Chcete vědět víc? Mnoho dalších prezentací, videí z konferencí, fotografií i jiných dokumentů je k dispozici v institucionálním repozitáři NTK: http://repozitar.techlib.cz Would you like to know more? Find presentations, reports, conference videos, photos and much more in our institutional repository at: http://repozitar.techlib.cz/?ln=en

1. Blended Libraries
Future
user
interfaces
concepts
to
support
informa0on
seeking
and
collabora0on
Prof. Dr. Harald Reiterer
University of Konstanz
Chair for Human-Computer Interaction
University of
Harald.Reiterer@uni-konstanz.de
Konstanz
hci.uni-konstanz.de
h"p://hci.uni-­‐konstanz.de

2. Introduc7on
• University
of
Konstanz,
Department
of
Computer
&
Informa0on
Science,
Head
of
the
Research
Group
Human-­‐
Computer
Interac0on
(since
1997)
• Research
Topics:
Interac0on
Design,
Usability
Engineering,
Informa0on
Visualiza0on
• Main
Goal:
Improving
the
naturalness
of
the
interac7on
between
human
and
computer
– Mul0modal
Interac0on
– Reality-­‐based
Interac0on
2

3. UIs
for
Informa7on
Seeking
Systems
(ISS)
• INSYDER
(ISS
for
the
Web)
–
EU
Project
Eureka
No.
29232
(1999-­‐2001)
• INVISIP
(ISS
for
Geo-­‐Data)
–
EU
Project
No.
IST-­‐2000-­‐29640
(2002-­‐2004)
• Mobile
Informa7on
Visualiza7on
(ISS
for
mobile
devices)
–
DFG
PhD
Graduate
Program
(2005-­‐2007)
• MedioVis
(ISS
for
digital/mul0media
libraries)
–
DFG
LIS
4-­‐54281(3)
(2007-­‐2009)
• Blended
Library
-­‐
Ministerium
für
Wissenschaa,
Forschung
und
Kunst,
Baden-­‐Würcemberg
(2011-­‐2013)
more
informa0on:
hcp://hci.uni-­‐konstanz.de
3

4. Mo7va7on
Poor
Usability
of
OPACs
(2007)
4

5. MedioVis
Demo
of
System
in
Use
Integration of Multimedia Metadata and Web Services
5

6. Library of the Future –
Blend
Physical
&
Digital
Library
digital
library
physical
library
status-­‐quo
vision
co-­‐opera0on
co-­‐existance
6

7. Blended
Library
–
Domains
of
Design
Individual
Interac7on:
Blending
real
world
interac0on
&
objects
(e.g.
scribbling
text,
sketching
objects,
grasping
tokens)
with
digital
ac0ons
&
representa0ons
(e.g.
to
move
digital
books
or
movies,
touch
items
of
a
facet
token
value
wheel).
Social
Interac7on
&
Communica7on:
Different
user
can
interact
at
the
same
0me
on
an
equal
manner
considering
real-­‐word
social
conven0ons
of
communica0on
(e.g.
mul0-­‐touch
displays
allows
mul0user
interac0on;
tokens
could
be
grasped
equally).
Workflow:
Fluid
change
between
real-­‐world
workflows
and
computer-­‐supported
workflows
(e.g.
search
in
a
bookshelf
–
search
on
a
Tabletop).
Physical
Environment:
Blending
the
power
of
real-­‐world
devices,
furniture,
rooms
&
buildings
with
the
power
of
virtual
means
(e.g.
combining
tables,
chairs,
walls,
floor,
ceiling,
light,
sound
with
mul0-­‐touch
planar,
spherical,
cylindrical,
curved
displays);
new
arrangements
of
place
and
space.
7

8. What
kind
of
UI
for
different
Displays?
Large
–
small
Different
Input
modali0es
(e.g.
Touch,
Stylus,
Keyboard,
Mouse)
Real-­‐0me
Synchroniza0on
?
8

9. Zoomable
Object-­‐Oriented
Informa7on
Landscape
9

10. Query
by
Real
World
Objects,
e.g.
DVD
10

11. Query
by
Real
World
Objects,
e.g.
DVD
11

12. Blended
Library
–
Coopera7ve
Search
with
Search
Tokens
12

13. Blended
Library
–
Coopera7ve
Search
with
Search
Tokens
13

14. User
Study
-­‐
Se_ng
Par7cipants:
75
par0cipants,
tested
in
25
randomly
selected
3-­‐person-­‐groups
(triads)
Between-­‐Subject
Design
(12
+
13
groups)
Two
UI
Condi7ons:
-­‐
Synchronized
PC
Interface
-­‐
Search
token
UI:
Physical
search
token
+
Mul0-­‐touch
Tabletop
Research
Ques7on:
What
impact
has
a
search
token
UI
on
the
• Interac0on
Strategy,
• Communica0on,
• Roles
of
Collabora0on?
14

15. Selected
Results
• Interac7on:
Tokens
featured
more
parallel
interac0on.
• Interac7on:
Tokens
enhance
the
coopera0on
between
the
par0cipants,
they
even
share
their
tokens!
• Verbal
Communica7on:
no
significant
differences.
• Non-­‐Verbal
Communica7on:
With
the
Search
Token
UI
gestures
and
posture
were
perceived
without
needing
to
look
up
from
the
display.
• Roles
of
Collabora7on:
5
different
roles
iden0fied.
Search
Token
UI
allowed
ac0ve
lead
users
to
take
on
a
more
dominant
role
within
the
groups.
Even
the
passive
group
members
showed
a
more
ac0ve
role
compared
with
the
passive
users
in
the
synchronized
PC
condi0on.
15

16. Tabletops
for
Co-­‐Located
Collabora7ve
Faceted
Search
16

17. Tabletops
&
Collabora7ve
Search:
Why?
• poten0ally
great
support
of
mechanics
of
collabora7on
[Gutwin
&
Greenberg
2000]
• closer
face-­‐to-­‐face
collabora7on
and
more
equitable
working
style
[Rogers
&
Lindlay
2004]
• increased
awareness
and
be"er
group
work
experience
[Amershi
&
Morris
2008]
17

18. Facet-­‐Streams
Approach
• Hybrid
Surfaces
[Kirk
et
al.
2009]
– Combining
mul0-­‐touch
interac0on
with
tangible
interface
elements
• Faceted
Search
[Hearst
2009]
– itera0vely
filtering
the
whole
informa0on
space
based
on
metadata,
instead
of
popula0ng
a
result
set
based
on
keywords
18

19. Facet-­‐Streams
Approach
Visual
&
tangible
filter/flow
metaphor
for
Boolean
logic
Redesign
of
[Young
&
Shneiderman
1993,
Hansaki
et
al.
2006]
for
tabletops
19

20. Research
Ques7ons
• Does
Facet-­‐Streams
turn
collabora0ve
product
search
into
a
fun
and
social
experience
with
increased
group
awareness?
• Can
Facet-­‐Streams
support
the
great
variety
of
different
search
strategies
and
collabora0on
styles
in
different
teams
with
a
simple
but
flexible
design?
• Can
Facet-­‐Streams
harness
the
expressive
power
of
facets
and
Boolean
logic
without
exposing
users
to
complex
formal
nota0ons?
20

21. Study
1
-­‐
Facet
Streams
in
collabora7ve
use
• 72
par0cipants
in
24
groups
of
three
• Students
and
faculty
staff
from
a
variety
of
fields
(only
2
computer
science
students)
21

22. The
Web-­‐Interface
22

23. Task
• Goal:
Facilitate
compromise
nego,a,on
in
a
controlled
environment
23

24. Results
-­‐
Strategies
24

25. Results
–
Study
1
• Facet-Streams equally effective as established Web
designs for faceted navigation (although it introduces
novel and unfamiliar hybrid interaction techniques and
visual metaphors).
• Users perceived using Facet-Streams as a fun experience
and considered its design as innovative.
• Increased awareness and better mutual support among
collaborators was observed.
• Variety of different search strategies and collaboration
styles could be realized with our design.
• Seamless transitions between tightly-coupled
collaboration and loosely-coupled parallel work.
25

26. Study
2
–
Comprehensiveness
of
Boolean
logic
• 7
par0cipants
(no
computer
science
students)
• Individual
sessions
(no
group
interac0on)
• Focus:
– Task
1:
Can
people
understand
and
learn
our
visual
representa0on
of
Boolean
logic
(without
being
made
aware
that
this
is
Boolean
logic!)?
– Task
2:
Are
they
able
to
formulate
a
complex
and
evolving
query
based
on
natural
language
instruc7ons?
26

27. Study
2
-­‐
Task
1
3
networks
3
Hotels
per
network
4
spots
per
hotel
=36
Ques0ons
Can
people
understand
and
learn
our
visual
representa0on
of
Boolean
logic
(without
being
made
aware
that
this
is
Boolean
logic!)?
27

28. Results
Study
2
–
Task
1
Correct
Wrong
Total
234
(92,9%)
18
(7,1%)
AND
101
(96,2%)
4
(3,8%)
OR
133
(90,5%)
14
(9,5%)
28

29. Study
2
–
Task
2
• Are
people
able
to
formulate
a
complex
and
evolving
query
based
on
natural
language
instruc7ons?
• Experimenter:
Role
of
a
costumer
–
User:
Role
of
a
travel
agent
– „I
would
be
interested
in
a
hotel
with
a
price
between
50
and
120
EUR,
a
very
high
room
quality,
and
at
least
4
stars.“
– „It
should
be
in
Spain.“
– „Lets
include
those
hotels,
that
have
a
high
loca0on
quality
instead
of
a
high
room
quality
as
an
alterna0ve.
They
should
s0ll
have
the
other
features.“
– …
– Requirements:
Zero
Hit,
AND,
OR,
temporary
deac0va0on,
mul0ple
output
streams,
parallel
streams
29

30. Results
Study
2
-­‐
Task
2
• 6
of
7
correctly
integrated
the
OR
connec0on
• Boolean:
(room
quality
=
4-­‐6
OR
loca,on
quality
=
5-­‐6)
AND
(hotel
stars
=
4-­‐5)
AND
(country
=
Germany
OR
country
=
Spain)
AND
(features
=
Bar+Pool)
30

31. Results
–
Study
2
• Users
were
able
to
quickly
learn
and
apply
our
visual
metaphor
for
Boolean
logic
• Users
succeeded
in
formula0ng
complex
Boolean
queries
based
on
natural
language
instruc0ons
31

32. Natural
User
Interfaces
“The goal is to make computer interaction more like interacting with the real,
non-digital world.” Reality-­‐Based
Interac0on
(Jacob
et
al.
2008)
Fast flick will keep User flicks screen to
contacts scrolling left or right to see
next Album – all
after finger has
been removed, as if objects in the
list has mass. real word have spatial
relationships.
Natural gestures User do not share
control the one single input
applications. device – Tabletop
allows to draw more
directly on existing
social interaction
skills.
32

33. Conclusion
Conclusions
• • Blended Library draw strength by building on users’ pre-existing
knowledge of the everyday, non-digital library world.
• It employ experiences of reality and makes the interaction with the
computer much more natural.
• It blends the benefits of digital libraries with the benefits of physical
libraries to make visiting and using a library a new experience.
[Microsoft Research UK 2008, Being Human: Human-Computer Interaction in the Year 2020]
33

34. Papers
and
Videos
available
on
our
Website
hci.uni-­‐konstanz.de
Ques7ons?
34