Large Mul-touch Vercal Displays in Mul*-user Compe**ve Tasks · 2021. 1. 4. · Davide Tan*llo...

Large Mul*-touch Ver*cal Displays in Mul*-user Compe**ve Tasks Davide Tan*llo

Advisors: Prof. G. Elisabeta Marai (UIC) Prof. Franca GarzoLo (Politecnico di Milano)

DavideTan*llo LargeMul*touchVer*calDisplaysinMul*-UserCompe**veTasks

Objec*ves

2

Given:•  amul$-userenvironment;•  ataskbothcollabora$veandcompe$$ve;•  alargemul$-touchver$caldisplay(LMVD)toassist

humansinsolvingthetask.Provideanextensivedescrip*onof:•  theadvantagesanddisadvantagesofusingaLMVD

comparedtothetradi*onalwayofsolvingthetask;•  thehumanandgroupbehaviorwhileusingtheLMVDin

thesecondi*ons.


Outline

3

•  Introduc*on•  Thetask•  Implementa*on(quickdemo)•  Results•  Conclusions


Outline

4



Why are large ver*cal displays (LVD) used?

5

•  Verywideresolu$on:Ø Alotofinforma*onatthesame*me;Ø Moreuserssimultaneously(bothac*ve/passive);

•  A:rac$ve(Fairandexhibi*on);

•  Touchinterac$on:Ø MoreaSrac*ve;Ø Useful.


Known Problems and current solu*ons (1/2)

6

•  Displayinginforma$on:itisnoteasytolettheuserconsumedataandinforma*on.

Currentsolu$on:DataVisualiza*on.

•  Applica$oncontext:whereshouldlargedisplayapplica*onsrun?OSvsdedicatedenvironment?

Currentsolu$on:Fewstudies,butinteres*ngsolu*ons(forexample,SAGE2).


Known Problems and current solu*ons (2/2)

7

•  Applica$oninterface:howtoorganizeaninterfaceforanLVD?Istheinterfacedependentontheinputsystem?

•  HumanInterac$on:howdousersbehavewithLVDs?Why?1)  Largever*caldisplaysneedtheirowninterface

paradigm[1];

2)  Thecurrentstudiesaretooin-depthandforgottomakeacomparisonwithotherstudies.Itresultedinhavinganinconsistentliterature[2].

[1]Moreland,Kenneth."Redirec*ngresearchinlarge-formatdisplaysforvisualiza*on."[2]Knudsen,Søren,MikkelRønneJakobsen,andKasperHornbæk."Anexploratorystudyofhowabundantdisplayspacemaysupportdataanalysis.“


Outline

8



The conference scheduling problem (1/3)

9

Myprobleminstance

Theschedulingsessionfortalksinascien*ficconference

LargeVer*calDisplays:-  Mul*touch-  Mul*-user-  Compe**ve(notfully)∈

Problemfamily



10

Given:•  X,scien*fictopics;•  A,days;•  B,slothours;•  C,rooms;•  D,papers;•  E,constraints;

•  Eachpaperdhasascien*fictopicx;•  Eachpaperdhasnumericvalue;•  Eachconstrainteisassociatedtoapaperd;•  ThereareAxBxCslotswherepapercanbeinserted;

eachofthemhasanumericvalue.



11

Goal:tofindanadmissiblescheduleinwhich:•  Allthepapershaveaslot;•  Alltheconstrainsarerespected;•  Maximizetheschedulevaluethatiscalculatedas:

Sumofalltheproductsbetweenthepapervalueandthevalueofthecelloccupiedbythepaper.


Why people s*ll organize conference scheduling by themselves

12

Acomparisonwithawell-knowNP-Hardproblem(TimeTableDesignProblem[a])canbedone.Itmeansthatitisnotpossibletosolvethisproblemalgorithmicallyinpolynomial$me.However,efficientheuris*csprovidinghigh-scoresolu*onsexist.•  Whydopeoples*llorganizeconferencebythemselves?

ThisisnecessarytocreateaflowthatallowseachkindofaSendeetoenjoytheconference.

[a]GareyandJohnson–ComputersandIntractability–p.243


The procedure: two phases

13

Thereisapar*cipantforeachscien*fictopic

Oncecreatedtheschedulingtable,therearetwophases:

•  FirstPhase(turn-based):Ø  Withaturn-basedapproach,eachpar*cipantplacesone

ofhispapersonafreeslot;Ø  Constraintscanbeviolatedinthisphase.Indeed,a

par*cipantmightbeobligatedtoviolateaconstraint.

•  SecondPhase(nego*a*on):Ø  Par*cipantstrytosa*sfytheirconstraintsandimprovethe

posi*onofsomepapers;Ø  Todoit,theycanstartaconversa*ontonego*atethe

desiredslots.


Outline

14



Outline

15



The study interests

16

•  AreLVDsmoreefficientthanthetradi$onalapproachtosolvetheconferenceschedulingproblem?

•  HowpeoplebehavewithanLMVDinamul*-usercompe**veenvironment.

Themeasuresofinterestare:Ø  DisplayProximity;Ø  Verbalcommunica$on;Ø  Visuala:en$on;Ø  Groupshape;Ø  Displayusage.

Asagroup


Task results

17


Task results

18

AlsothegrowthofthepointsVariancesaresimilar


Ques*onnaires (1/3)

46

UsersratedtheConferenceSchedulerapplica*ononthe:•  Easeofuse;

•  Qualityofvisualizedinforma$on;

•  Qualityofofferedfunc$ons;

Withvotesbetween8and9(SDbetween0.5and0.7);


Ques*onnaires (2/3)

46

Usersratedthe:

•  levelofimprovementofferedbytheConferenceSchedulerapplica*oncomparedtothetradi$onalapproachwithanaverageof2.81(SD=0.5)


Ques*onnaires (3/3)

46

Answerstotheopenques*ononthepreferenceofthedisplayapproach:

Ø Itwasmoreclear,moreflexibleandcustomizable;Ø Possibilitytomoveitemsaroundthedisplayspace;Ø Technologicalapproachreduceserrors;Ø Easiertoundoanac*on;Ø Possibilitytoreducethesetup$mesandusageofmaterial;

Ø Itisthefuture;Ø Itwasmorefun.


Display proximity

22

Foreachuser,theuserproximitytothedisplaywasextractedfollowingthesefourcodesthatcharacterizethedisplayproximitysetofcodes:

0-45cm

45-100cm

>100cm

Forallthestudiedmeasures,itisnecessarytomaintainastateforatleast5secondstokeepitvalid.


Display proximity analysis (1/2)

23

UserProximity–Overallandphasesaverages



24

UserProximity–Overallandphasesaverages



25

UserProximity–Singleusers–FirstPhase


Combining score and display proximity

26

Thereisaninteres*ngpaSerncombiningthedisplayproximityandtheuser’sscore.Userswhostayedclosertothedisplayinthefirstphasegotaverylowresult.


Verbal communica*on coding

27

Verbalcommunica$onisdividedinfourgroupcodes:

SilenceandOnetalkingdonotiden*fyaformofinterac*onamongusers.Theyiden*fyacompe$$vebehavior.

GroupandAlltalkingiden*fyaformofinterac*on.Theinterac*oncanbe:

Ø Nego$a$on:collabora*onorcompe**on;Ø Mutualhelp:theuserscollaboratetofindasolu*on;Ø Other.


Verbal communica*on analysis

28


Verbal communica*on analysis

29


Visual aLen*on coding

30

Visuala:en$onisdividedinfivegroupcodes:

Thesestatesdonotimplyanycompe**veorcollabora*vebehavior.However,wewillseetheimportanceofthissetofcodesusingajointanalysiswiththevisualaSen*onandtheverbalcommunica*on.


Visual aLen*on analysis

31


Visual aLen*on analysis

32


Group shape coding

33

Groupshapeisdividedinfourgroupcodes:

Silenceandtriangleiden*fyacompe$$vebehavior.

Groupstatesiden*fybothcollabora*onandcompe**on(nego*a*on,mutualhelp,other).


Group shape analysis

34


Group shape analysis

35


Display usage (1/3)

Eachpointrepresentsatouchofapar*cularuser.Touchesaremainlydistributedwithinthecenterofthedisplay.

36


Display usage (2/3)

45

Weseethatthetouchesarecompa*blewithaframeoftheexperiment.

Itisinteres*ngtono*cehowuserspreferredtouseareducedpartoftheLVD.

37


Display usage (3/3)

47

Usersusedmainlythefourcentraldisplays.

TheLVDwasapproximatelytouchedlessthan30%ofitssurface.

38


Comparison with other studies (1/3)

39

Unfortunately,mostofthestudiesonLVDaretoodifferentfromthistask.Themostsimilarare:•  S1:Compe$$onusinganLVDwithsingleandmul*plemice

interac*on[1]Threeusershadtocreatethefirstpageofanewspaper.Eachuserrepresentsatopicandmaximizeshisscoreinser*ngar*cleswithkeywordsassociatedtohistopic.

•  S2:Collabora$onusinganLMVD[2]

Pairshadtofindahiddenplotinavastcatalogofdocumentsandimages.

[1]Birnholtz,JeremyP.,etal."Anexploratorystudyofinputconfigura*onandgroupprocessinanego*a*ontaskusingalargedisplay."ProceedingsoftheSIGCHIconferenceonHumanfactorsincompu*ngsystems.ACM,2007.[2]Jakobsen,MikkelR.,andKasperHornbæk."Upcloseandpersonal:Collabora*veworkonahigh-resolu*onmul*touchwalldisplay."ACMTransac*onsonComputer-HumanInterac*on(TOCHI)21.2(2014):11.

39



40

•  Usersusedmainlythecentralpartofthedisplayinwhichasharedcentralitemwaspresent(thesameinthisstudy)

•  Usersfeltthecompe**onmorewhentheywerefreetousethedisplaywiththemul*plemicecondi*on(thishappenedlessfrequentlyinourstudysinceusersfeltthecompe**onmoreinthefirstphase–turnbased)

•  Thecompe**onwasfeltlesswiththeincreaseof*me(thesamehappenedinthisstudy)

•  Userstalkedmoreinoccasionsofnego*a*on(thesamehappenedinthisstudy)

ComparisonwithS1

40



41

•  Usersstayed91%ofthe*meclosetothedisplay(15%)

•  Usersevenlysharedthedisplayusagewithoutanexplicitnego*a*on(asimilarbehaviorhappenedinthisstudy)

•  Usersusedthedisplaysimultaneously(contrarilytothisstudywhereuserpreferredtowaitforthedisplaytobefree)

•  Userslookedmainlyatthedisplay(thesameinthefirstphasewhere

usersdidnotneedtointeract)

•  Displayusagewaslowerthan50%(lowerthan30%)

•  ThemainconclusionofS2isthatusersarewillingtosharethedisplay.Thesamebehaviorwasfoundinourstudy.

ComparisonwithS2

41


Outline


42


Conclusions (1/3)

•  TherearenodifferencesbetweenthetaskresultsusingtheLMVDorthetradi*onalapproach.

•  UserslargelypreferredtheusageoftheLMVDagainstthetradi*onalapproach.

•  UserswerenotdistractedbythepresenceoftheLMVDduringthetaskexecu*on.

•  Usersstayedinatouchdistancetothedisplayfor15%ofthe*meandinafardistance(morethan1meter)for45%ofthe*me.

•  Thedisplaywasusedonlyinitscentralpart(excludingthetopcentralpart)andforlessthan30%ofitssurface.

43


Conclusions (2/3)

•  Usersfeltthecompe**vevariablemoreatthebeginningofthetask.Then,duringthetaskexecu*onthecompe**onwasfeltlessanduserscollaboratedmore.

•  Whenusershavetodecidetheirstrategy(firstphase),theyweremostlyinsilence(83%),werefarfromthedisplay(70%),inatriangularshape(65%)orinahorizontalshape(28%),andlookedmostlyatthedisplayandtheirdocuments.

•  Whenusershavetonego*ate(secondphase),usersweremostlytalkingingroupsandalltogether(83%),wereinanintermediatedistancetothedisplay(43%)andfarfromit(45%),gatheredingroups(68%),andlookedmostlyateachother(61%).

44


Conclusions (3/3)

Thisstudyanalyzedgroupsoffourpeopleperformingacompe$$ve/collabora$vetask(schedulingsessionforascien*ficconference)usinganLMVD.•  Itlargelydescribedandanalyzedthehumanbehaviorperforming

thistaskundertheaspectsofverbalcommunica$on,visuala:en$on,groupshape,displayproximityandusage;

•  Thecollecteddatadidnotcommunicateanyefficiencyimprovementintheusageofthetechnologicalapproachcomparedtothetradi*onalone,neitherinthequalityoftheresults.However,ques*onnaireoutcomesstatethatuserslargelypreferredtheLMVD.

45


Future Works

Regardingtheapplica$on:ImplementtherequestedfeaturesbytheusersintheConferenceSchedulerapplica*on.RegardingtheUserStudy:•  Analyzemoregroupstomakestrongerconclusions;•  Focusexclusivelyonthehumanbehaviorneglec*ngthe

approach-efficiencyanalysis;•  Maketwoalterna*vestudies:

Ø  Removingthecollabora*vevariable;Ø  Havingeverythingonthedisplay,sowithoutphysical

documents(amoredisplay-interac*vestudy).46


Ques*ons?

47


Joint analysis of measures

48

Ajointanalysisusingadjustedresidualsisdonetounderstandifsomecodesaredependentwithoneanother.Adjustedresidualsgiveastandardizemeasureofthedifferencebetweentheobservedfrequencyandtheexpectedfrequencyofajointevent.Whenanadjustedresidualishigherthan1.96orlowerthan-1.96thereisonlyprobabilitylowerthan0.05thattheobserva*onisgivenbychance.


Joint analysis of verbal communica*on and visual aLen*on

49

Redrectangleiden*fystateswhereusersdonotinteract;Greenrectangleiden*fystateswhereusersinteract;

1.   Mixedanddocumentsstatesarefrequentlyobservedwhenusersareinsilence;

2.  Usersgenerallytalkingrouporalltogetherlookingateachother;3.  Usersdisengagedareoueninsilence;4.  Whentheusersarelookingatthedisplay,oneuseristalkingor

theyaretalkinginagroup.


Joint analysis of verbal communica*on and group shape

50


1.   Horizontal-silenceandonetalking-oneisolatedouenhappentogether;

2.   Groupstatesarelikelytohappentogether.


Joint analysis of visual aLen*on and group shape

51


1.   Mixedstateisassumedwhenusersareinanhorizontalortrianglestate.Itisinfrequenttoobservethisstatewiththegroupshapes;

2.   Groupshapestateshappenouenwhenuserslookateachother.3.  Whenusersaredisengaged,theyaremorefrequentlyinan

unbalancedgroup;4.  Userslookatthedisplayformorethan5secondswhentheyarein

abalancedgroup.


Efficiency analysis – Personal result (1/2)

52

Approachesefficiencyanalysis–Personalresults(Tradi$onal)


Efficiency analysis – Personal result (2/2)

53

Approachesefficiencyanalysis–Personalresults(Display)

Large Mul-touch Vercal Displays in Mul*-user Compe**ve Tasks · 2021. 1. 4. · Davide Tan*llo...

Documents

Transcript of Large Mul-touch Vercal Displays in Mul*-user Compe**ve Tasks · 2021. 1. 4. · Davide Tan*llo...