june 3, 20021 origami desk integrating technological innovation and human-centric design research...
TRANSCRIPT
June 3, 2002 1
Origami Desk Integrating Technological Innovation and Human-centric Design Research
Wendy JuDesign DivisionMechanical Engineering
DepartmentStanford University
June 3, 2002 2
Origami Desk: Project DescriptionWendy Ju
project leadinteraction design
Tilke JuddRebecca HurwitzJennifer Yoon
interface design
Leonardo Bonanni architecture
Wendy JuMatthew ReynoldsRichard FletcherRehmi Post
hardware and software
June 3, 2002 3
Research in Interactive Spaces
Interactive environments can help people do things and learn to do things, not just do things for them.1
Principles of interactive environment design include: invisibility, manual override, feedback and adaptability.2
These principles require technological innovations that allow people to get feedback and adaptation without explicit interaction with a computer.3
1 Bush, “ As We May Think,” The Atlantic Monthly. July 1945: 101-1082 Cooperstock, Fels, Buxton, Smith, Reactive Environments, Com.ACM, Sept 1997: 65-733 Neilson, “Noncommand User Interfaces,” Communications of the ACM, April 1993: 83-99
June 3, 2002 4
Difficulties people have folding origami:
mapping instructions to spatial locations. (Where do I fold?)
translating discrete diagrams to dynamic actions. (How do I fold?)
perceiving if they are proceeding correctly. (Did I fold this right?)
A key problem is the disjoint between real and virtual worlds. 1
1 Ockerman, Najjar, Thompson “Evaluation of a wearable computer performance support system” in Educational Multimedia/Hypermedia and Telecommunications. 1997:788-793
User Experiences with Origami
June 3, 2002 5
Human-centric reasons for fold-sensing Provides positive feedback Decreases uncertainty Prevents errors early in process
Technological reasons for fold-sensing Origami is a spatial task Instructions are easily modeled Paper provides a tangible means of tracking
progress Lessons, technologies can be generalized to
other spatial, linear tasks.
Fold Sensing in Origami Desk
June 3, 2002 6
Advantages of tags: 1,2 Low cost Consistent response Obstruction
independent Orientation
independent
Hypothesis: Radio-frequency Electromagnetic coils (“tags”) can be used to sense dynamic act of folding
1 Want, Fishkin, Gujar, Harrison. “Bridging Physical and Virtual Worlds with Electronic Tags,” in Computer Human Interactions 1999 (CHI’99): 370-3772 Gershenfeld, Fletcher. US Patent No. 6025725A: Electrically Active Resonant Structures for Wireless Monitoring and Control, MIT Media Lab 2000
Electromagnetic Tags for Fold Sensing
June 3, 2002 9
Fold Sensing: Paper
Five resonant tags (8.2, 12.9, 15.4, 21.5, 25.5 MHz) from Miyake, Inc.
Tested for variations in tag placement, folding
18 unique signatures out of 28 possible positions detectable
Mounted on 15cmx15cm translucent vellum paper
The Origami paper was designed to provide feedback on a folded box pattern.
June 3, 2002 10
Fold Sensing: Tag Reader Design
Swept-frequency sensor with 18cmx18cm single turn copper coil
Frequency range between 6.5 MHz to 26.5 MHz
~10 sweeps a second, sampling at 0.2MHz intervals
The fold sensing reader was modified from an existing tag-sensor design.
June 3, 2002 12
Fold Sensing: State RecognitionSimple state recognition was used to
determine what steps users were at. Used 5-point running average with
baseline subtracted out. Picked frequencies where delta V reading
was above threshold. Assigned peaks to various frequency
“buckets.” Formed 8-bit bucket signature to map to
various states.
June 3, 2002 13
Technical Design Results
Fold sensing demonstrated promise in the lab:
Can consistently distinguish sub-folds for eight of the eleven steps for Origami Box
Register folds three out of four times in practice
Robust in face of sensor placement, user fold speeds, station variations
June 3, 2002 14
Human-centered Design ResultsFold sensing did NOT lead to success in field: Limited field testing: differing noise conditions,
and need automated setup and calibration routines.
Limited user response: feedback response was too subtle and somewhat inconsistent, occasionally motivated bad folding to see response.
Introducing new failure modes: thickness of the paper and tags made folding physically harder.
No net negative impact due to design for technological risk mitigation.
June 3, 2002 15
Failure AnalysisTypical user failure modes changed with design of
rest of system. Difficulty resolving video instructions. Reorientation Forget substeps
Demonstrated functionality and “real” functionality are very different things. Wider array of test populations, conditions Need to decouple feedback response design
from sensing mechanismInitial design overlooked setup and calibration as
aspects in system design.
June 3, 2002 16
Design Guidelines (in progress)
Invisibility Coherency: Make tools usage, intent self-evident without distracting from core task.
Adaptability: Test in near field conditions with wide array of user populations
Feedback: Use wizard-of-oz techniques to test feedback mechanisms independently of sensing technologies
Comprehensiveness: Use solutions that integrate not only dynamic capabilities of computers, but also of physical context, perspective, process and interaction
June 3, 2002 17
Paths to Publication Criticisms:
What is original about this work? What is the right way to situate the work? What is the proper way to capture user
response? What is the important contribution made in this
work?
Audience: More technical venue? More design-oriented venue? More education-oriented venue?
June 3, 2002 18
Future work… Design methodology, metrics
Interdisciplinary design methods Formalization of user needs, systems
interactions Event recognition and inference
User workflow modeling Multi-sensor strategies for robustness,
breadth “Smarter” event inference techniques