Loading...
Please wait, while we are loading the content...
Similar Documents
Casual Interaction : Scaling Fidelity for Low-Engagement Interactions
| Content Provider | Semantic Scholar |
|---|---|
| Author | Pohl, Henning |
| Copyright Year | 2014 |
| Abstract | control of mood by waving over the device. Two different ways to interact are available above the device. In both cases, the user does not need to closely observe the device anymore. Immediately above the device, moving the fingers back and forth can be used to control the brightness of the light, while rotating the hand changes the hue. Here, a comparably high level of control is retained while the demand of engagement with the device is much lower than with precise touch interaction. Finally, a user can just wave the hand above the device, signaling it to change to a different mood setting. No fine color control can be exerted in this case, but at the same time the engagement demand is much lower than in the other cases. Now, a mood change can be made without close interaction with the device—it can happen in the background/periphery of the user. Note how at all time the user gets to take back control and intervene if more precise command specification is desired. This can be as simple as grabbing the device instead of gesturing above it. By enabling the user to make an active choice of engagement level, the system is relieved from determining that level itself. While some previous work exists (e.g., by Horvitz [7]) that tries to estimate how much control a user requires at a moment, we postulate that a user will always know best how much control she indeed wants. The focused–casual continuum also explicitly allows for more than two levels of control/engagement (other than agents that either take over or not). What Motivates Users to Interact more Casually? We identify three categories of reasons users are prohibited from or unwilling to fully engage with their devices: social, mental, or physical constraints. Social Constraints Close interaction with a system is not socially acceptable in all situations. Users adapt their behavior to their current surroundings and settings like a family dinner are less appropriate for device use than an evening alone on the couch. Depending on the situation, users might even deliberately show disengagement from their device to project a more attentive self [6]. Mental Constraints When distracted or tired, users are less able to focus on an interaction. Even primary task, are shifting in and out of users’ focus [1]. Ultimately, users can only make so many active choices [2] and offering them a way to interact at a lower level of control would already be worthwhile. Physical Constraints Physical reasons for users being unable to exert full control can be as drastic as missing limbs or as basic as wearing gloves. Systems should not assume that a user at any given moment is able to invest the full range of agility and precision in a task. Think of carrying a number of shopping bags: touch interaction with a phone is harder in those circumstances, but wished for nonetheless. In all this situations, users are less able to interact with their devices yet not necessarily less desiring to do so. By allowing them to interact at reduced levels of engagement (and thus control), we can give them a way to retain some control and not give it up completely (e.g., to an agent). Touch |
| File Format | PDF HTM / HTML |
| Alternate Webpage(s) | https://hci.uni-hannover.de/papers/Pohl2014WorkshopCHI.pdf |
| Language | English |
| Access Restriction | Open |
| Content Type | Text |
| Resource Type | Article |
