THE FUTURE OF OPERATING SYSTEMS WIELDING MOTION CAPTURE ... · THE FUTURE OF OPERATING SYSTEMS...
Transcript of THE FUTURE OF OPERATING SYSTEMS WIELDING MOTION CAPTURE ... · THE FUTURE OF OPERATING SYSTEMS...
University of West London
School of Computing and Technology
Undergraduate Computing
THE FUTURE OF
OPERATING SYSTEMS
WIELDING MOTION
CAPTURE
TECHNOLOGY
Daron Gardi
May 2015
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
THE FUTURE OF OPERATING SYSTEMS WIELDING MOTION CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY - MAY 2015
Daron Gardi
Submitted in support of BSc (Information Systems for Business)
May 2015
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
I would like to thank the participants of my testing videos and interviews as well as Preece,
Rogers & Sharp for providing the knowledge to aid in most of the research for both the
project and dissertation and finally my supervisor Dr. José Abdelnour Nocera for providing
excellent guidance throughout the process of completing both the project and dissertation.
DECLARATION
“I certify that this work has not been accepted in substance for any degree, and is not
concurrently being submitted for any degree other than that of BSc Information Systems /
Applied Computing being studied at the University of West London.
I also declare that this work is the result of my own investigations except where otherwise
identified by references and that I have not plagiarised another‟s work”.
CONTENTS PAGE
1 - INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 3
1.1 - Background ............................................................................................................................... 4
1.2 - Aims & Objectives .................................................................................................................... 4
2- LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................ 5
2.1 – Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 5
2.2 - Design of Graphical User Interfaces ....................................................................................... 5
2.3 - Usability ..................................................................................................................................... 6
2.4 - Leap Motion Controller ........................................................................................................... 6
2.5 - Benefits and Applications......................................................................................................... 7
2.6 - Weaknesses and Limitations .................................................................................................... 7
3 - METHODOLOGIES ....................................................................................................................... 8
3.1 - Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 8
3.2 - Personas ..................................................................................................................................... 9
3.2.1 - What? ................................................................................................................................... 9
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[1]
3.2.2 - Rationale .............................................................................................................................. 9
3.2.3 - How? .................................................................................................................................... 9
3.3 - Heuristic Evaluation ............................................................................................................... 10
3.3.1 - What? ................................................................................................................................. 10
3.3.2 - Rationale ............................................................................................................................ 10
3.3.3 - How? .................................................................................................................................. 10
3.4 - Test Plan .................................................................................................................................. 11
3.4.1 - What? ................................................................................................................................. 11
3.4.2 - Rationale ............................................................................................................................ 11
3.4.3 - How? .................................................................................................................................. 11
3.5 - Low Fidelity Prototype ........................................................................................................... 12
3.5.1 - What? ................................................................................................................................. 12
3.5.2 - Rationale ............................................................................................................................ 12
3.5.3 - How? .................................................................................................................................. 12
3.6 – Interviews................................................................................................................................ 12
3.6.1 - What? ................................................................................................................................. 12
3.6.2 - Rationale ............................................................................................................................ 13
3.6.3 - Opposing Methodologies ................................................................................................... 14
4 – ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................... 15
4.1 - Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 15
4.2 - The Leap Motion Controller .................................................................................................. 16
4.2.1 – Evaluation Tasks ............................................................................................................... 17
4.3 - Results Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 19
4.3.1 - Quantitative Data .............................................................................................................. 19
4.2.2 – Qualitative Data ................................................................................................................ 24
4.4 – Results Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 27
4.5 - Approach Justification ........................................................................................................... 28
4.6 – Literature Relation ................................................................................................................ 29
5 – CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................... 30
5.1 - Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 30
5.2 – Findings ................................................................................................................................... 30
5.3 – Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 31
6 – CRITIQUE .................................................................................................................................... 31
6.1 - Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 31
6.2 - Importance of Research ......................................................................................................... 32
6.3 – Research Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 32
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[2]
REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 34
APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................................... 36
FIGURES FIGURE 1 ............................................................................................................................................................... 16 FIGURE 2 ............................................................................................................................................................... 36 FIGURE 3 ............................................................................................................................................................... 37 FIGURE 4 ............................................................................................................................................................... 38 FIGURE 5 ............................................................................................................................................................... 39 FIGURE 6 ............................................................................................................................................................... 40 FIGURE 7 ............................................................................................................................................................... 40 FIGURE 8 ............................................................................................................................................................... 41 FIGURE 9 ............................................................................................................................................................... 42 FIGURE 10 ............................................................................................................................................................. 43 FIGURE 11 ............................................................................................................................................................. 44 FIGURE 12 ............................................................................................................................................................. 45 FIGURE 13 ............................................................................................................................................................. 46 FIGURE 14 ............................................................................................................................................................. 53 FIGURE 15 ............................................................................................................................................................. 54 FIGURE 16 ............................................................................................................................................................. 55 FIGURE 17 ............................................................................................................................................................. 55 FIGURE 18 ............................................................................................................................................................. 56 FIGURE 19 ............................................................................................................................................................. 58 FIGURE 20 ............................................................................................................................................................. 59 FIGURE 21 ............................................................................................................................................................. 60 FIGURE 22 ............................................................................................................................................................. 62 FIGURE 23 ............................................................................................................................................................. 63 FIGURE 24 ............................................................................................................................................................. 67 FIGURE 25 ............................................................................................................................................................. 67 FIGURE 26 ............................................................................................................................................................. 67 FIGURE 27 ............................................................................................................................................................. 68 FIGURE 28 ............................................................................................................................................................. 68 FIGURE 29 ............................................................................................................................................................. 69 FIGURE 30 ............................................................................................................................................................. 69 FIGURE 31 ............................................................................................................................................................. 70 FIGURE 32 ............................................................................................................................................................. 70 FIGURE 33 ............................................................................................................................................................. 71 FIGURE 34 ............................................................................................................................................................. 71 FIGURE 35 ............................................................................................................................................................. 72 FIGURE 36 ............................................................................................................................................................. 72
TABLES
TABLE 1 ................................................................................................................................................................. 46 TABLE 2 ................................................................................................................................................................. 47 TABLE 3 ................................................................................................................................................................. 48 TABLE 4 ................................................................................................................................................................. 49 TABLE 5 ................................................................................................................................................................. 50 TABLE 6 ................................................................................................................................................................. 51 TABLE 7 ................................................................................................................................................................. 52
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[3]
TABLE 8 ................................................................................................................................................................. 73
ABSTRACT
Moore‟s law (1965) dictates that technology is exponentially and rapidly growing, this
philosophy asks the question what is the future of operating systems and particularly will
motion capture technologies such as the Leap Motion prevail as a more integrated way of
humans interacting with computers. This topic is open to interpretation, evaluation, and
discussion providing many functionality limitations in the Human-Computer Interaction field,
the Human-Computer Interaction field is defined by Bannon & Winograd (2011) as “the
design role in construction of the inner space in which people live rather than an interface
with which they interact”. This project sought out to investigate & evaluate the limitations of
motion capture technology and particularly the Leap Motion in effort to answer the research
question, is motion capture technology the future of operating systems? Based on the fact that
this technology is somewhat new, this means that although there is research on the field and
on the technology there is little research done using the Leap Motion. Thus, it provides a
certain aspect of originality to this project and thus the researcher decided that throughout this
project the researcher would conduct primary research both quantitative and qualitative with
the method of various informal interviews, accompanied and based upon video recordings of
6 users testing and validating an application within the dedicated Leap Motion application
store. The application would allow the users to access certain functions within Microsoft‟s
Windows operating system with gesture based movements. The researcher would then
interview the users and ask them to rate the system based upon various HCI fundamentals
such as functionality, usability, design etc. of the system and ask the users for evidence to
support their claims. This testing would provide the basis of a low fidelity prototype in a
storyboarded format, as an attempt to quell all negative comments made by the users and to
answer the research question, is a gesture based operating system plausible and realistic
within the Human-Computer Interaction field?
1 - INTRODUCTION This project and dissertation in its entirety was planned by the researcher using Microsoft
Project to create a Gantt Chart [Figure.2], which defined by Gantt.com (2015) is a project
management tool. This allowed the researcher to understand what is needed from the
researcher within a specific time frame, however this proved difficult to stick to throughout
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[4]
the progress of this project and dissertation. It did however prove to be a useful source in
efficiently undergoing both the project and dissertation.
This paper will consist of literature reviews, as well as methodologies providing a thorough
explanation of the research completed an overall discussion and critique of the research
question and finally a conclusion and critique of my findings and theories based on the paper.
1.1 - Background
The Leap Motion is a hardware made up of a 3-inch controller, however it is not the size of
the hardware that is impressive instead the power it possesses, this is because the controller
has an infrared sensor along with two stereo camera‟s and this technology tracks infrared
light within a wavelength of 850 nanometres (Colgan, 2014). The importance of this
technology will be deciphered in this dissertation, particularly the capabilities of the Leap
Motion and the technologies ability to become a pivotal technology in ubiquitous computing.
Despite the importance of the subject, being that the technology is somewhat new to the
public this means that there are some limitations to the progress made possible by this project
as there is a lack of substantial independent research completed on this technology.
1.2 - Aims & Objectives
This paper will discuss many different viewpoints on the Leap Motion as well as the
fundamentals of Human-Computer Interaction and review the many different literatures
available such as Preece, Rogers & Sharp‟s Interaction Design book. Through reviewing
literatures the researcher aims to achieve an intelligent and knowledgeable understanding of
the Leap Motions capabilities as well as the progress this technology could have on the
Human-Computer Interaction field. This project will also achieve said aim by conducting
primary research; this will be done in the form of user testing via interviews and video
recordings of users testing the Leap Motion for the first time. It will specifically involve
using an application provided by the Leap Motion that allows users to control certain
functionalities within the windows 8.1 operating system. Finkel (1996) defines an operation
system as “a set of programs that controls a computer”. This testing will help build
knowledge on the experiences that first time users of the technology will have, providing an
insight as to whether the technology could be applicable to the future of operating systems.
As well as user testing, heuristic evaluations will completed by the researcher. Heuristic
evaluations are a way of defining and identifying genuine usability issues (Salian & Sim,
2014) and this was done to aid in the research that will be carried out and allow for a more in-
depth critique and discussion. The data from the user testing as well as the testing carried out
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[5]
by the researcher will be analysed and interpreted in an effort to understand whether this
technology has potential in becoming more than a gimmick in the furtherance of technology
as well as pushing technological boundaries and limitations in the field of computing.
2- LITERATURE REVIEW
2.1 – Introduction
Addressing the question of the future of operating systems wielding motion capture
technology, specifically the Leap Motion controller technology, requires a broader outlook on
key issues surrounding the concept. These will be introduced in the review of this literature,
including the design of graphical user interfaces, the usability spectrum within Human-
Computer Interaction, the Leap Motion controller and finally strengths and weaknesses
within the leap motion controller.
2.2 - Design of Graphical User Interfaces
The current world of technology today is increasingly focused on the need for graphical user
interfaces assimilating gestures. One of the earliest, well-known and commercially feasible
solutions was the WiiMote controller. Released in 2006 by (Nintendo of Europe GmbH), the
Wiimote features an accelerometer that makes the acquisition of full 3D gestures possible as
well as functioning as a separate device agreeable with various applications. Furthermore, in
late 2010 Microsoft saw the release of the Kinect sensor (Xbox.com) featuring visual and
auditory inputs and a depth-sensing camera. Interestingly, when coupled with an open SDK,
which is defined by (Nykaza et al, 2002) as a software development kit, Kinect can be
employed to recognition of full body gestures for multiple users simultaneously (Guna, Jakus,
Pogačnik, Tomažič, & Sodnik, 2014).
However, the process of designing graphical user interfaces integrating gestures is not a
straightforward one but rather poses challenges for software developers who lack in their
knowledge and expertise with gesture interaction. The field of hand and pen-based gestures
has gained a significant amount of attention in research and development owing to the
technical difficulty of analysing, modelling, interpreting and recognizing gestures in a wide
spectrum of systems. Graphical user interfaces assimilating hand and pen based gestures have
yet to reach their full potential for a number of reasons. The complexity of the task lies in a
lack of expertise with designers and developers in deciding which recognition algorithm to
select, how to adjust the preferred algorithm to fit the framework of use, and subsequently
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[6]
how to integrate the chosen algorithm into streamlined User Interface (UI) development
(Beuvens & Vanderdonckt, 1988).
2.3 - Usability
Usability is an integral aspect of software design and development. It is defined by the ISO
(2015) as “the capability of a software product to be understood, learned, used, and attractive
to the user, when used under specified conditions”. This is vital to the success of software
application in practice and plays a large part in user experience. A number of usability
guidelines have been established comprised from several analysis and design artefacts with
software developers in mind, this is to ensure that software engineers incorporate particular
usability features in their application. The guidelines, which are too extensive to address
individually within the scope of this work, focus mainly on functional usability features such
as favourites, personal object space and preferences to name but a few. These guidelines were
tested in an academic setting, the authors proved their hypotheses correct and reported that
adherence of these guidelines not only reduces development time but also improves the
quality of the resulting applications (Carvajal, Moreno, Sánchez-Segura, & Seffah, 2013).
Furthermore, designing graphical user interfaces and software that includes usability features
with a high impact on application logic is a seemingly difficult and complex task. However,
the use of the aforementioned guidelines has reduced much of the perceived complexity of
these tasks with software developers therefore influencing them in favour of usability.
2.4 - Leap Motion Controller
The Leap Motion technology indisputably offers a revolutionary input device for gesture
based Human-Computer interaction. The Leap Motion Controller consists of a small
peripheral that plugs into a USB port and sits on a flat surface in front of a Mac or Windows
based computer. The device employs three infrared LEDs as light sources and two cameras to
capture motion data. The system detects and tracks motion caused by hand and pen based
gestures one inch to two feet (25 to 600 millimeters) in front of, to the side of, and above the
device (Guna et al., 2014). Gesture input devices incorporating a device whereby an
individual becomes a controller rather than an operator is preferred, these are typically
hands/body-free methods. The former would seem logical; gestures are a normal human form
of interaction and communication that comes very naturally to people. Eliminating the need
for intermediate devices such as a mouse or keyboard allows for a user interface that mimics
the natural form of human communication incorporating real life motions.
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[7]
2.5 - Benefits and Applications
Many gestural systems experience latency, this is caused by the large cameras employed that
extract sizeable amounts of information from an area thereby requiring substantial
computational analysis (Beuvens & Vanderdonckt, 1988). Conversely, the Leap Motion
Controller has minimal latency largely because it engages a small camera. Also, the
algorithms used refine the data input, only extracting the data required for the task at hand;
this enables increased accuracy and detection of small hand gestures and movements. A
noteworthy feature of Leap Motion is its versatility, because the system is small and mainly
software based it may be implanted in a variety of devices (Plemmons & Holz, 2014). More
to the point, another strength of the Leap Motion controller stems largely from the level of
accuracy and detail provided by the Leap Motion API which delivers access to detection data
through direct mapping to hands and fingers. This feature is unique and in direct contrast to
other 3D sensory input devices like the Microsoft Kinect where sensory data is returned in
raw format to be “cleaned up” and interpreted subsequently. Robust API pre-processing
allows for faster building of client applications as well as consistently accurate data (Potter,
Araullo & Carter, 2013).
Furthermore, a study focused on the robustness and accuracy of the Leap Motion Controller
employed an experimental set up consisting of an industrial robot with a reference pen
allowing a position accuracy of 0.2 mm. The results of this experimental design showed a
deviation ranging from the desired 3D position and the average measured positions below 1.2
mm for dynamic setups and 0.2 mm for static setups (Weichert, Bachmann, Rudak, &
Fisseler, 2013). This demonstrates that the Leap Motion controller is a reliable and accurate
system for tracking static points. Another study of the Leap Motion Controller has
demonstrated a level of potential for gestures in handwriting recognition applications. The
authors treated the input data as a time series of 3D positions and processed using a Dynamic
Time Warping algorithm to recognize characters (Vikram, Li, & Russell, 2013). The authors
concluded that their experiments showed promising recognition performance and speed.
2.6 - Weaknesses and Limitations
Early product reviews of the Leap Motion controller voiced concerns with the technology in
relation to app control, motion sensitivity and arm fatigue. Moreover, the precision, accuracy
and reliability of the Leap Motion Controller has attracted a great amount of attention in the
past few years since the device was made publicly available in summer 2013. Consequently,
a number of studies have been published detailing the findings on the accuracy and usability
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[8]
of Leap Motion. An early study exploring the suitability of the Leap Motion Controller for
sign language recognition reported that hand signs require a certain level of distance from the
chest of the signer which may be problematic as the Leap Motion controller must be facing
downwards. The authors of the study further explain that the weaknesses of the Leap Motion
controller lies in “maintaining accuracy and fidelity of detection when there is not a direct
line of sight with the controller” (Potter, Araullo & Carter, 2013). There is also a line of sight
problem, this is evident when the users hand was placed at a certain angle, the Leap Motion
Controller failed to recognize the gesture. Another weakness outlined by the authors is that
the pinching motion is irregular and can skip frames in the recognition.
Another study investigating the precision and reliability of the Leap Motion sensor and its
suitability for static and dynamic tracking revealed certain weaknesses in the accuracy of
Leap Motion. The controller‟s performance was evaluated using both static and dynamic
measurements using a plastic arm model and a V-shaped tool used to simulate two human
fingers respectively. The static scenario reported a standard deviation of less than 0.5 mm,
this increased significantly when moving away from the controller, and these findings are
concurrent with the above mentioned study by Weichert et al 2013. However, inaccuracies
and inconsistencies were revealed in the dynamic scenario with a significant drop in accuracy
for samples taken more than 250 mm above the Leap Motion controller‟s surface (Guna,
Jakus, Pogačnik, Tomažič, & Sodnik, 2014). This confirms a spatial dependency that directly
affects the controller‟s consistency and functionality. Therefore, the authors of the said paper
conclude that “due to its rather limited sensory space and inconsistent sampling frequency”
the Leap Motion controller is not suitable for use as a professional tracking system with its
existing configuration.
The limitations of motion capture technologies can be attributed to the lack of attention by
designers in developing applications that function with gestural interfaces. Many developers
that are perhaps biased towards traditional user interfaces have yet to realize gestural
controls‟ potential.
3 - METHODOLOGIES
3.1 - Introduction
Below will discuss in detail the methodologies set out to complete the project, this will
include many different aspects such as Personas, Heuristic Evaluation, Test Planning, as well
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[9]
as Low Fidelity Prototyping and finally Interviews based upon user testing. These
methodologies will be explained and referenced mainly by Preece, Rogers, Sharp (2015) as
this book heavily influenced the researcher in compiling most of these project entities. The
methodologies above will also include a description of what the methodology is, a rationale
as to why the methodology is effective in ensuring project success and how the researcher
used the methodology within the project. The interview methodology will also include
opposing methodologies as this methodology was chosen in light of two other methodologies,
being focus groups and questionnaires. This will be discussed in detail explaining why the
interview methodology was chosen instead of the other aforementioned methodologies.
3.2 - Personas
3.2.1 - What?
A persona is defined by Preece, Rogers, Sharp. (2015, p357-359), as a rich methodology of
describing typical users that products can be designed towards, one persona can represent
many users, however these users are not real, living, breathing people, they are however
accurately descriptive representations of user groups and idealistic user demographics. The
personas are a synthesised way of analysing demographically statistical data in order to create
understandable user goals. Aside from user goals the personas will fundamentally include a
description of the users‟ skills, attitudes, tasks and environmental backgrounds. These all help
define the key users of the system and help understand what generically would be desired by
them for the system.
3.2.2 - Rationale
The rationale or reasoning behind the effectiveness and strengths for personas is that based
upon Preece, Rogers, Sharp. (2015, p357-359), this allows organisations developing systems
that will be ultimately used by humans which means that said systems must be developed
with the use of human interaction in mind. Personas help the organisations devise and plan
various user requirements for the system being created. This is done by analysing
demographical information and permits the organisation to fabricate what is needed by the
users in regards to an innovating system. This ultimately allows the organisation to create a
successful Human-Computer system.
3.2.3 - How?
The personas were devised to aid in the creation of a low fidelity prototype, this allowed the
researcher to analyse behavioural patterns within conventional persona attributes such as
personality traits, motivational entities as well as goals and frustrations. Based upon Preece,
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[10]
Rogers, Sharp. (2015, p357-359) the researcher created a simplistic and eye catching layout
to coincide with the precedence of using this style of persona [Figure.3 – 13].
3.3 - Heuristic Evaluation
3.3.1 - What?
A heuristic evaluation is a way in which a user can evaluate and examine a system based
upon various Human-Computer Interaction fundamentals such as (Table 1-7)
Providing an effective home page
Matching structure with user needs
Providing usable e-functions
Testing how much the application is user-centred?
Supporting the user
Ensuring Visual Elements Do No compromise usability
The evaluation as explained by Preece, Rogers, Sharp. (2015, p454) can be used to evaluate
any system “from low-tech prototypes to complete systems”. This will help the creators of
the system delve into the minds of users and evaluate how effective the system is at
efficiently and effectively carrying out the required user needs.
3.3.2 - Rationale
The reasoning behind the use of heuristic evaluations numbers in the many, as this
methodology provides many advantages, namely Preece, Rogers, Sharp. (2015, p453)
explain that “from a business and marketing perspective, well designed products sell” this
business aspect paired with the human computing interaction aspect of focusing on user
needs to efficiently improve user lives through computing means that heuristic evaluations
provide a useful tool for assessing the Human-Computer Interaction issues in advance thus
solving said issues. It is notable that these evaluations are not set out to cater to specific
users‟ needs or likes however to discover concerns and disputes within the design of the
created system overall.
3.3.3 - How?
The researcher created a heuristic evaluation as a way in which to evaluate the Leap Motion
Shortcuts V2 application that was being tested. This helped the researcher understand flaws
within the system based upon fundamentals within the Human-Computer Interaction field
such as the support offered by the system to the user and the visual elements of the user
interface compromising usability.
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[11]
3.4 - Test Plan
3.4.1 - What?
The test plan as defined by is a plan that is devised in order to adequately complete testing of
a specific system, test plans crucially need to include [Figure 14-15]
A Study Summary & Purpose
Participants of The Test
Evaluation Tasks
Test Environment & Supplies
Researchers Role
Evaluation Measures
The test plan uses these metrics to strategically plan the user testing of the system and aid in
streamlining the testing by noting entities of the user testing such as the supplies needed and
the desired environment of the test plans.
3.4.2 - Rationale
The rationale behind test planning is mainly the age old saying of, failing to plan is planning
to fail. This simplistic and effective time management tool allows the researcher to
effortlessly grasp what the desired outcome within the user testing is and how said outcome
can be rationalised by listing the attributes of the test and breaking down what is needed from
the testers. This proves to be a useful tool in allowing researchers to comprehend and foresee
any issues with the testing such as for example the environment of the testing and establish
ways of correcting any issues as highlighted by (Pilgrim, 2013) such as recognition rather
than recall that may arise before the issues become serious constraints in completing the
testing of the system.
3.4.3 - How?
The test plans carried out by the researcher were done before any testing was done and most
of the test plan was based upon assumptions such as the participants and environments.
However the test plan provided a concise way of breaking down the purpose of the testing
and allowed the researcher to analyse what is needed from the researcher before starting the
testing.
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[12]
3.5 - Low Fidelity Prototype
3.5.1 - What?
According to Preece, Rogers, Sharp. (2015, p389) a low fidelity prototype looks very
dissimilar to the final product and does not provide the same functionality as the final
product, rather the low fidelity prototype is only there to represent the functions of a system.
The method of storyboarding prototypes shows a user transitioning through tasks, for
example [Figure 16-17] shows a low fidelity prototype going from a home screen of an
operating system to a word processing application.
3.5.2 - Rationale
The rationale behind using low fidelity prototyping as a methodology in building a system is
defined by Preece, Rogers, Sharp. (2015, p389) as a “simple, cheap and quick to modify”
way of creating a basic functionless prototype. This is done because prototyping at an early
stage needs to be flexible and easily changed in order to cope with new ideas emerging,
changing the way in which the prototype user interface will look. The rationale behind the
storyboarding process within low fidelity prototyping would be as explained by Preece,
Rogers, Sharp. (2015, p389) as a way of interacting with a system that hasn‟t been created or
implemented fully yet, this allows users to mingle with the prototype in order to imagine
ways of improving the streamlining of tasks or scenarios within the system.
3.5.3 - How?
[Figure 16-17] shows the researchers low fidelity prototype, this was done in a storyboarded
format however based upon the fundamentals of the prototyping method this low fidelity
prototype was unconventional as instead of sketching this prototype was done using Abode
Fireworks which is as defined by (Creative.adobe.com, 2015) as “a lightweight and efficient
means of creating graphics”, this was done in an effort to make the prototype more
understandable and easily digestible.
3.6 – Interviews
3.6.1 - What?
The researcher decided to create testing videos and voice recorded interviews to test the Leap
Motion hardware based upon the Shortcuts V2. (2015). Software, this software allowed the
Leap Motion to harness certain functionalities within the Windows 8 Operating System, the
testing videos were split up into 6 videos for 6 different user testers. The aforementioned
users were recorded getting to grips with the system and accessing each functionality that the
Shortcuts V2 application allowed, this was namely changing between applications, scrolling
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[13]
through webpages and finally controlling music through play, pause, back & next track and
finally volume control. The testers were then asked to comply with a 15 question interview as
shown in [Figure.24]. The questions were based upon Human-Computer Interaction (HCI)
principles and the questions were devised around HCI metrics and usability fundamentals.
The questions were based upon either a positive or negative response or a quantitative grade
based out of 10 for the first 6 questions of the interview, This was done in order to ensure that
the results could be rationalised and calculated however the testers were also encouraged to
speak freely and express their true opinions on both the hardware (Leap Motion) and the
software (Shortcuts V2). These interviews were then analysed and transcribed by the
researcher as shown in [Figure.18-23]. However the rest of the interview was qualitative data
which would not translate to raw data that could be analysed rather opinions that could be
interpreted.
3.6.2 - Rationale
The rationale behind creating the interviews with user testers and the interviews with said
user testers was mainly because of the 1 on 1 style of the interviews, this made the user
testers feel calmer and more obliged to answer questions truthfully accurately based upon
their perceptions of the hardware and software. Preece, Rogers, Sharp. (2015 P276), explain
the advantages of quantitative data, stating that quantitative data is “data in the form of
numbers or that can easily be translated into numbers” this was one of the main reasons
behind the researcher‟s choice of using interviews and video testing, the interviews created
could be easily translated into understandable numbers. Another rationale behind the
researcher‟s choice to conduct interviews was as stated by Preece, Rogers, Sharp. (2015
P278). States that “raw interview data usually in the form of audio recording and interviewer
notes” the researcher was adamant that this procedure be followed correctly as this ensured
that the success of gathering data in aid of the researchers question would become evidently
more successful by recording the users testing the hardware and software. Preece, Rogers,
Sharp. (2015 P276), claims the traditional view of quantitative and qualitative data being
separate is a fallacy. This gave the researcher the idea of having a dual styed interview, one
that would mine both quantitative and qualitative data. This was done by prompting the user
testers to provide both numerical answers and answers of free expression as shown in
[Figure.22] this transcript shows the answer to a question being both answered with a score
out of 10 but also the reasoning behind that score.
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[14]
3.6.3 - Opposing Methodologies
The following paragraphs dictate discussions of other methodologies that could have used in
the conduction of gathering data to aid in answering the research question. This will include
what the research method is, namely questionnaires and focus groups and why said research
methods were not used.
3.6.3.1 - Questionnaires
3.6.3.1.1 – What?
Questionnaires are compiled of mostly closed questions which is defined by (Oates) as
questions that do not start with „what‟, ‟how‟, „why‟ these closed questions were
predominantly multiple choice, this research method has proven to be useful for many aspects
of gathering data. Questionnaires are specifically designed to gather primary data in an
efficient way, this is done by providing simple answers that require little time and effort, this
however may not be applicable to all aspects of research and this methodology is isolated to
certain research questions.
3.6.3.1.2 - Rationale
The first method that could have been used is the questionnaire method, this methodology
according to Gillham (2000, P1-14). States that there are many pros and cons to using
questionnaires, focusing upon the cons, the researcher will rationalize the reasoning behind
not choosing this researcher method based upon its capabilities for the desired result. The
first con would have to be the problems of data quality, this is mainly down to respondents of
the questionnaire having personal relationships with the researcher this would cause
impersonal questionnaires thus meaning that the response rate of around 30% as oppose to if
the questionnaires were formally done. This could also cause a huge negative response
especially if the researcher is of a low experience in conducting primary research. Ultimately
this shows that testing videos done on users of a system could prompt the researcher to ask
follow up questions and engage more with the tester allowing for a deeper insight as well as
recording the testing of the application ensuring that no results were falsified. Secondly
another negative aspect to using questionnaires would be the misunderstandings that cannot
be corrected, i.e. if the researcher asks the respondent to carry out the questionnaire but fails
to comply correctly which may be down to either a lack of understanding from the
respondent or a lack of competent questioning skills could mean that many questionnaires are
left un-useable, or could possibly taint the results. This was a big factor in the researchers
decision to conduct personal recorded interviews as oppose to questionnaires as and
misconstrued questions could quickly be reworded and re-evaluated as well as showing the
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[15]
user a tutorial on how to use the hardware that was to be tested to ensure the user tester was
completely capable of answering all questions efficiently and effectively.
3.6.3.2 - Focus Groups
3.6.3.2.1 – What?
Focus groups as defined by (Dawson & Dawson, 2009, p79-89) as a “number of people asked
to come together in order to discuss a certain issue for the purpose of research.” This is a
popular market research method and proves to be a sufficient way of gathering data to be
analysed before a product hits the market. The focus groups are moderated and involves the
moderator asking questions and sparking discussions based upon the research entity, the
moderator‟s task is to ensure that the conversations do not digress and stick to the topic of the
research entity. Below the researcher will discuss the rationale behind this methodology not
being used as opposed to the video interview methodology that was initially picked by the
researcher.
3.6.3.2.2 - Rationale
There are weaknesses to using focus groups as a methodology mainly being that as expressed
by (Dawson & Dawson, 2009, p79-89) such as the defensiveness of the focus groups, the
attendees have joined the focus groups on their own accord and therefore may means that this
may start arguments within the focus groups, this may cause a huge issue and this could
become skewed from the original arguments that should be based upon the system. This
could be problematic as with the researchers question would not necessarily spark interesting
conversations and if these conversations were to become skewed this may be difficult to
maintain focus on the research question, especially as the research taking the role of
moderating the focus groups has novice abilities in capturing data, this could result in
ineffective results. Secondly a con of using focus groups as the primary way of collecting
data to support the research question is that focus groups generically require a lot of
concentration on the moderator to ensure that the focus groups are kept on track, once again
as the researcher is a novice this may mean that the focus group may become hard to control
and manage.
4 – ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION
4.1 - Introduction
This chapter will discuss the Leap Motion controller, illustrating the controller‟s properties
and clearly evaluating the tasks that were tested. Secondly this discussion and analysis
portion of the research paper will be subdivided into a number of sections, firstly the results
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[16]
will be summarised and broken down into various sub-sections showing the results gathered
upon the primary research explained within the methodologies and explaining the purpose of
the research gathered, the first section of this chapter will be divided into 15 sections based
upon the 15 questions that were asked during the collection of primary research within the
conduction of said interviews carried out by the researcher each subsequent section will
discuss the question and analyse the results based upon graphs found in the appendices as
well as in the text. Thirdly this section will discuss and justify the approach of gathering the
research based upon the methodologies, taking each subsection of the methodologies
previously mentioned and justifying the use of this methodology in gathering results to aid in
answering the research question. Following this a critical evaluation of the results will also be
included, analysing the results as a whole. Finally the discussion and analysis portion of the
research paper will relate the results and evaluate the effectiveness of the research carried out
against the literature review.
4.2 - The Leap Motion Controller
Below shows [Figure.1] which is three pictures of the Leap Motion controller as taken from
(Motion), shows the leap motion controller with an illustrated field of view of the controller,
this shows that the controller however small it may still has as according to 8 cubic feet of
vision for the user to comfortably use the hardware without having to remain in one place the
entirety of the time spent using the controller. Secondly [Figure.1] shows the in use with a
gaming application, this shows the controller in action, as seen below the user places fingers
above the controller showing how the system can recognise different gestures, finally
[Figure.1] shows the controller in comparison to the keyboard, the Leap Motion controller
boasts a tiny size of only 3 inches long showing how portable it can be.
Figure 1
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[17]
4.2.1 – Evaluation Tasks
4.2.1.1 - Task 1
The first task to be evaluated was the task of allowing users to change between screens or
application windows, this task was simply done with a hand gesture as shown both below and
in [Figure.33-34]. This gesture is completed by placing ones hand upside down, raising said
hand into a higher position, this would prompt the user to then pinch and zoom the
application they would like to use via pinching the application they wish to select with two
fingers, dragging the application into the center of the screen and un-pinching the application
so as to open it.
4.2.1.2 – Task 2
The second task evaluated in the results below is the task of scrolling through a webpage as
shown both below and in [Figure.32], similar to the changing of the application as
aforementioned the user would pinch two fingers on a webpage and move said fingers in an
up and down motion so as to move the webpage up and down.
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[18]
4.2.1.3 – Task 3
Finally the task evaluated by user testers and examined within the results analysis below
shows the task of controlling the music player, this task as shown both below and in
[Figure.35] shows that users had many different sub-tasks and gestures to complete within
this particular task, firstly users would point their finger at the screen as shown in [Figure.35]
and below. This would open the media player, in which users could swipe right for „next
track‟, swipe up for „play / pause‟, swipe left for „previous track‟ and finally slide their finger
left and right towards the bottom of the media player to change the volume in which the
media is outputted.
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[19]
4.3 - Results Analysis
4.3.1 - Quantitative Data
4.3.1.1 - Question 1
[Figure.25] shows the question „Out of 10 how easy was the system to learn‟ this question
was asked in order to understand within the field of Human-Computer Interaction the
usability of the Shortcuts V2 Leap Motion application. The results show that all 6 user testers
believed that the system was greatly usable, scoring the system either 7 or 8 out of 10. This
shows that the system has great promise in usability principles such as providing consistent
responses and providing easily manageable controls as detailed by (Pinelle & Wong, 2008),
given detail upon the reason why the scores for this question were so high shows a consensus
of an easy understanding of the functionality of the system however this also boils down to
the systems limited functionality.
4.3.1.2 - Question 2
[Figure.26] shows the question „how effective is the system at carrying out tasks‟ once again
this was based upon a rating out of 10 by each user tester, unlike question 1 this question
shows more of a broader result base, in which the answers ranged between scoring the system
from 5-9, the reasoning behind this is because some users found that the system was laggy
and problematic with one user describing the system as having “problems latching onto
things and freezing at times”. However this was based upon the user‟s ability to interact with
the system as some users found no problems navigating through the functionalities of the
system and the tasks that were set out by the researcher to be tested by the users.
7, 50% 8, 50%
Q1: Out of 10 How Easy Was The System To Learn
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[20]
4.3.1.3 - Question 3
[Figure.27] shows the question „out of 10 how efficient was the usability of the system‟ the
answers from 3 to 10, this showed very little correlation between the users with 33% of users
selecting 6 as their rating of the usability of the system. The rationale behind the lower
markings given by the users would be most notably as one user stated in [Figure.20] that they
found the system to be unresponsive testifying that “it didn‟t really do what I wanted it to do
in the time I wanted it to” this shows a huge lack of functionality and the system‟s ability to
seamlessly function, however much like the two sided coin there is an inverse to this
argument as (Figure.17) shows one user marking the usability of the system 10/10, this was
backed up as the user believed that “the system was very simple to use it just has the device
and seems to register my hand motions and translates that onto the computer”. This although
5 16%
6 33%
7 17%
8 17%
9 17%
Q2: How Effective Was The System At Carrying Out Tasks
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[21]
seems as more of an amazement at the functionality rather than the usability.
4.3.1.4 - Question 4
[Figure.28] shows the question „out of 10 how enjoyable was the system‟ this question
prompts the results of the Human-Computer Interaction metric of user experience which is
defined as “the way a user feels about a particular product or system” by (Kamau, Crandall &
Awori, 2012 ). This aids in understanding the user experience of the system as a whole. The
results from the interviews and testing of the Leap Motion shows that users experience with
the system was at a cohesive high, with ratings of user enjoyment of the system ranging from
7-10. This showed the Leap Motions advantage of being somewhat of a newer technology
with users boasting how unconventional and fun the system was.
3 16%
6 33%
7 17%
9 17%
10 17%
Q3: Out of 10 How Efficent Was The Usability Of The System
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[22]
4.3.1.5 - Question 5
[Figure.29] shows question 5, this question asks the user testers „out of 10 how comfortable
was the system to use‟ this helps the researcher understand within the Human-Computer
Interaction field the comfort of using the system, this is mainly because the Leap Motion
harnesses the use of LED cameras and infrared lighting to offer users an experience of
computing that is based upon gestures rather than clicking of buttons. This is perhaps Leap
Motions biggest asset and due to the nature of this system being radically different to the
convention of a mouse and keyboard personal computing this means that the ability for the
system to be comfortable for the user is of the utmost importance, this reflects badly on the
results as users generally found the system was uncomfortable with 66% of users rating the
system either a 4 or 5 out of 10, this shows that this would become a major drawback for the
development of this technology as would drastically need to improve.
7 17%
8 33%
9 17%
10 33%
Q4: Out of 10 How Enjoyable Was The System To Use
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[23]
4.3.1.6 - Question 6
[Figure.30] shows the question „out of 10 how safe do you think the system is‟ this question
carries importance as this technology requires more physical activity than a generic mouse
and keyboard approach to personal computing, the results for this question favour the Leap
Motion quite well as 50% of user testers rated the system a 10/10 and 100% safe, with the
another 33% of user testers giving the Leap Motion hardware an 8/10. The only issue was
one user scoring the hardware a 3/10 however this was due to the user tester thinking that
there might be “uncomfortable to use”, this shows that there are no foreseen safety issues
within the system rather the only issue is the comfort of using the system for drastic periods
of time.
4 33%
5 33%
6 17%
7 17%
Q5: Out of 10 How Comfortable is The System To Use
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[24]
4.2.2 – Qualitative Data
4.3.2.7 - Question 7
[Figure.24] shows the question „in your opinion what constraints do you think the system
has?” this question has been asked in an effort to understand what drawbacks there are within
both the hardware and software that was being tested. The main findings from this question
was that users found that there was a lack of functionality within the system this could cause
disadvantages as stated by Alexandros & Michalis, (2013). This is because limitations in
functionality can cause emotional stress within the user, this was based on the application
only allowing users to change between applications, and access a media player. Apart from
the constraints of functionality of the software one user states that “people who do not have
full mobility in their limbs or hands for example somebody that has osteoarthritis in their
fingers would have a great deal if difficulty when using something like this” this statement
provides an excellent point that based on the Leap Motion hardware‟s need of recognising 5
fingers within a hand, amputees or the physically disabled would not be able to use the
system in its current state.
4.3.2.8 - Question 8
[Figure.24] shows the question „in your opinion what advantages do you think the system
has‟ this question was asked to aid in the research of the strengths of both the hardware and
software namely the Leap Motion and Shortcuts V2 application, this question provided useful
answers and there was a cohesive reply with most user testers claiming that that the system
provides a way of computing for people with disabilities, one user highlighted “people that
3 17%
8 33%
10 50%
Q6: Out of 10 How Safe Do You Think The System Is
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[25]
have problems like carpel tunnel” stating that this would make computing easier as they
wouldn‟t need a mouse or keyboard.
4.3.2.9 - Question 9
[Figure.24] shows the question „is there any features that you think could improve this
technology‟ this prompts the interviewees to think of any improvements to the application
and the Leap Motion hardware. This question provided many different insights into the
technology. Over 50% of the users stated that they would like to see more interactions with
the system, claiming that there is limited functionality, however this argument is incredibly
valid due to the software only having 3 functions within it. The rest of the users argued that
the system was limited in the aspect of interaction within the hardware claiming that the
gestures were difficult as one user stated that “more interaction with the system and making it
easier to manoeuvre it because some gestures are hard to get right”
4.3.2.10 - Question 10
[Figure.24] shows the question „would you consider using the system permanently‟ this
question was asked by the researcher to aid in the understanding of the systems capabilities as
a whole and whether this system can be considered the future of operating systems given the
right technological advancements, the general response to this question shows users
responding in a negative way, claiming that they would only use this system permanently if
there was major improvements to it this was because of the constraints of the system. Namely
the limited functionality especially as many users pointed out that the tasks they completed in
the testing of the application could have easily been done in a fraction of the time using a
regular mouse and keyboard.
4.3.2.11 - Question 11
[Figure.24] shows the question „did the system allow you the freedom to do what you‟d like‟
this question was asking as within the Human-Computer-interaction field this is considered
an important metric and this includes attributes such as not allowing users to complete
irrevocable actions, offering undo and redo and providing exits to openings within the
application. This could become problematic if unimproved for example as stated by Wu
(2008) an example of bad error prevention could be “participants executed a correct plan
incorrectly”. The general consensus for this questions results showed that most users found
that the system provided very little freedom outside of the specific functionalities that the
system possesses. This was because of the simplicity of the system and users did not mention
the ability to go backwards with undo and redo buttons at all. The most notable of answers
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[26]
came from a user that stated “I think that it was quite constricted in what it did offer me but it
did allow me to do a lot of things”. This shows that although the functionality is limited the
abilities of the system stretch beyond one application and varies between them, for example
the scrolling function of the Shortcuts V2 application can be used to scroll through any
webpage, word document etc.
4.3.2.12 - Question 12
[Figure.24] shows the question „did you find the system provided you with sufficient
feedback?‟ this question was asked to aid in the research of finding out how interactive the
human and computer can be. This directly relates to the Human-Computer Interaction field,
the importance of this can be quoted by MacDonald &Atwood, (2014) which states, “a
system‟s usefulness is shaped by the context in which it is used”. The results provide critical
feedback to answer how usable the system is and if it can prove to be useful in the future of
operating systems, showing that users found that the only feedback offered was as one user
said „it wouldn‟t allow me to complete a gesture it would get stuck mid-way‟ this was seen
by the user and feedback for the system however the system showed no signs of error
messaging which caused over 50% of the users to claim that there was no feedback given
whatsoever. This shows a huge design flaw in the software and means that this would have
to be amended to ensure that the system will become more usable.
4.3.2.13 - Question 13
[Figure.24] shows the question „did you find the system informed you of errors and helped
navigating said errors?‟ this question was asked as a way of ensuring that the user would
consider errors and feedback as two different entities, this is because error prevention and
recovery is of the utmost importance in humans and computers interacting (Wu, 2008). The
results from this question show a complete 100% agreement with all users that there was no
error messaging or navigation and help from errors within the system. This proved to be a
huge drawback for the system especially as this is incredibly important for human computer
interactions. One user stated that “it was quite annoying because you would keep doing it and
it wasn‟t telling you why it wasn‟t doing it” and another user stating that “it definitely needs
more work that‟s what I‟d say” these two notable quotes show that the system needs radical
improvements for it to become something that is worthy of proving itself within the future of
computing.
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[27]
4.3.2.14 - Question 14
[Figure.24] shows the question „did you like the overall design of the system?‟ this question
was asked in order to help the researcher understand what the impact of the design of the user
interface was and if this design and layout would prove to be more efficient than existing
operating systems. The results from this question proved to be outstanding and showed that
the design had very little flaws within it. 100% of user testers had positive answers regarding
the design of the system, all users said that the design was enjoyable and overall very good.
One user even stated that “I felt like I was interacting with what I was doing more so than
usually” this shows that the design has a great starting point and if this was to be continued
throughout the improvements of this technology than this could mean that the future of
computing could become a gesture based operating system.
4.3.2.15 - Question 15
[Figure.24] shows the question „is there anything else you would consider notable such as
design flaws in the system?‟ this question was asked in unison with the previous question,
this was a way of ensuring that the users were not impressed by the design and could not
think of any flaws within it. This proved to be a useful question as although most users stated
that there was no design flaws within the system some users opposed this and stated that there
was issues within the hardware for example one user exclaimed that “the only thing I would
change is the sensitivity and reliability of the product” as well as users referring back to the
constraints that were previously mentioned. This shows that although the user interface
design is of a great calibre there is still many improvements and tweaking needed to ensure
this technology is see more seriously as a way of harnessing personal computing rather than
simply a fun way of using a computer.
4.4 – Results Evaluation
Over all the results show great promise. As aforementioned in the methodologies the
interviews were voice recorded as well as the testing of the Leap Motion hardware and
Shortcuts V2 software was video recorded as shown in [Figure.31-36]. The questions devised
were based upon Human-Computer Interaction metrics such as usability and functionality
metrics. The results from the interviews show that users generally found that within the
specific functionalities available both the hardware and software performed exponentially.
User testers showed that they found the system to be quite enjoyable to use and despite this
system being inefficient in completing tasks as oppose to using a generic keyboard and
mouse method, users still agreed that given the correct amount of research and development
within the hardware and software that this system would be considered to be used by them
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[28]
permanently. Based upon the usability of the system users cohesively agreed upon the
usability being at a good standard with some users claiming that the system provided an
excellent design for the system however due to the limited functionality i.e. only being
allowed to perform 3-4 main tasks showed that the system would be unusable for computing
beyond a simple media integrated manor.
Based upon the results the future of the Leap Motion system shows great promise, the
applications so far may be tricky to navigate and ineffective at completing tasks now however
this technology is somewhat new, showing that given enough feedback and product
development for example if the Leap Motion were to be longer in size allowing for a greater
field of view and a smoother gesture recognition technology then this would greatly improve
the productivity of the Leap Motion. Another design implication to be considered for future
product development using the Leap Motion technology would be having the technology be
able to face in any directions, this could aid in users being able to interact with the system
more so than now with gestures moving from hand based onto arm and body based. Below
shows a tabulated format [Table.8] of the results evaluation as a whole, this format shows the
key usability and user experience issues found whilst testing the system.
Leap Motion Issues
Usability Basic in usability
Not complex enough to be considered
seriously applicable to modern
computing.
User Experience Frustrating within some aspects
No error reporting
Positives Fun to use
easily understandable
4.5 - Approach Justification
Within the conduction of research gathering the research found there were many entities
surrounding the gathering of this research that needed clarification. For example the approach
to finding the respondents, the conduction of the interviews and the reason for the choice of
questions. Below will discuss the justifications to this approach and will relate the approach
to the field of Human-Computer interaction. First and foremost the approach of finding
respondents was based upon the reading of Bryman & Bell (2011 P395). Conducted by the
researcher found that respondents would have to have qualities such as credibility in order to
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[29]
succeed. This was easily done as the researcher chose peers, family and friends to conduct
these interviews this was done to ensure that there was no tainting of the results. Guba, E. and
Lincoln, Y. (n.d.), propose two terms for assessing qualitative data, this being trustworthiness
and authenticity. This also aided the researcher in choosing peers, friends and family in
conducting the research and finding credible respondents as this ensured that the results
would not be fictitious in any way.
Secondly the approach of conducting interviews was researcher by (Dennis & Wixom, 2010
P116-117) which explains that there is three different types of questions, close ended, open-
ended and finally probing questions. (Dennis & Wixom, 2010) discuss that the interview
process must have a “logical order through the process” this was evidently carried out by the
researcher when devising the interview questions, as (Figure.23) shows that for example
questions 14 and 15 both ask about the design of the system being tested. One question asks
about the users experience with the design whilst another asks about any design flaws the
user could find throughout the testing process. This was also a probing question as it ensured
that users thought twice about the design of the system as this is one of the most important
usability metrics within human computer interaction.
Thirdly and finally the approach of choosing specific questions written by the research can be
justified by Human-Computer Interaction observation techniques. This is discussed by
(MacKenzie, 2013, P132-133) as the investigator being the observer, using the researcher as a
tool in silently collecting information whilst the user testing is being carried out, this was
simply done by the researcher observing the in user testers whilst they were being recorded
testing the Leap Motion and Shortcuts V2 application. This allowed the researcher to ensure
that there was no factious results being produced as the researcher could clearly see and
report back to the videos once the interviews were conducted.
4.6 – Literature Relation
The results in relation to the literature shows that the leap motion has many drawbacks, for
example as aforementioned with chapter 2 one of the leap motions biggest limitations would
be for example the line of sight problem, this is the issue of keeping ones hand in the line of
sight of the leap motion at all times to avoid incorrect gestures being carried out. This could
cause huge drawbacks and shows that through primary research and user testing there was
users who found issues within this limitation such as [Figure.30] shows question 5 of the
interviewing process, the results from this question show that even user testers using the
system for minutes at a time they found that this was uncomfortable to use. Despite this there
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[30]
is a notable strength within the leap motion which is namely the leap motions ability to
recognise hand motions, this could be reprogrammed to allow for pens to be recognised as
well which shows that the leap motion could become useful to recognise pens and have the
ability to combat the efficiency of the keyboard and mouse, this is shown in [Figure.24] the
results from Question 11 shows that users found that the system however fun it may be was
inefficient compared to the keyboard and mouse method, with users claiming they would use
the system if the gestures and functionalities were radically improved.
5 – CONCLUSIONS
5.1 - Introduction
In the conclusion chapter of this dissertation, the research question will be detailed and the
findings will become apparent, based upon analysis and discussion of the research data
gathered. This will include logical conclusions of the research questions and
recommendations to readers of this research paper, this section also discusses limitations and
constraints of the project to provide rational advice to readers on how to take advantage of the
research to further said research if chosen to do so by the readers.
5.2 – Findings
The researcher‟s findings prove to be excellent research within the field of Human-Computer
interaction, this is because of the manner in which Human-Computer Interaction connects
users and computing is perhaps one of the most important factors within Human-Computer
interaction. As explained by Dix (2004, P.259). there are many design rules within this field
of knowledge, such as user cantered designers understanding the consequences of their
design decisions, this reflects within the findings as the findings of the research show that the
designs created by Shortcuts V2 prove to be excellent in improving usability especially as all
users had positive remarks about the design of the system. This shows that the design can be
emulated and evolved to ensure that any further research into the future of operating systems
using motion capture technology can understand the design principles given by the field of
Human-Computer Interaction as well the interface designers working at Leap Motion and
Shortcuts V2.
Another way in which the research findings relates to the field of Human-Computer
Interaction is the way in which is given by Jacko (2012, P.60) is that humans generally get
stressed whilst performing any task. Hancock & Warm (1989) created a model called „A
Dynamic Model of Stress & Sustained Attention‟ this model explains that “the task itself as
the proximal source of stress. In operational environments this is often manifested as
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[31]
increases or decreases in stress” this statement shows that in regards of the findings of the
results many users found that the systems functionality was very limited, this was also shown
in many users claiming there was severe delays in the time it would take them to use the Leap
Motion to carry out a task that a keyboard or mouse could do instantaneously. This would
cause users a great deal of stress with navigating through the user interface and resulted in
many users saying they would not use the technology unless it would improve drastically.
5.3 – Recommendations
Upon the completion of the research and analysing the research question, it is clear that much
work in needed in this specific research, for example It is evident that the continuation of this
research would require more user testing, with a wider range of testers, specifically more
older people and more younger people to understand the usability within age differences.
Another aspect of this projects furtherance is based upon the time constraints, given more
time the researcher could compile more methodologies in aid of answering the research
question and creating a prototype such as PICTIVE diagrams which is as described by Muller
(1992) as a way of including stakeholders in designing a basic prototype. Secondly further
research would allow for the use of extreme programming methods, this is as explained by
(Cordeiro et al., 2008) as a communication orientated way of programming, this could be
helpful in design a program that could compete with Shortcuts V2 and possibly based upon
the findings include more functionalities. Another recommendation to further the research
would be the use of time boxing, this is as explained by (Miranda, 2011) is a way in which
developers can coincide with users in creating a plan that allows for feedback to be given to
users on a timetabled basis. Finally an agile methodology could be applied to the creation of
an application this as explained by (Maurer & Melnik, 2005) and boasts many advantages
such as constant feedback with users that would help determine that the user design and
experience is exceptional.
6 – CRITIQUE
6.1 - Introduction
Following upon the conclusion, this portion of the research paper will discuss and critically
analyse the research question, this will include a summary of the objectives of the
aforementioned research question, explaining how the project was undergone and
differentiations in the ways the researcher could have tackled the project. Secondly the
critique will include a section based upon the importance of the research, underlining the
field and possible advancements made in the field of Human-Computer Interaction based
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[32]
upon the research question and the results and evaluations of the research question. Finally
the critique will also include conclusions of the research along with, stating and explaining
the overall conclusions made upon analysing the research carried out throughout the duration
of the project and dissertation, critically reviewing the research question and concluding the
answer to the question what is the future of operating systems wielding motion capture
technology.
6.2 - Importance of Research
The importance of the research carried out by the user could possibly change the way
technology advances and which direction technology will lean towards in researching and
developing new ways of computing. This research investigates and deciphers the usability of
this technology, discusses the flaws, drawbacks and weaknesses as well as the strengths of
the Leap Motion technology and the applications that can be developed using this technology.
The research conducted could greatly improve the way in which computing is done in the
future. Technology is advancing in such a rapid way as Moore‟s law (1965) dictates and
shows no signs of slowing down. This can be seen in developmental projects such as the
Circlet Bracelet, (2015). A way of utilising a phone screen, light sensors etc. in order to
create a projectable and wearable device allowing users to control their phone on their wrist.
This shows that there are many ways in which technology could advance, many avenues and
paths that could be taken and at this time period with technology advancements being at the
cusp of implementation this could mean that the research undergone could possibly lead to
the Leap Motion technology being chosen to spearhead the advancements in personal
computing. Ask yourself, if the mouse and keyboard wasn‟t the path that was chosen in 1975
as the staple way of navigating within operating systems then what would be the method
used? The research undergone by this project and dissertation shows that once technology
advances past this keyboard and mouse method the Leap Motion could become the new
staple user navigation technique within operating systems if properly research and developed.
6.3 – Research Conclusions
When this project was first started by the researcher, many aspects and research questions
were asked in order to understand and utilise the abilities to answer the question, what
metrics are needed to truly delve into the mind of the user tester in order to fully capitalise on
the interviewing process as a research method in order to fully understand what is required
from users within the future of personal computing. Another research question that arose
whilst considering how to answer the original research question of what is the future of
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[33]
operating systems and is the answer to this motion capturing technology? This question was,
how useable would the system be, would the functionalities of the system be able to complete
personal computing tasks as efficiently as the generic keyboard and mouse method that has
been used ever since the first personal computer was revolutionised by bill gates and
Microsoft in 1975 as explained by (windows.microsoft.com, 2015). This system has been in
place for over 40 years, which proves a great deal about the efficiency of this method of
personal computing. The Leap Motion controller is relatively new technology and has only
been implemented for a short period of time. This means that the Leap Motion controller has
not been implemented on a worldwide scale yet, as well as not being implemented as more
than an unconventional way to carry out minor tasks on a personal computer. This provided a
rationale behind the researcher‟s project as this was an area that lack consistency in testing
and product development.
Based upon the research carried out it is evident that the technology has many leaps and
bounds needed in the testing, research and development to ensure that the product is easily
implanted into the market of personal computing. Based upon the primary research the
usability and functionality of the Leap Motion has many disadvantages, most notably the
Leap Motions lacking ability to provide a method of computing for the disfigured, amputated
or disabled. However based upon one user‟s response in [Figure.23] the Leap Motion could
also prove to be incredibly useful in helping users with nerve damage regain the aptitude to
use limbs that were previously damaged for example within injuries sustained during war.
From the research conducted it is clear to see that the Leap Motion and gesture based
computing as a technology is not a competent way of computing as of yet. This is mainly
down to the gimmicky nature of the technology and its inefficiency in keeping up with the
generic keyboard and mouse. This shows that an operating system solely reliant on the
technology as a way for users to navigate through said operating system would be ludicrous
for this stage of the information age. However based upon the research this could change as
technologies improve and advance as well as user behaviours changing and adapting, this
concept could be looked at from a different angle, if the user behaviours were to change
before the technology has been implemented then this could result in the furtherance of the
technology on a larger scale such as Microsoft and Apple introducing this technology in order
to keep up with marketing trends within the personal computing world. So to answer the
research question one must ask, if the future of operating systems is motion capture
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[34]
technology then society must embrace changes in technology to truly further technology as a
whole in order to undeniably revolutionise personal computing.
REFERENCES Alexandros, Liapis, and Xenos Michalis. 'The Physiological Measurements As A Critical Indicator In Users'
Experience Evaluation'. Proceedings of the 17th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics - PCI '13 (2013):
n. pag. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.
Bannon, Liam. 'Reimagining HCI'. interactions 18.4 (2011): 50. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.
Beuvens, F., & Vanderdonckt, J. (1988). Designing Graphical User Interfaces Integrating Gestures.
Proceedings: CHI 88, 313–322.
Bryman, A. And Bell, E. (2011). Business Research Methods. Cambridge: Oxford University Press. Pp 395.
Carvajal, L., Moreno, A. M., Sánchez-Segura, M. I., & Seffah, A. (2013). Usability through software design.
IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 39(11), 1582–1596. doi:10.1109/TSE.2013.29
Cicret Bracelet, (2015). Cicret Bracelet. [online] Available at: http://cicret.com/wordpress/ [Accessed 29 Apr.
2015].
Colgan, A. And Colgan, A. (2014). How Does The Leap Motion Controller Work? [Online] Leap Motion Blog.
Available At: Http://Blog.Leapmotion.Com/Hardware-To-Software-How-Does-The-Leap-Motion-
Controller-Work/ [Accessed 24 Apr. 2015].
Cordeiro, L., Mar, C., Valentin, E., Cruz, F., Patrick, D., Barreto, R. and Lucena, V. (2008). An agile
development methodology applied to embedded control software under stringent hardware constraints.
SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes, 33(1), p.1.
Creative.adobe.com,. 'Adobe Creative Cloud'. N.p., 2015. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.
Dawson, C. And Dawson, C. (2009). Introduction to Research Methods. Oxford: How to Contents, Pp79-89
Dennis, A. And Wixom, B. (2010). Systems Analysis Design. New York: J. Wiley. Pp117
Dix, A. (2004). Human-computer interaction. Harlow, England: Pearson/Prentice-Hall. Pp259.
Figure.1 Motion, Leap. 'Leap Motion'. Leapmotion.com. N.p., 2015. Web. 6 May 2015.
Finkel, Raphel A. 'Operating Systems'. CSUR 28.1 (1996): 201-203. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.
Gantt.com,. 'What Is A Gantt Chart? Gantt Chart Information, History And Software'. N.p., 2015. Web. 30 Apr.
2015.
Gillham, B. (2000). Developing a Questionnaire. London: Continuum, Pp1-14.
Guba, E. and Lincoln, Y. (n.d.). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. [S.l.]: [s.n.].
Guna, J., Jakus, G., Pogačnik, M., Tomažič, S., & Sodnik, J. (2014). An analysis of the precision and reliability
of the leap motion sensor and its suitability for static and dynamic tracking. Sensors (Switzerland), 14(2),
3702–3720. doi:10.3390/s140203702
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[35]
Hancock, P.A., & Warm, J.S. (1989). A dynamic model of stress and sustained attention. Human Factors, 31,
519-537.
Jacko, J. (2012). The human-computer interaction handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Pp60
Kamau, Mark, Angela Crandall, and Kagonya Awori. 'User Experience Practices In Nairobi's Ihub
Community'. XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students 19.2 (2012): 56. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.
MacDonald, Craig M., and Michael E. Atwood. 'What Does It Mean For A System To Be Useful?'.Proceedings
of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems - DIS '14 (2014): n. pag. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.
Mackenzie, I. (2013). Human-Computer Interaction. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. Pp 132-133.
Maurer, F. and Melnik, G. (2005). What you always wanted to know about agile methods but did not dare to
ask. Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Software engineering - ICSE '05.
Miranda, E. (2011). Time boxing planning. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes, 36(6), p.1.
Mooreslaw.Org, (2015). Moore's Law. [Online] Available At: Http://Www.Mooreslaw.Org/ [Accessed 24 Apr.
2015].
Motion, L. (2015). Shortcuts. [Online] Apps.Leapmotion.Com. Available At:
Https://Apps.Leapmotion.Com/Apps/Shortcuts/Windows [Accessed 24 Apr. 2015].
Muller, M. (1992). Retrospective on a year of participatory design using the PICTIVE technique.
Nintendo of Europe GmbH,. 'Wii'. N.p., 2015. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.
Nykaza, Janet et al. 'What Programmers Really Want'. Proceedings of the 20th annual international conference
on Computer documentation - SIGDOC '02 (2002): n. pag. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.
Oates, Briony J. Researching Information Systems And Computing. London: SAGE Publications, 2006. Print.
Pilgrim, Chris. 'An Investigation Of Usability Issues In AJAX Based Web Sites'. (2013): n. pag. Print.
Pinelle, David, and Nelson Wong. 'Heuristic Evaluation For Games'. Proceeding of the twenty-sixth annual CHI
conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '08 (2008): n. pag. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.
Plemmons, D., & Holz, D. (2014). Creating Next-Gen 3D Interactive Apps with Motion Control and Unity3D,
1–23.
Potter, L.E. Araullo, J. Carter, L. (2013). The Leap Motion Controller: A View on Sign Language. Proceedings
of the 25th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference: Augmentation, Application, Innovation,
Collaboration. OZCHI, 175-178.
Preece, J., Rogers, Y. And Sharp, H. (2002). Interaction Design. New York, NY: J. Wiley & Sons, Pp.276-454.
Salian, Kishan, and Gavin Sim. 'Simplifying Heuristic Evaluation For Older Children'. Proceedings of the India
HCI 2014 Conference on Human Computer Interaction - IHCI '14 (2014): n. pag. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.
Vikram, S., Li, L., & Russell, S. (2013). Handwriting and Gestures in the Air, Recognizing on the Fly. CHI
2013 Extended Abstracts, ACM 978-1-.
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[36]
Weichert, F., Bachmann, D., Rudak, B., & Fisseler, D. (2013). Analysis of the accuracy and robustness of the
Leap Motion Controller. Sensors (Switzerland), 13, 6380–6393. doi:10.3390/s130506380
windows.microsoft.com, (2015). A history of Windows - Microsoft Windows. [online] Available at:
http://windows.microsoft.com/en-GB/windows/history#T1=era0 [Accessed 29 Apr. 2015].
Wu, Lei. 'Error Recovery In Human-Computer Interaction'. Proceeding of the 2nd PhD workshop on
Information and knowledge management - PIKM '08 (2008): n. pag. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.
Xbox.com,. 'Kinect For Xbox One'. N.p., 2015. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.
APPENDICES
Figure 3
Figure 2
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[37]
Figure 4
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[38]
Figure 5
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[39]
Figure 6
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[40]
Figure 7
Figure 8
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[41]
Figure 9
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[42]
Figure 10
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[43]
Figure 11
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[44]
Figure 12
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[45]
Figure 13
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[46]
Figure 14
Expert’s evaluation details (provided by Usability Consultant)
Table 1
Application Name Shortcuts V2
Usability Consultant
Name
Daron Gardi
Date and time of
usability test(s)
19/03/15
12:46am
Location of usability test Paddington
Software used Leap Motion
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[47]
Heuristics
Table 2
A Provide an effective home page
Tic
k
Grade Overview of heuristic
0 usability catastrophe (a) Home page should offer intuitive access to
the key tasks.
(b) Appropriate metaphor for navigation from
the home page
(c)Clear cue-card or tab metaphor can prove to
be usable
(d)Image map acceptable? clickable regions
clear
(e)Terminology relate to user tasks not
marketing speak.
1 serious usability flaws
2 significant issues
3 minor concerns
4 generally usable
5 exemplar for usability
Evidence and comment:
No home page is available within this application
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[48]
Table 3
B Match structure with user needs
Ti
c
k
Grade Overview of heuristic
0 usability
catastrophe
(a)Structure should match a well-defined task specification
(b)User tasks, after leaving the home page, natural / intuitive
(c) Natural hierarchical decomposition of all key user tasks 1 serious
usability flaws
2 significant
issues
3 minor
concerns
4 generally
usable
5 exemplar for
usability
Evidence and comment:
(a) Structure matches task specification well the application comes with a help page and a very easily understandable tutorial allowing the user to quickly understand what the
application can do (b) Due to the nature of the application there is no home page available however as soon as
the application is launched through the leap motion app store there is a seamless transition into the application
(c) Based on the nature of the application there is no hierarchy of key user tasks and tasks range from media software options such as play, pause, next track & volume. As well as
other functions such as scrolling through apps and webpages.
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[49]
Table 4
C Provide usable e-functions
Ti
c
k
Grade Overview of heuristic
0 usability
catastrophe
(a) Its clear to the user what is going on?
(b) Is appropriate feedback provided in reasonable time?
(c) Are actions performed consistently? 1 serious
usability flaws
2 significant
issues
3 minor
concerns
4 generally
usable
5 exemplar for
usability
Evidence and comment:
(a) It is very clear what is going on as once the gesture based movement is recognised by the leap motion controller the application launches various buttons depending on the task in which is carried out. For example, a pinch enables a scrolling button appearing on the
screen guiding the user into scrolling through webpages. (b) The only feedback provided is not displayed through message boxes which causes a minor
concern, however the application does work well and has no visible bugs or errors within the application.
(c) Actions can be consistently carried out however there are some significant issues within this application as the controller is quite picky with the gestures and can easily lose control and much to the users confusion and frustration not carry out the task effectively and efficiently
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[50]
Table 5
D Is the application user-centred?
Ti
c
k
Grade Overview of heuristic
0 usability
catastrophe
(a) Design for recognition rather than recall – default values.
(b) Design for short-term memory.
(c) Feedback within reasonable time.
(d) Support for a strong sense of structure and place
1 serious
usability flaws
2 significant
issues
3 minor
concerns
4 generally
usable
5 exemplar
for usability
Evidence and comment:
(a) The application is user centred and recognises the users gestures almost instantaneous, usually without a delay in reactions to the commands present to the application
(b) Short term memory design for this application is exemplar for usability as the application has limited functions and the user will only have to memorise three simple gestures to be
competent in using the application (c) There is no feedback in the application with error messages however feedback is given by
the tasks set out by the user not being carried out to an exemplar standard prompting the user to recalibrate the gesture linked to the command.
(d) There is a strong sense of structure and place as the applications design is nicely laid out, with clear concise buttons easily clicked, which could prove to be difficult using a hand as
appose to a track pad
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[51]
Table 6
E Support the user
Ti
ck
Grade Overview of heuristic
0 usability
catastrophe
(a) application platform conventions
(b) Internal consistency – including visual identity, use of text
(c)Support user control and freedom.
(d) Support undo and redo
1 serious
usability flaws
2 significant
issues
3 minor
concerns
4 generally
usable
5 exemplar for
usability
Evidence and comment:
(a) There are many conventions with application here with entities such as big buttons and a simplistic application design with button icons that are used worldwide throughout all hardware
and software, such as the play/pause button. (b) there is a lot of consistency within this application as all the application buttons are of the same
size, colour and design (c) This application supports user control and freedom by allowing the user to choose which gesture
they wish to input and does not pigeon hole the user into choosing specific ones. For example the gesture that allows for the changing of windows applications is not only accessible from the
windows home screen. (d) This application supports undo and re-do quite well, however this is not in the form of undo and
re-do buttons instead these commands are available by simply undoing or redoing the task. For example the media controller allows changing between tracks. The user can click next track in
their music player than simply click previous track to undo the change made.
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[52]
Table 7
F Ensure Visual Elements Do No compromise usability
Ti
ck
Grade Overview of heuristic
0 usability
catastrophe
(a) Home page should offer intuitive access to the key tasks.
(b)Image map acceptable? clickable regions clear
(c)Terminology relate to user tasks not marketing speak.
1 serious
usability flaws
2 significant
issues
3 minor
concerns
4 generally
usable
5 exemplar for
usability
Evidence and comment:
(a) home page offers intuitive access to key tasks by having icons that are universally
understood for their certain functionalities
(b) image mapping is acceptable with clearly defined buttons, this is done by hovering over the
buttons and the buttons moving in size and shape to inform the user that the image is in fact a
button
(c) un-applicable as there is no worded terminology however buttons are universally
understood for their specific purpose
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[53]
Study Summary & Purpose
The purpose of this study is to evaluate and learn about the leap motions capabilities within an existing
operating system. The study will conclude whether or not the technology is capable in becoming a
standalone operating system that will be able to be viably usable and improve human-computer
interactions.
Goals
Understand the capabilities of the leap motion
Evaluate the usability of the leap motion
Interview user testers to evaluate the effectiveness of the leap motion to carry out basic usability
functionalities
Participants
For this study I will interview mainly university students, most of which are in the computing field.
However for good measure I will interview one 50 year old and one 24 year old graduate. I will also
diversify the ethnic backgrounds of the 7 user testers.
Methods/Techniques
The users will be tested in university as well as some of the graduate testers being tested in their own
homes in an effort to make the users as comfortable as possible. Each user will be briefed on what is
required of them, namely opening the application, switching between two different applications, clicking
the media player, changing a song, going to a previous song, playing & pausing the song and controlling
the volume. The user will also attempt to scroll through a list of songs. The user will then be debriefed in
the form on interview questions. This interview will be recorded as well as the test in order to be
analysed at a later date.
Evaluation Tasks
[The computer will have the windows media player open as well as a webpage to allow the user to carry
out the functions without having to use the mouse as well as the leap motion controller]
1. Each participant will be briefed as to what they need to do
a. The briefing will include what is required of the user and how to carry out these tasks
b. A recording of the user testing will be done via a handheld camera
c. Participant will be told to begin experiment whilst time taken to complete tasks is recorded
2. The researcher will observe the tester whilst filming the test in complete silence as to not help the user in
understanding the program
3. Once the test is finished the user will be debriefed in the form of an interview
4. The experiment will be complete and set up again for the next user
Figure 15
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[54]
Figure 16
Test Environment & Supplies
The environment will vary from private rooms in a university library as well as living rooms in various
houses. Total time for each test is approximately 5 minutes per test.
The supplies needed are
Handheld Camera
Leap Motion
Shortcut V2 Application
Windows Media Player
Researchers Role
As the researcher, it will involve me doing various tasks and it will be my sole responsibility to set up the
test for each of the volunteers. I will also have to ensure that I brief each of the volunteers before the
test and also debrief them once the test has been completed. During the test I will be observing and
recording the users.
Evaluation Measures
In order to analyse and evaluate my findings, I will transfer the audio and video recordings into written
transcripts. By constructing graphs it will enable me to gather all my findings and by using the results
from my experiment I will create a low fidelity solely dependent on the leap motion software.
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[55]
Figure 17
Figure 18
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[56]
Q1 Interviewer – Out of 10 how easy was the system to learn?
A. Interviewee – I would say the system was a 7/10 the device was able to capture a lot of the hand
gestures so just in terms of usability I would give it a 7/10
Q2 Interviewer – Out of 10 how effective was the system at carrying out tasks?
A. Interviewee – I would say a 6/10 just because I found it difficult to translate the hand movements
as in the system wasn’t so smooth with the different hand gestures, it had some problems with
latching onto things and freezing at times
Q3 Interviewer – Out of 10 how efficient was the usability of the system?
A. Interviewee – I would say 10/10 because the system itself was very simple to use it just has the
device and just seems to register my hand motions and translates that onto the computer
Q4 Interviewer – Out of 10 how enjoyable was the system to use?
A. Interviewee – 10/10 because it’s not following the whole conventional mouse and keyboard
system it’s more fun more interactive definitely a 10/10
Q5 Interviewer – Out of 10 how comfortable was the system to use?
A. Interviewee – I would say 4/10 because the system was quite uncomfortable, because you had to
set the device at an optimal height for it to register the hand gestures, I imagine although I used it
for a short period of time it would be difficult to maintain the hand gestures after using these hand
gestures for a long period of time
Q6 Interviewer – Out of 10 how safe do you think the system is?
A. Interviewee –the only issues I see would be kind of agronomical issues, using it for long term, I
imagine using this device in everyday computers for a replacement for mouse and keyboard
functions it would be uncomfortable to use so I would have to give it a 3/10
Q7 Interviewer – In your opinion what constraints do you think the system has?
A. Interviewee – just in terms of constraints there’s not many functions to it, when I used it there
was only changing the pages and changing the volume, so it hasn’t completely eliminated the need
for a mouse or a keyboard so it still needs a lot more functions and needs to be a lot smoother, at
some point I was getting frustrated with some of the hand motions it wasn’t registering it fully
Q8 Interviewer – In your opinion what advantages do you think the system has?
A. Interviewee – none that I can think of
Q9 Interviewer – Is there any features you think could improve this technology?
Transcript Rasan
Figure 19
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[57]
A. Interviewee – just adding more functions to it perhaps because what I understand this could
potentially be a system to replace a mouse and keyboard therefore you need to incorporate a kind
of massive range of different hand gestures and movements, but there is that aspect of learning
these different hand gestures and movements for each different function and each different
purpose
Q10 Interviewer – Would you consider using the system permanently?
A. Interviewee - I would but the issue is right now the mouse and keyboard is quite comfortable to
use, this would be a fun way to use your everyday computer but I wouldn’t actually replace the
mouse and keyboard there’s just too much control and too much I can do with it at the moment, and
this was quite frustrating to use
Q11 Interviewer – Did you find the system allowed you the freedom to do what you’d like?
A. Interviewee – not really there was a lot of constraints there was only a few functions and to be
honest I would find it a lot easier to do it with the click of a button, as oppose to creating all these
hand gestures and movements to do a simple task
Q12 Interviewer – Did you find the system provided you with sufficient feedback?
A. Interviewee – yeah because it wouldn’t actually allow me to complete a gesture it would get stuck
mid-way, so I found if you didn’t perform the gesture correctly it wouldn’t do what you wanted it to
do it just wouldn’t respond, for example I tried to turn the page and I had issues with it because it
wasn’t fully registering my hand motion whereby you had to cuff your hand or you have to point at
times it wouldn’t fully register that I was doing that
Q13 Interviewer – Did you find the system informed you of errors and helped navigating said
errors?
A. Interviewee – I don’t think it really informed me of errors because it’s not too conclusive yet, it
defiantly needs more work that’s what I’d say
Q14 Interviewer –Did you like the overall design of the system?
A. Interviewee – in terms of the device I like the terms of the device I like the device itself and the
user interface the whole leap motion kind of very fun to use it shows your hand gestures and
movements and registers it in a fun way, it doesn’t constrain you and in terms of being fun,
definitely
Q15 Interviewer – Is there anything else you would consider notable such as design flaws in the
system?
A. Interviewee – as I say the user interface was fun, for example when you point you would need to
for example play music, pause music I found that very enjoyable that was probably my most
enjoyable aspect, it would register my movement I could easily change the volume just by sliding my
finger around it was very fun and very easy to use.
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[58]
Q1 Interviewer – Out of 10 how easy was the system to learn?
A. Interviewee – I think I would give it around an 8/10 because at first it looks confusing but once
you get the hang of it I would say you can get it spot on every time
Q2 Interviewer – Out of 10 how effective was the system at carrying out tasks?
A. Interviewee – id have to give it a 6/10 because even though it worked for me you could still get it
wrong if your hand was in the wrong place
Q3 Interviewer – Out of 10 how efficient was the usability of the system?
A. Interviewee – I think a 7/10 because like the point I made earlier would be the way to use it, but
as I said once you get the hang of it the usability would be quite good
Q4 Interviewer – Out of 10 how enjoyable was the system to use?
A. Interviewee – I would give it a 9/10 because it is quite fun to manoeuvre around the operating
system in a different manor
Q5 Interviewer – Out of 10 how comfortable was the system to use?
A. Interviewee – I would have to give it a 5/10 because having your hand up in the air is quite
uncomfortable
Q6 Interviewer – Out of 10 how safe do you think the system is?
A. Interviewee – I guess but only if you take it to the extreme that you could hit someone with your
hand but I actually think it’s quite safe so I’d have to give it an 8/10
Q7 Interviewer – In your opinion what constraints do you think the system has?
A. Interviewee – well actually I think the gestures will be the main concern because obviously you’ll
run out of gestures eventually and it would be hard to complete some tasks
Q8 Interviewer – In your opinion what advantages do you think the system has?
A. Interviewee - I guess there are some people that have problems like carpel tunnel which would
make it easier for them to point at what they want and do the hand gestures instead
Q9 Interviewer – Is there any features you think could improve this technology?
A. Interviewee – I think maybe it would be good if it allowed you to have more interaction with the
system, and make it easier to manoeuvre it because some gestures are hard to get right
Q10 Interviewer – Would you consider using the system permanently?
A. Interviewee – if some changes were made then maybe I could but at the moment I could have it
permanently
Q11 Interviewer – Did you find the system allowed you the freedom to do what you’d like?
Transcript Raphy
Figure 20
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[59]
A. Interviewee – yeah I found that I did once I got to use it properly
Q12 Interviewer – Did you find the system provided you with sufficient feedback?
A. Interviewee – yeah there was on screen icons telling you what you were doing
Q13 Interviewer – Did you find the system informed you of errors and helped navigating said
errors?
A. Interviewee – I don’t think there were any messages or anything I did nothing until you fixed it
yourself
Q14 Interviewer –Did you like the overall design of the system?
A. Interviewee – the menus and icons are quite flat and modern looking
Q15 Interviewer – Is there anything else you would consider notable such as design flaws in the
system?
A. Interviewee - as I said the gestures would have to be better improved, I don’t know if it’s the
actual sensor or the coding
Q1 Interviewer – Out of 10 how easy was the system to learn?
A. Interviewee – it was 7/10 because there wasn’t many things for me to learn
Q2 Interviewer – Out of 10 how effective was the system at carrying out tasks?
A. Interviewee – id give it a 5/10 because it was very laggy and it took me a few tries to get what I
wanted
Q3 Interviewer – Out of 10 how efficient was the usability of the system?
A. Interviewee – I would give it a 3/10 because it didn’t really do what I wanted it to do in the time I
wanted it to do
Q4 Interviewer – Out of 10 how enjoyable was the system to use?
A. Interviewee – id give it an 8/10 because it was actually a lot of fun, something you wouldn’t
usually do with your laptop
Q5 Interviewer – Out of 10 how comfortable was the system to use?
A. Interviewee – it was about 4/10 because my hand was constantly up in the air which got quite
tiring
Q6 Interviewer – Out of 10 how safe do you think the system is?
A. Interviewee – its 8/10 there’s nothing unsafe about it
Transcript Anushea
Figure 21
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[60]
Q7 Interviewer – In your opinion what constraints do you think the system has?
A. Interviewee – it doesn’t allow me to do the things, besides what is programmed to do, so I have
no way of doing anything else besides what it can do
Q8 Interviewer – In your opinion what advantages do you think the system has?
A. Interviewee – I don’t really know of any advantages
Q9 Interviewer – Is there any features you think could improve this technology?
A. Interviewee – if it added more usage, as in if you could do a lot more things I.e. the camera of the
laptop
Q10 Interviewer – Would you consider using the system permanently?
A. Interviewee – I would if all the problems were ironed out then yes I would probably use it
Q11 Interviewer – Did you find the system allowed you the freedom to do what you’d like?
A. Interviewee – no, not really
Q12 Interviewer – Did you find the system provided you with sufficient feedback?
A. Interviewee – no it didn’t give any feedback actually
Q13 Interviewer – Did you find the system informed you of errors and helped navigating said
errors?
A. Interviewee – no which is why it was quite annoying because you would keep doing it and it
wasn’t telling you why it wasn’t doing it
Q14 Interviewer –Did you like the overall design of the system?
A. Interviewee – yeah it was good
Q15 Interviewer – Is there anything else you would consider notable such as design flaws in the
system?
A. Interviewee – no
Q1 Interviewer – Out of 10 how easy was the system to learn?
A. Interviewee – 8/10, because I think it’s very useful and you just need a bit of practise, otherwise it
is very easy, easy gesture and hand motions
Q2 Interviewer – Out of 10 how effective was the system at carrying out tasks?
A. Interviewee – 9/10 again because it’s easy to use and I think it’s very useful
Transcript Mahamad
Figure 22
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[61]
Q3 Interviewer – Out of 10 how efficient was the usability of the system?
A. Interviewee – 9/10 again because it’s very easy to use and you can easily get used to it
Q4 Interviewer – Out of 10 how enjoyable was the system to use?
A. Interviewee – quite enjoyable because you’ll use your hands without using anything else 9 or 8/10
Q5 Interviewer – Out of 10 how comfortable was the system to use?
A. Interviewee – it’s useful but sometimes when you can’t reach your laptop or computer you can
use your hand or hand gesture, and it might even be useful for disabled people 7/10
Q6 Interviewer – Out of 10 how safe do you think the system is?
A. Interviewee – 100% safe I don’t see any health hazards or issues with health and safety 10/10
Q7 Interviewer – In your opinion what constraints do you think the system has?
A. Interviewee – I don’t see any, with practise it’s very easy to use
Q8 Interviewer – In your opinion what advantages do you think the system has?
A. Interviewee – as I mentioned earlier it might be useful for disabled people and sometimes if you
can’t reach your laptop or your computer then this can be used as a replacement for your mouse
Q9 Interviewer – Is there any features you think could improve this technology?
A. Interviewee – I cannot think of anything
Q10 Interviewer – Would you consider using the system permanently?
A. Interviewee – yes
Q11 Interviewer – Did you find the system allowed you the freedom to do what you’d like?
A. Interviewee – yes the main functionalities for the mouse, this device is capable of doing all
functionalities a mouse can do
Q12 Interviewer – Did you find the system provided you with sufficient feedback?
A. Interviewee – yes
Q13 Interviewer – Did you find the system informed you of errors and helped navigating said
errors?
A. Interviewee – I didn’t experience any errors so I don’t know If the system is capable of reporting
any errors or popping up with any error messages
Q14 Interviewer –Did you like the overall design of the system?
A. Interviewee – yes very much so
Q15 Interviewer – Is there anything else you would consider notable such as design flaws in the
system?
A. Interviewee – the design I think is perfect
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[62]
Q1 Interviewer – Out of 10 how easy was the system to learn?
A. Interviewee – I would give the system an 8/10 in terms of its easiness to learn, as it wasn’t too
complicated and had quite easy steps
Q2 Interviewer – Out of 10 how effective was the system at carrying out tasks?
A. Interviewee – I believe the system would get another 8/10 for carrying out tasks as it was easy to
switch between screens, press play, fast forward, rewind etc.
Q3 Interviewer – Out of 10 how efficient was the usability of the system?
A. Interviewee – I believe I would give this a 6/10, although the usability was quite good at times the
responsiveness was not quite good at times I had to remove my hand from the screen and put it
back
Q4 Interviewer – Out of 10 how enjoyable was the system to use?
A. Interviewee – I believe I would give this a 7/10 as it was quite enjoyable but quite simple at the
same time
Q5 Interviewer – Out of 10 how comfortable was the system to use?
A. Interviewee – I believe I would give it a 6/10 it’s quite comfortable to use but it’s obviously easier
to use other forms or other methods
Q6 Interviewer – Out of 10 how safe do you think the system is?
A. Interviewee – id give it a 10/10 because there were no safety issues in relation to the system
Q7 Interviewer – In your opinion what constraints do you think the system has?
A. Interviewee – I would say the responsiveness for some aspects of the system could be improved
but apart from that nothing
Q8 Interviewer – In your opinion what advantages do you think the system has?
A. Interviewee – I would say the advantages are as it’s quite a new technology it is interesting to
those who haven’t used it before
Q9 Interviewer – Is there any features you think could improve this technology?
A. Interviewee – I would say apart from the responsiveness maybe that could be altered but apart
from that no
Q10 Interviewer – Would you consider using the system permanently?
A. Interviewee – yes I would say
Transcript Rhys
Figure 23
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[63]
Q11 Interviewer – Did you find the system allowed you the freedom to do what you’d like?
A. Interviewee – in terms of all the tasks that I wanted to do is say yes
Q12 Interviewer – Did you find the system provided you with sufficient feedback?
A. Interviewee – there was no real feedback from the system so it’s not applicable
Q13 Interviewer – Did you find the system informed you of errors and helped navigating said
errors?
A. Interviewee – no there was none of that
Q14 Interviewer –Did you like the overall design of the system?
A. Interviewee – yes I did like the design of the system
Q15 Interviewer – Is there anything else you would consider notable such as design flaws in the
system?
A. Interviewee – as I said apart from what I previously mentioned about the responsiveness nothing
at all
Q1 Interviewer – Out of 10 how easy was the system to learn?
A. Interviewee – I would say whilst the instructions are simplistic delivering them isn’t that easy to
do so on a scale of 1/10 I’d say 7
Q2 Interviewer – Out of 10 how effective was the system at carrying out tasks?
A. Interviewee – I thought that it is effective in carrying out the tasks but in terms of how user
friendly it is I can find that it is a bit frustrating that I can’t carry out the out the action or command
effectively which is something that I could have done manually in about 2 seconds I had to spend
more time, there is a level of physical activity involved, 7/10
Q3 Interviewer – Out of 10 how efficient was the usability of the system?
A. Interviewee – I think it is usable but if I had time constraints and if I wasn’t open to learning how
to use it I probably wouldn’t use it, in some ways it wasn’t practical 6/10
Q4 Interviewer – Out of 10 how enjoyable was the system to use?
A. Interviewee – I thought it was very enjoyable the experience for me was a new one, at some
moments it was very fun to play with and surreal, I was amazing and taken back by how the software
works and it was a good piece of software 10/10
Q5 Interviewer – Out of 10 how comfortable was the system to use?
A. Interviewee – I think I was over thinking it a bit and because of that I realised at some points I was
cramping my hand a little bit and that was uncomfortable, I imagine if somebody was using this for
Transcript Frmesk
Figure 24
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[64]
hours on end I can understand how this could cause some stiffness and I think something like this
should be used with relative ease and not have to think too much about 5/10
Q6 Interviewer – Out of 10 how safe do you think the system is?
A. Interviewee - I personally don’t see how it would affect safety, I would give it a 10 for safety
Q7 Interviewer – In your opinion what constraints do you think the system has?
A. Interviewee – the obvious is people that do not have full mobility in their limbs or hands for
example somebody that has osteoarthritis in their fingers would have a great deal of difficulty when
using something like this, so it isn’t for everybody and people with medical conditions, it does
impose some time constraints and is not the most reliable in carrying out some functions
Q8 Interviewer – In your opinion what advantages do you think the system has?
A. Interviewee – well it’s obviously a more advanced way of operating a system I would that it might
depend and it offers those people that do want to sort of want to be as glued to a monitor or screen
a chance to lay back and interact with the system in a more laid back way so using motions as
opposed to being glued to a screen and actually browsing and operating using controls
Q9 Interviewer – Is there any features you think could improve this technology?
A. Interviewee – id say it just needs to be a bit more reliable, one thing that might make users more
comfortable is setting gestures and motions that it carries out. Some people might feel more
comfortable carrying out certain gestures so if it was a bit more adaptable to a user and a bit more
reliable and specific and more sensitive than it would be a better product
Q10 Interviewer – Would you consider using the system permanently?
A. Interviewee – I think It would take me a while to get used to it but just my experience of using it
for 30 seconds I would rather use a touch keypad or the keyboard controller or even just a
touchscreen laptop, for me it’s a lot easier to navigate the system that way, if I had more of a chance
of getting to grips and be more comfortable with the product I might consider using it but I also
think where it’s not as sensitive as id like I was getting a bit frustrated with the commands
Q11 Interviewer – Did you find the system allowed you the freedom to do what you’d like?
A. Interviewee – I think I tested around 4 commands so it allowed me to switch between pages
switch between a browser and iTunes and play music that’s the only functions I tested, in terms of
other things such as searching for something in a web browser I don’t know how the system would
allow me to do that. So I think that it was quite constrict in what I did offer me but it did allow me to
do a lot of things but it was constricted
Q12 Interviewer – Did you find the system provided you with sufficient feedback?
A. Interviewee – some commands were more effective than others for example the pinching
ascending and descending, scrolling up and down that was very easy to do, allowing volume controls
with pointing actions switching between songs with pause and play that was easy to do, the only
thing I had difficulty with was switching between browsers I felt that if this was a simpler task then it
would be a lot easier to navigate through
Q13 Interviewer – Did you find the system informed you of errors and helped navigating said
errors?
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[65]
A. Interviewee – no I don’t feel that it did
Q14 Interviewer –Did you like the overall design of the system?
A. Interviewee – yes I felt like I was interacting with what I was doing more so than when I was
usually navigating the system so in that aspect I felt that because there was a practical application to
it I had to think a lot more about it and overall it was a more engaging process but not an easier one
Q15 Interviewer – Is there anything else you would consider notable such as design flaws in the
system?
A. Interviewee – the only thing I’d say is sensitivity, the only thing I would change is the sensitivity
reliability of the product and also to be able to adapt the product to the user so they would be able
to implement their own motions for command
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[66]
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[67]
Figure 25
Figure 26
Figure 27
7, 50% 8, 50%
Q1: Out of 10 How Easy Was The System To Learn
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
5 16%
6 33%
7 17%
8 17%
9 17%
Q2: How Effective Was The System At Carrying Out Tasks
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[68]
Figure 28
Figure 29
3 16%
6 33%
7 17%
9 17%
10 17%
Q3: Out of 10 How Efficent Was The Usability Of The System
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
7 17%
8 33%
9 17%
10 33%
Q4: Out of 10 How Enjoyable Was The System To Use
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[69]
Figure 30
Figure 31
4 33%
5 33%
6 17%
7 17%
Q5: Out of 10 How Comfortable is The System To Use
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
3 14%
8 43%
10 43%
Q6: Out of 10 How Safe Do You Think The System Is
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[70]
Figure 32
Figure 33
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[71]
Figure 34
Figure 35
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[72]
Figure 36
Figure 37
The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi
[73]
Table 8
Leap Motion Issues
Usability Basic in usability
Not complex enough to be considered
seriously applicable to modern
computing.
User Experience Frustrating within some aspects
No error reporting
Positives Fun to use
easily understandable