1 / 62

Exploiting the Cognitive and Social Benefits of Physically Large Displays

Exploiting the Cognitive and Social Benefits of Physically Large Displays. Desney S. Tan Thesis Proposal. Thesis Committee: Randy Pausch (Chair) Jessica Hodgins Scott Hudson Mary Czerwinski, Microsoft Research. Mechanical Issues. Software. Hardware. Towards Human-Centered Computing.

min
Download Presentation

Exploiting the Cognitive and Social Benefits of Physically Large Displays

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Exploiting the Cognitive and Social Benefits of Physically Large Displays Desney S. Tan Thesis Proposal Thesis Committee: Randy Pausch (Chair) Jessica Hodgins Scott Hudson Mary Czerwinski, Microsoft Research

  2. Mechanical Issues Software Hardware Towards Human-Centered Computing Physically Large Displays Cognitive Issues Social Issues Mechanical Issues Human-Computer Interaction Software Hardware

  3. Ignore Science Fiction at Our Peril Captain’s workplace on USS Enterprise

  4. Large Displays are Here Gary Bishop’s workplace at UNC

  5. Small vs. Large Displays

  6. Thesis Statement “Information elicits fundamentally different cognitive and social reactions when presented on large wall-sized displays as compared to smaller displays, even at identical visual angles. These reactions can be quantified and understood in controlled experiments and can be exploited to design display systems that make users more productive than they were on traditional systems.”

  7. Outline • Introduction • General approach • Spatial cognition • Social environments • More proposed work • Expected contributions • Proposed schedule • Conclude

  8. General Approach HCI Iterative Design Controlled Experiments/ Evaluation Identify Promising Areas Formulate Design Principles Anecdotal Evidence Prototype Systems Prior Theoretical Research

  9. Outline • Introduction • General approach • Spatial cognition • Social environments • More proposed work • Expected contributions • Proposed schedule • Conclude

  10. 76" Large Projection Display 136" 14" 19"Desktop Monitor 25" Experimental Setup

  11. Experimental Setup (actual) Small Display Large Display

  12. Initial Exploratory Experiments • Reading task: No performance difference • Spatial task: Large display 26% improvement

  13. Guilford-Zimmerman Spatial Task 1 2 3 4 5

  14. Spatial Task Procedure • Paper-based instructions • 3 practice questions • Feedback provided • 30 questions in each display condition • 5 minutes for each condition • No feedback

  15. Proportion Correct Small Display Large Display Spatial Task Performance N=24

  16. Follow-up Experiments: Hypotheses • Egocentric strategy more efficient than exocentric one for spatial orientation task • Telling users is sufficient to bias them • With no explicit strategy, display size biases users differently: • Small displays → exocentric strategy • Large displays → egocentric strategy

  17. Three Different Instruction Sets • Unbiased (original Guilford-Zimmerman): • “The boat is moving.” • Egocentric bias: • “Imagine standing on a boat that is moving.” • Exocentric bias: • “Imagine standing on a boat that is firmly attached to the ground. A painted image is moving in front of you.”

  18. Experimental Procedure • Design: • 42 participants • Same setup and procedure as before Instruction Set (between Ss) Exocentric Unbiased (Experiment 1) Egocentric Small Display (within Ss) Large

  19. Different No Difference No Difference Proportion Correct Exocentric Instructions Unbiased Instructions Egocentric Instructions Spatial Results Small Display Large Display Small Display Large Display Small Display Large Display

  20. Spatial Cognition: Proposed Work • Examine interaction: • Will interaction create egocentric biases that negate the effects of screen size? • Generalize: • For what tasks does this hold? • Specify concrete principles for designing large display interfaces and systems

  21. Outline • Introduction • General approach • Spatial cognition • Social environments • More proposed work • Expected contributions • Proposed schedule • Conclude

  22. Social Environments • Exploit social cues induced by physical size: • Help people communicate • Increase productivity on individual tasks • Must quantify in order to exploit • Information on large displays more public • Ask user? Cannot guarantee accuracy • Video? Cannot disambiguate glance from reading

  23. Measuring ‘Peeking’ • Implicit memory priming paradigm • Expose user to stimulus • Test user implicitly on how much they’ve processed stimulus • Word Stem Completion • Eg. Mon_____ • Priming measured by faster response or higher frequency of stimulus • Monkey, money, monster, monday, monopoly, …

  24. Experiment Materials • Stimulus: 30 carefully chosen words • 7 e-mail subject lines • 2 e-mail messages • Place e-mail where it can be seen by user • Priming test to see if they’ve read it • Word stem completion

  25. Experimental Setup 114″ 66″ 16″ 27.5″ Large Projection Screen 156″ Small Desktop Monitor 38″ Experimenter Participant

  26. Implicit Memory Results N=12 Average # of Target Words N=12 Small Display Large Display

  27. Other Converging Measures • Users admitted reading text on: • Large Screen (7/12) vs. Small Screen (3/12) • Comments indicate reading someone else’s e-mail more acceptable on large screen • Video shows users glanced at: • Large Screen (M=19 seconds) vs. Small Screen (M=14 seconds)

  28. Social Environments: Summary • Implicit memory priming paradigms effective for measuring if someone has peeked at text • People are more willing to read someone else’s e-mail on large wall-sized displays than on smaller displays • Even with identical visual angles and legibility

  29. Social Environments: Proposed Work • Understand why large displays more public • Physical proximity of information to owner? • Wall-mounted nature of large display? • Protect private information from prying eyes • Private information never placed on public screens • Interface conventions that convey level of privacy • Facilitate ad hoc collaboration • Display systems that make people interact more

  30. Outline • Introduction • General approach • Spatial cognition • Social environments • More proposed work • Expected contributions • Proposed schedule • Conclude

  31. More Proposed Work • Defining large displays: • Do users rely more on environmental or optical cues in perceiving physical size? • What is the optimal physical size? • Subjective responses: • Are there specific tasks that users prefer performing on large displays? • Are users more motivated by large displays?

  32. Outline • Introduction • General approach • Spatial cognition • Social environments • More proposed work • Expected contributions • Proposed schedule • Conclude

  33. Expected Contributions • Fundamental understanding of physical display size on information perception and task performance • New paradigms to measure display benefits • Applications that large displays benefit • Principles for designing large display systems

  34. Proposed Schedule Present: March Completion: May July October February Spatial Cognition Social Environments Defining Large Displays Subjective Response Microsoft Research Internship Thesis writing

  35. Conclusions • New Approach • Physical size of displays, even viewed at identical visual angles, affects performance • Formulate design principles for building large display systems • Initial Results • Spatial cognition: Large displays bias users into more efficient egocentric strategies • Social environments: Large displays are more public

  36. Conclusions • Proposed Work • Extend results and find concrete applications in: • Spatial cognition • Social environments • Define what makes large displays different • Understand subjective responses to large displays

  37. Acknowledgments

  38. The End… Or has it just Begun?

  39. Exploiting the Cognitive and Social Benefits of Physically Large Displays Desney S. Tan Thesis Proposal Thesis Committee: Randy Pausch (Chair) Jessica Hodgins Scott Hudson Mary Czerwinski, Microsoft Research

  40. Visual Perception Perceived image Retinal image Physical object

  41. Display Garden

  42. 136" 76" 25" 14" 10.5" 57" Desktop Monitor Large Projection Display 48" Small vs. Large Displays (schematic)

  43. Reading Task • 1 practice + 6 test GRE passages • 24 participants • No significant differences in reading speed or comprehension Font Size (within Ss) 10 pt 14 pt 18 pt Small Display (within Ss) Large

  44. Harder Guilford-Zimmerman Question 1 2 3 4 5

  45. End Start Spatial Updating: New Paradigm • Navigate through virtual ‘maze’ • Spatially update mental map • At the end, point at direction of objects

  46. Spatial Updating: Design • Hypothesis: Physically large displays provide cues that allow for more efficient egocentric navigation even when the user has active control of a first person viewpoint Control (within Ss) Passive Active Small Display (within Ss) Large

  47. Spatial Updating: Prior Findings • Egocentric strategy faster and more accurate than exocentric strategy • The more cues present, the better • Proprioceptive cues better than visual cues or imagination • Active control better than passive viewing

  48. Large Projection Display 66″ Small Desktop Monitors 103″ 16″ 25″ Notification Study: Setup

  49. (a) Monitor: Near-within (b) Monitor: Near-across (c) Monitor: Far-across (d) Projector: Near-within (e) Projector: Near-across (f) Projector: Far-across Notification Study: Conditions

  50. Notification Study: Tasks • Primary task – Proofreading • Identify grammatical errors within text article • Secondary task – Notification Detection • Detect visual changes outside the focal region • Tertiary task – Text Comparison • Determine whether two sets of text were identical

More Related