Playing it Real Again: A Repeated Evaluation of Magic Lens and Static

Peephole Interfaces in Public Space

Jens Grubert, Dieter Schmalstieg

Institute for Computer Graphics and Vision, Graz University of Technology

(How) do individuals use a Magic Lens interface in public space if they can use an established interface?

switchable

Interfaces can be switched at any time.

Magic Lens (ML) Static Peephole (SP)

Research Questions

Confirmatory Which interface would be used longer?

Which interface participants would prefer?

Exploratory (How) does the setting influence the usage?

Design of Experiment

Between-subjects design

Factor: location PUV: public space

(transit area, Vienna), n=10

PUG: public space (transit area, Graz), n=8

LAB: laboratory, n=8

Dependent variables Usage duration

Preference

PUV

PUG LAB

Findings Confirmatory

Which interface would be used longer?

ML was used significantly less compared to both PUG and LAB

(Kruskal-Wallis p < .001, post-hoc pairwise Mann-Whitney U)

PUV PUG LAB44% 76% 68%

Findings Confirmatory

Which interface participants would prefer?

“I enjoyed using the ML view in the environment”

ML was enjoyed significantly less compared to PUG

(Kruskal-Wallis p < .001, post-hoc pairwise Mann-Whitney U)

PUV PUG LAB3.5 5 4

Why those differences?

Spatial and Social Context: PUV

Spatial and Social Context: PUG

A closer look at the spatial and social settings

PUV: Mainly waiting area

Perceived social distance

Passers-by partly in peripheral view of partic.

PUG: Mainly transit area

Central square under CCTV

Passers-by behind partic.

PUV

241 passers-by

More and longer intrusions into social and personal space

PUV: 50%

PUG

691 passers-by

Very few, short interactions

no interaction glimpses stay + watch > 5 sec

22% 8%

PUG: 68% 30% 2%

PUV: 15%

Intrusion of social space Intrusion of personal space

5%

Summary

Repeated study on usage of ML and SP in public spaces

Sign. differences in usage time and preference

Potential causes: spatial and social setting

However, many potential confounding factors: personality, demand characteristics, intrinsic motivation

Future Work

Increase ecological validity of results by Promoting intrinsic motivation to use the interfaces

(real users with real needs)

Decreasing awareness of study setting Remote evaluations

Body-worn sensors

Increase external validity of results by Re-running study

Narrow down potential confounding factors More measurements: personality tests (BFI), demand characteristics

(PARH)