. They believe the design space can be constructed by combining composition operators with the primitive vocabulary considering all possible combinations. Then they introduce two terms for evaluation of design space i.e. expressiveness and effectiveness.--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Multi-Touch Systems that I Have Known and Loved: The author describes different features of multi-touch devices and takes a look at the history of these systems and how they evolved during the time. The author explains and compares different terms in this area such as the gestures recognition, location specificity, the degree of freedom, and discrete vs continuous. The author also tries to differentiate similar terms such as multi-point vs multi-touch. As this paper talks about the previous technologies of multi-touch systems, it is somehow tangible how the evolution has taken place over the time. It made it more interesting to follow and understand.