http://web.ist.utl.pt/joao.costa.fernandes/survey/1.pdf

Foi analisada e discutida alguns dos comentários feito ao documento de estrutura do projecto de mestrado.

Foram abordados os prazos de entrega tendo ficado definido que até a próxima reunião (25-11-2009) seria apresentado as duas primeiras secções para revisão (introdução e trabalho relacionado).

Apresenta como dispositivo de entrada uma caneta, é assim limitado na medida em que não existe qualquer aproveitamento do espaço que rodeia o quadro sendo toda a interacção realizada sobre o plano de visualização.

Download

O artigo aponta a necessidade de este tipo de ambientes possuírem uma interactividade mais rica e assim tenta transpor a metáfora do “tape drawing” usada no passado da industria automóvel para a criação de modelos 3D em escala real. O artigo apresenta assim uma aplicação interactiva em ambientes de visualização de larga escala usando como dispositivos de interacção: “Ascension Flock-of-Birds six degree-of-freedom tracker”

Grossman, T., Balakrishnan, R., Kurtenbach, G., Fitzmaurice, G, Khan, A. & Buxton, W. (2001).  Interaction techniques for 3D modeling on large displays.  Proceedings of the 2001ACM Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics, 17-23.

A industria automóvel possuir requisitos muito próprios no que diz respeito ao desenho e validação de novos automóveis, várias técnicas foram usadas no passado como esboços, desenhos, plantas etc…

Com o desenvolvimento tecnológico é hoje possível tirar partido de grandes superfícies de visualização muitas vezes interactivas de forma a visualizar modelos muitas vezes em tamanho real.

O artigo apresenta ainda uma analise de vários ambientes deste tipo, apresentando uma aplicação real deste tipo de cenários.

Buxton, W., Fitzmaurice, G.  Balakrishnan, R. &  Kurtenbach, G. (2000). Large Displays in Automotive Design. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 20(4), 68-75..

• Círculos em torno de objectos para selecção de um ou grupos de objectos
• Uso do drag para movimentar objectos
• Traçar uma linha sobre objectos para apagar os mesmo

O artigo remonta o ano de 1991.

É interessante perceber de que forma é que estes conceitos poderão ser aplicado no contexto de visualização de larga escala para enriquecer as possibilidades de interacção com cenas 3D.

Referência:

Kurtenbach, G. & Buxton, W. (1991). GEdit: a testbed for editing by contiguous gesture. SIGCHI Bulletin, 23(2), 22 – 26.

Download

O estudo procura perceber de que forma é que o uso deste tipo de gestos pode melhorar tarefas como selecção e movimentação de objectos propondo algumas metáforas que já encontrei em outros trabalhos.

“In everyday life, physical gestures are a powerful means of communication. A set of physical gestures may constitute an entire language, as in sign languages. They can economically convey a rich set of facts and feelings. For example, waving one’s hand from side to side can mean anything from a “happy goodbye” to “caution”. Use of the full potential of physical gesture is also something that most humancomputer dialogues lack.

Experimentation with gestures and their composition is essential. For this, powerful programming environments are required. These environments do not currently exist, and consequently gesture-driven dialogues can be unreasonably difficult to implement. Future programming environments must facilitate experimentation with gesture-based dialogues with the same simplicity and efficiency that parsergenerators currently permit with command languages, and User Interface Management Systems permit with menus.”

Referência:

Buxton, W., Fiume, E., Hill, R., Lee, A. & Woo, C. (1983). Continuous Hand-Gesture Driven Input. Proceedings of Graphics Interface ’83, 9th Conference of the Canadian Man-Computer Communications Society, Edmonton, May 1983, 191-195.

inproceedings(555555555555)

Araújo, B., G.T.J.J.P.J.J.

Leme Wall: Desenvolvendo um sistema de Multi-projecção

Proceeding of 13º EPCG

2005

inproceedings(1107579)

Bi, X., Shi, Y., Chen, X. & Xiang, P.

Facilitating interaction with large displays in smart spaces

sOc-EUSAI ’05: Proceedings of the 2005 joint conference on Smart objects and ambient intelligence

ACM, 2005, pp. 105-110

inproceedings(964716)

Cao, X. & Balakrishnan, R.

VisionWand: interaction techniques for large displays using a passive wand tracked in 3D

UIST ’03: Proceedings of the 16th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology

ACM, 2003, pp. 173-182

inproceedings(1544260)

Declec, F., Hachety, M. & Guitton, P.

Tech-note: ScrutiCam: Camera manipulation technique for 3D objects inspection

3DUI ’09: Proceedings of the 2009 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces

IEEE Computer Society, 2009, pp. 19-22

book(citeulike:325796)

Dix, A., Finlay, J.E., Abowd, G.D. & Beale, R.

Human-Computer Interaction (3rd Edition)

Prentice Hall, Hardcover, 2003

article(1698228)

English, W., Engelbart, D. & Berman, M.

Display-Selection Techniques for Text Manipulation

Human Factors in Electronics, IEEE Transactions on, 1967, Vol. HFE-8(1), pp. 5-15

inproceedings(1357074)

Greenberg, S. & Buxton, B.

Usability evaluation considered harmful (some of the time)

CHI ’08: Proceeding of the twenty-sixth annual SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems

ACM, 2008, pp. 111-120

misc(patent:4414537)

Grimes, Gary J. (Thornton, C.

Digital data entry glove interface device

1983(4414537)

inproceedings(364341)

Grossman, T., Balakrishnan, R., Kurtenbach, G., Fitzmaurice, G., Khan, A. & Buxton, B.

Interaction techniques for 3D modeling on large displays

I3D ’01: Proceedings of the 2001 symposium on Interactive 3D graphics

ACM, 2001, pp. 17-23

inproceedings(509738)

Hachet, M. & Guitton, P.

The interaction table: a new input device designed for interaction in immersive large display environments

EGVE ’02: Proceedings of the workshop on Virtual environments 2002

Eurographics Association, 2002, pp. 189-196

inproceedings(Hinckley_thevideomouse)

Hinckley, K., Sinclair, M., Hanson, E., Szeliski, R. & Conway, M.

The VideoMouse: A Camera-Based Multi-Degree-of-Freedom Input Device

ACM UIST’99 Symposium on User Interface Software & Technology

Press, , pp. 103-112

inproceedings(1124937)

Jiang, H., Ofek, E., Moraveji, N. & Shi, Y.

Direct pointer: direct manipulation for large-display interaction using handheld cameras

CHI ’06: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems

ACM, 2006, pp. 1107-1110

article(1278241)

Lantz, E.

A survey of large-scale immersive displays

EDT ’07: Proceedings of the 2007 workshop on Emerging displays technologies

ACM, 2007, pp. 1

inproceedings(650716)

MacKenzie, I.S. & Jusoh, S.

An Evaluation of Two Input Devices for Remote Pointing

EHCI ’01: Proceedings of the 8th IFIP International Conference on Engineering for Human-Computer Interaction

Springer-Verlag, 2001, pp. 235-250

inproceedings(97898)

Mackinlay, J.D., Card, S.K. & Robertson, G.G.

Rapid controlled movement through a virtual 3D workspace

SIGGRAPH ’90: Proceedings of the 17th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques

ACM, 1990, pp. 171-176

inproceedings(1315241)

Moritz, E., Hagen, H., Wischgoll, T. & Meyer, J.

Usability of multiple degree-of-freedom input devices and virtual reality displays for interactive visual data analysis

VRST ’07: Proceedings of the 2007 ACM symposium on Virtual reality software and technology

ACM, 2007, pp. 243-244

article(10.1109/3DUI.2009.4811202)

Peck, S.M., North, C. & Bowman, D.

A multiscale interaction technique for large, high-resolution displays

3D User Interfaces, IEEE Computer Society, 2009, Vol. 0, pp. 31-38

inproceedings(1450666)

Reuter, P., Rivière, G., Couture, N., Mahut, S., Sorraing, N. & Espinasse, L.

ArcheoTUI – tangible interaction with foot pedal declutching for the virtual reassembly of fractured archeological objects

VRST ’08: Proceedings of the 2008 ACM symposium on Virtual reality software and technology

ACM, 2008, pp. 307-308

article(1506200)

Sales Dias, M., Bastos, R., Fernandes, Jo a., Tavares, Jo a. & Santos, P.

Using Hand Gesture and Speech in a Multimodal Augmented Reality Environment

Springer-Verlag, 2009, pp. 175-180

inproceedings(1409076)

Shiratori, T. & Hodgins, J.K.

Accelerometer-based user interfaces for the control of a physically simulated character

SIGGRAPH Asia ’08: ACM SIGGRAPH Asia 2008 papers

ACM, 2008, pp. 1-9

inproceedings(1077571)

Simon, A. & Doulis, M.

NOYO: 6DOF elastic rate control for virtual environments

VRST ’04: Proceedings of the ACM symposium on Virtual reality software and technology

ACM, 2004, pp. 178-181

inproceedings(810742)

Sutherland, I.E.

Sketch pad a man-machine graphical communication system

DAC ’64: Proceedings of the SHARE design automation workshop

ACM, 1964, pp. 6.329-6.346

inproceedings(1459491)

Zhang, L., Shi, Y. & Fan, M.

UCam: direct manipulation using handheld camera for 3d gesture interaction

MM ’08: Proceeding of the 16th ACM international conference on Multimedia

ACM, 2008, pp. 801-804

book(61975)

A history of personal workstations

Goldberg, A. (ed.)

ACM, 1988, pp. 68

techreport(133967)

ACM SIGCHI curricula for human-computer interaction

ACM, 1992

This article defend that usability evaluation is now a standard in research and in academia but many times this evaluation can limit new ideas since they often cannot be tested with the available metrics.

Although in most f the cases this evaluations can accomplish their objectives is not clear that they can do it in all the cases especially in the cases where we have a clear lack of quantitative metrics.

“Within HCI research and academia, researchers employ usability evaluation to validate novel design ideas and systems, usually by showing that human performance or work practices are somehow improved when compared to some baseline set of metrics (e.g., other competing ideas), or that people can achieve a stated goal when using this system (e.g., performance measures, task completions), or that their processes and outcomes improve.

Clearly, usability evaluation is valuable for many situations, as it often helps validate both research ideas and products at varying stages in its lifecycle. Indeed, we (the authors) have advocated and practiced usability evaluation in both research and academia for many decades. We believe that the community should continue to evaluate usability for many – but not all – interface development situations. What we will argue is that there are some situations where usability evaluation can be considered harmful: we have to recognize these situations, and we should consider alternative methods instead of blindly following the
usability evaluation doctrine. Usability evaluation, if wrongfully applied, can quash potentially valuable ideas early in the design process, incorrectly promote poor ideas, misdirect developers into solving minor vs. major problems, or ignore (or incorrectly suggest) how a design would be adopted and used in everyday practice.

ACM CHI 2008 Guide to Successful Submissions states:
“does your contribution take the form of a design for a new interface, interaction technique or design tool? If so, you will
probably want to demonstrate ‘evaluation’ validity, by subjecting your design to tests that demonstrate its effectiveness.

ACM CHI publications: evaluations are dominated by quantitative empirical usability evaluations (about 70%) followed by qualitative usability evaluations (about 25%).”

http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=1357054.1357074#