Human-Computer Interaction - INTERACT 2009: 12th IFIP TC 13 International Conference, Uppsala, Sweden, August 24-28, 2009, Proceedigns Part II ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Lecture Notes in Computer Science Commenced Publication in 1973 Founding and Former Series Editors: Gerhard Goos, Juris ...

Author: Tom Gross | Jan Gulliksen | Paula Kotzé | Lars Oestreicher | Philippe Palanque | Raquel Oliveira Prates | Marco Winckler

4 downloads 856 Views 28MB Size Report

This content was uploaded by our users and we assume good faith they have the permission to share this book. If you own the copyright to this book and it is wrongfully on our website, we offer a simple DMCA procedure to remove your content from our site. Start by pressing the button below!
Report copyright / DMCA form

DOWNLOAD PDF

Lecture Notes in Computer Science Commenced Publication in 1973 Founding and Former Series Editors: Gerhard Goos, Juris Hartmanis, and Jan van Leeuwen

Editorial Board David Hutchison Lancaster University, UK Takeo Kanade Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA Josef Kittler University of Surrey, Guildford, UK Jon M. Kleinberg Cornell University, Ithaca, NY, USA Alfred Kobsa University of California, Irvine, CA, USA Friedemann Mattern ETH Zurich, Switzerland John C. Mitchell Stanford University, CA, USA Moni Naor Weizmann Institute of Science, Rehovot, Israel Oscar Nierstrasz University of Bern, Switzerland C. Pandu Rangan Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, India Bernhard Steffen University of Dortmund, Germany Madhu Sudan Microsoft Research, Cambridge, MA, USA Demetri Terzopoulos University of California, Los Angeles, CA, USA Doug Tygar University of California, Berkeley, CA, USA Gerhard Weikum Max-Planck Institute of Computer Science, Saarbruecken, Germany

5727

Tom Gross Jan Gulliksen Paula Kotzé Lars Oestreicher Philippe Palanque Raquel Oliveira Prates Marco Winckler (Eds.)

Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2009 12th IFIP TC 13 International Conference Uppsala, Sweden, August 24-28, 2009 Proceedings, Part II

13

Volume Editors Tom Gross Bauhaus University Weimar, 99423 Weimar, Germany E-mail: [email protected] Jan Gulliksen Uppsala University, 75105 Uppsala, Sweden E-mail: [email protected] Paula Kotzé Meraka Institute, 0001 Pretoria, South Africa E-mail: [email protected] Lars Oestreicher Uppsala University, 75120 Uppsala, Sweden E-mail: [email protected] Philippe Palanque Marco Winckler University Paul Sabatier, 31062 Toulouse Cedex, France E-mail: {palanque, winckler}@irit.fr Raquel Oliveira Prates Universidade Federal de Minas Gerais, 31270010 Belo Horizonte, MG, Brazil E-mail: [email protected]

Library of Congress Control Number: 2009932606 CR Subject Classification (1998): H.5.2, H.5.3, H.3-5, I.2.10, D.2, K.3-4, K.8 LNCS Sublibrary: SL 3 – Information Systems and Application, incl. Internet/Web and HCI ISSN ISBN-10 ISBN-13

0302-9743 3-642-03657-0 Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York 978-3-642-03657-6 Springer Berlin Heidelberg New York

This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, re-use of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other way, and storage in data banks. Duplication of this publication or parts thereof is permitted only under the provisions of the German Copyright Law of September 9, 1965, in its current version, and permission for use must always be obtained from Springer. Violations are liable to prosecution under the German Copyright Law. springer.com © IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2009 Printed in Germany Typesetting: Camera-ready by author, data conversion by Scientific Publishing Services, Chennai, India Printed on acid-free paper SPIN: 12740727 06/3180 543210

Foreword

INTERACT 2009 was the 12th of a series of INTERACT international conferences supported by the IFIP Technical Committee 13 on Human–Computer Interaction. This year, INTERACT was held in Uppsala (Sweden), organized by the Swedish Interdisciplinary Interest Group for Human–Computer Interaction (STIMDI) in cooperation with the Department of Information Technology at Uppsala University. Like its predecessors, INTERACT 2009 highlighted, both to the academic and to the industrial world, the importance of the human–computer interaction (HCI) area and its most recent breakthroughs on current applications. Both experienced HCI researchers and professionals, as well as newcomers to the HCI field, interested in designing or evaluating interactive software, developing new interaction technologies, or investigating overarching theories of HCI, found in INTERACT 2009 a great forum for communication with people of similar interests, to encourage collaboration and to learn. INTERACT 2009 had Research and Practice as its special theme. The reason we selected this theme is that the research within the field has drifted away from the practical applicability of its results and that the HCI practice has come to disregard the knowledge and development within the academic community. However, to continue to develop and prosper, the HCI community needs to pay more attention to the cooperation and mutual learning between research and practice. We witness accidents happening in health care, airplanes crashing due to problems in their operation, we see tremendous money losses due to inefficiencies in computer support. On a smaller scale we find many tools and applications that are, if not difficult, annoying to use for reasons that are well known. At the same time we see an amazing development of new IT designs, games, robots and applications designed for pleasure and fun. IT is an essential source for efficiency and productivity in work as well as a large source of problems. For the future we need to learn from the positive development and reach for an understanding of the mechanisms behind the successes in order for us to let such processes influence the more challenged application domains. We hope that INTERACT 2009 provided such an inspiring meeting between research and implementation. INTERACT 2009 brought the conference to Sweden and the Nordic countries. Through conferences such as NordiCHI, the Nordic countries have come to be recognized as one of the major local communities within the field of HCI. Nordic participants are one of the biggest regional participation categories at HCI conferences in the world. The Nordic tradition of HCI focuses on utility, equality, participation and quality of our everyday life and work. We aim at continuing these traditions while being in the forefront of development of the HCI field.

VI

Foreword

We hope that INTERACT 2009 will be remembered as a conference that brought research and practice closer together, focusing on making the computerized world a better place for everyone, regardless of functional abilities or particular requirements. August 2009

Jan Gulliksen Lars Oestreicher

Note from the Technical Co-chairs

You are holding the proceedings of the 12th Human–Computer Interaction Conference INTERACT 2009. The creation of this document is really a testament to the enthusiasm and collegial spirit amongst the HCI research and practitioner community worldwide. Thank you to all the authors who chose INTERACT 2009 as the vehicle to publish their research: a total of 723 submissions were received for the conference this year. Of these submissions, 244 were accepted for presentation at the conference. These include: – – – – – – – – –

104 Full Research Papers 79 Short Research Papers 7 Interactive Poster Papers 17 Workshops 12 Tutorials 3 Special Interest Groups 6 Demonstrations 3 Panels 13 Doctoral Consortium Papers

The acceptance rate for the research papers was 29% of full papers submitted for review and 20% of initial abstracts submitted. The acceptance rate for the short research papers and interactive posters was 39%. Each research paper was reviewed by between three and six members of the International Programme Committee. Our sincere gratitude goes to the all the International Programme Committee members who willingly helped out and ensured the high quality of the INTERACT Conference papers was properly maintained. Although some people had to be bullied into reviewing (sorry about that), everyone submitted their reviews on time without a murmur of complaint. Thank you all for the effort that you so obviously put into this task. Finally we wish to express a special thank you to the Proceedings Publication Chair, Marco Winckler, who painstakingly put this volume together. August 2009

Paula Kotzé Tom Gross

IFIP TC13

Established in 1989, the International Federation for Information Processing Technical Committee on Human–Computer Interaction (IFIP TC13) is an international committee of 30 member national societies and 7 Working Groups, representing specialists in human factors, ergonomics, cognitive science, computer science, design and related disciplines. INTERACT is its flagship conference, staged biennially in different countries in the world. IFIP TC13 aims to develop the science and technology of human–computer interaction (HCI) by encouraging empirical research, promoting the use of knowledge and methods from the human sciences in design and evaluation of computer systems; promoting better understanding of the relation between formal design methods and system usability and acceptability; developing guidelines, models and methods by which designers may provide better human-oriented computer systems; and, cooperating with other groups, inside and outside IFIP, to promote user-orientation and humanization in system design. Thus, TC13 seeks to improve interactions between people and computers, encourage the growth of HCI research and disseminate these benefits worldwide. The main orientation is toward users, especially the non-computer professional users, and how to improve human–computer relations. Areas of study include: the problems people have with computers; the impact on people in individual and organizational contexts; the determinants of utility, usability and acceptability; the appropriate allocation of tasks between computers and users; modelling the user to aid better system design; and harmonizing the computer to user characteristics and needs. While the scope is thus set wide, with a tendency toward general principles rather than particular systems, it is recognized that progress will only be achieved through both general studies to advance theoretical understanding and specific studies on practical issues (e.g., interface design standards, software system consistency, documentation, appropriateness of alternative communication media, human factors guidelines for dialogue design, the problems of integrating multimedia systems to match system needs and organizational practices, etc.). IFIP TC13 stimulates working events and activities through its Working Groups (WGs). WGs consist of HCI experts from many countries, who seek to expand knowledge and find solutions to HCI issues and concerns within their domains, as outlined below. In 1999, TC13 initiated a special IFIP Award, the Brian Shackel Award, for the most outstanding contribution in the form of a refereed paper submitted to and delivered at each INTERACT. The award draws attention to the need for a comprehensive human-centered approach in the design and use of information technology in which the human and social implications have been taken into account. Since the process to decide the award takes place after papers are submitted for publication, the award is not identified in the proceedings.

X

IFIP TC13

WG13.1 (Education in HCI and HCI Curricula) aims to improve HCI education at all levels of higher education, coordinate and unite efforts to develop HCI curricula and promote HCI teaching. WG13.2 (Methodology for User-Centred System Design) aims to foster research, dissemination of information and good practice in the methodical application of HCI to software engineering. WG13.3 (HCI and Disability) aims to make HCI designers aware of the needs of people with disabilities and encourage development of information systems and tools permitting adaptation of interfaces to specific users. WG13.4 (also WG2.7) (User Interface Engineering) investigates the nature, concepts and construction of user interfaces for software systems, using a framework for reasoning about interactive systems and an engineering model for developing user interfaces. WG13.5 (Human Error, Safety and System Development) seeks a framework for studying human factors relating to systems failure, develops leading edge techniques in hazard analysis and safety engineering of computerbased systems, and guides international accreditation activities for safety-critical systems. WG13.6 (Human-Work Interaction Design) aims at establishing relationships between extensive empirical work-domain studies and HCI design. It will promote the use of knowledge, concepts, methods and techniques that enable user studies to procure a better apprehension of the complex interplay between individual, social and organizational contexts and thereby a better understanding of how and why people work in the ways that they do. WG13.7 (Human–Computer Interaction and Visualization) is the newest of the working groups under the TC.13. It aims to establish a study and research program that will combine both scientific work and practical applications in the fields of Human–Computer Interaction and Visualization. It will integrate several additional aspects of further research areas, such as scientific visualization, data mining, information design, computer graphics, cognition sciences, perception theory, or psychology, into this approach. New Working Groups are formed as areas of significance to HCI arise. Further information is available at the IFIP TC13 website: http://www.ifip-hci.org/

IFIP TC13 Members

Australia Judy Hammond Australian Computer Society Austria Horst Hörtner Austrian Computer Society Belgium Monique Noirhomme-Fraiture Federation des Associations Informatiques de Belgique Brazil Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa Brazilian Computer Society (SBC) Canada Gitte Lindgaard (Secretary) Canadian Information Processing Society China Chengguing Zong Chinese Institute of Electronics

France Philippe Palanque Societe des Electriciens et des Electroniciens (SEE) Germany Horst Oberquelle Gesellschaft fur Informatik Greece Nikos Avouris Greek Computer Society Iceland Marta Kristin Larusdottir The Icelandic Society for Information Processing (ISIP) India Anirudha Joshi Computer Society of India

Czech Republic Vaclav Matousek Czech Society for Cybernetics and Informatics

Italy Fabio Patern` o Italian Computer Society

Denmark Annelise Mark Pejtersen (Chair) Danish Federation for Information Processing

Ireland Liam J. Bannon Irish Computer Society

Finland Kari-Jouko R¨ aih¨ a Finnish Information Processing Association

Japan Masaaki Kurosu Information Processing Society of Japan

XII

IFIP TC13 Members

New Zealand Mark Apperley New Zeeland Computer Society (NZCS) Nigeria Chris C. Nwannenna Nigeria Computer Society Norway Norwegian Computer Society Poland J. L. Kulikowski Poland Academy of Sciences Portugal Joaquim A. Jorge Associacao Portuguesa de Informatica Singapore Kee Yong Lim Singabore Computer Society South Africa Janet L. Wesson (Vice chair) The Computer Society of South Africa Spain Julio Abascal Federacion Espanola de Sociedades de Informatica

Sweden Lars Oestreicher Swedish Computer Society Switzerland Ute Klotz Swiss Federation for Information Processing The Netherlands Gerrit C. van der Veer Nederlands Genootschap voor Informatica UK Phil Gray British Computer Society USA-Based John Karat Association for Computing Machinery (ACM) Nahum Gershon The Computer Society, Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers (IEEE-CS)

Expert Members Jan Gulliksen Sweden Tom Gross Germany

IFIP TC13 Members

Working Group Chairpersons WG13.1 (Education in HCI and HCI Curricula) Paula Kotzé, South Africa WG13.2 (Methodology for User-Centered System Design) Peter Forbrig, Germany WG13.3 (HCI and Disability) Gerard Weber, Germany WG13.4 (also 2.7) (User Interface Engineering) Nick Graham, Canada WG13.5 (Human Error, Safety, and System Development) Philippe Palanque, France WG13.6 (Human-Work Interaction Design) Torkil Clemmensen, Denmark WG13.7 (Human Computer Interaction and Visualization) Mark Apperley, New Zealand

XIII

INTERACT 2009 Technical Committee

Conference Committee General Co-chairs Jan Gulliksen Lars Oestreicher

Uppsala university and KTH Royal Institute of Technology in Stockholm, Sweden Uppsala University, Sweden

Technical Programme Co-chairs Paula Kotzé Tom Gross

Meraka Institute, South Africa Bauhaus University Weimar, Germany

Technical Programme Committee Demonstrations Co-chairs Olav W. Bertelsen University of Aarhus, Denmark Janet C. Read University of Central Lancashire, UK Doctoral Consortium Co-chairs Else Nygren Uppsala University, Sweden Kasper Hornbæk University of Copenhagen, Denmark Full Paper Co-chairs Paula Kotzé Tom Gross

Meraka Institute, South Africa Bauhaus University Weimar, Germany

Keynote Speaker Chair Mats Edenius

Uppsala University, Sweden

Panel Co-chairs John Karat Masaaki Kurosu

IBM Research, USA The Open University of Japan, Japan

Short Papers and Interactive Posters Co-chairs Philippe Palanque Raquel Oliveira Prates

University Paul Sabatier, France Federal University of Minas Gerais, Brazil

XVI


Special Interest Groups Co-chairs Ute Klotz Nikolaos Avouris

University of Applied Sciences and Arts of Lucerne, Switzerland University of Patras, Greece

Tutorial Co-chairs Fabio Patern` o Mats Lind

ISTI-CNR, Italy Uppasala University, Sweden

Workshop Co-chairs Anders Jansson Gitte Lindegaard

Uppsala University, Sweden Carleton University, Canada

Organization Proceedings Publication Chair Marco Winckler

University Paul Sabatier, France

Program Chair Bengt Sandblad

Uppsala University, Sweden

Sponsoring Co-chairs Tomas Berns Bengt Sandblad

Ergolab, Sweden Uppsala University, Sweden

Students Volunteers Co-chairs Elina Eriksson Uppsala University, Sweden Rebecka Janols Uppsala University, Sweden Website Co-chairs Lars Oestreicher Nils-Erik Gustafsson

Uppsala University, Sweden Frontwalker/IT-arkitekterna, Sweden


Programme Committee Members Julio Abascal, Spain Silvia Abrah˜ ao, Spain Heikki Ailisto, Finland Xavier Alamán, Spain Mir Farooq Ali, USA Dima Aliakseyeu, The Netherlands Margarita Anastassova, France Elisabeth Andre, Denmark Paul André, UK Daniela Andrei, Romania Jean-Yves Antoine, France Mark Apperley, New Zealand Cecilia Aragon, USA Liliana Liliana, Italy Carmelo Ardito, Italy Myriam Arrue Recondo, Spain Richard Atterer, Germany Simon Attfield, UK Juan Carlos Augusto, UK Nikolaos Avouris, Greece Cedric Bach, France Jonathan Back, UK Nilufar Baghaei, Australia Sebastiano Bagnara, Italy Rafael Ballagas, USA Cecilia Baranauskas, Brazil Simone Barbosa, Brazil Javier Bargas-Avila, Switzerland Louise Barkhuus, USA Len Bass, USA Konrad Baumann, Austria Gordon Baxter, UK Russell Beale, UK Elke Beck, Austria David Benyon, UK Francois Berard, France Regina Bernhaupt, Austria Karsten Berns, Germany Nadia Berthouze, UK Nigel Bevan, UK Nicola J Bidwell, Australia Jacob Biehl, USA Thomas Binder, Denmark

Jeremy Birnholtz, USA Staffan Bj¨ ork, Sweden Renaud Blanch, France Ann Blandford, UK Eli Blevis, USA Pieter Blignaut, South Africa Florian Block, UK Susanne Bodker, Denmark Mads Bodker, Denmark Davide Bolchini, USA Marcela Borge, USA Ron Boring, USA Giorgio Brajnik, Italy Emily Brown, USA Mike Brown, Isle of Man Mihaela Brut, Romania Martin Brynskov, Denmark George Buchanan, UK Steffen Budweg, Germany Sabin-Corneliu Buraga, Romania Jamika Burge, USA Andreas Butz, Germany Jacob Buur, Denmark M. Claudia Buzzi, Italy Marina Buzzi, Italy Daragh Byrne, Isle of Man Paul Cairns, UK Eduardo H. Calvillo, UK José Campos, Portugal Pedro Campos, Portugal Stefan Carmien, Spain Luis Carri¸co, Portugal John M. Carroll, USA Tiziana Catarci, Italy Augusto Celentano, Italy Anxo Cereijo Roib´ as, UK Teresa Chambel, Portugal Olivier Chapuis, France Kelvin Cheng, Australia Keith Cheverst, UK Luca Chittaro, Italy Luigina Ciolfi, Isle of Man Torkil Clemmensen, Denmark

XVII

XVIII


Nathalie Colineau, Australia Karin Coninx, Belgium Stéphane Conversy, France Michael Cooke, Isle of Man Nuno Correia, Portugal Maria Francesca Costabile, Italy Adrien Coyette, Belgium Stefan Cronholm, Sweden Jo˜ ao Cunha, Portugal Mary Czerwinski, USA Carla Maria Dal Sasso Freitas, Brazil Peter Dalsgaard, Denmark Catalina Danis, USA Peter Dannenmann, Germany Nigel Davies, UK Janet Davis, USA Antonella De Angeli, UK Oscar de Bruijn, UK Berardina De Carolis, Italy Alexander De Luca, Germany Maria De Marsico, Italy Giorgio De Michelis, Italy Boris de Ruyter, The Netherlands Clarisse de Souza, Brazil Ruth de Villiers, South Africa Andy Dearden, UK Yogesh Deshpande, India Francoise Detienne, France Nicoletta Di Blas, Italy Lily Diaz, Finland Anke Dittmar, Germany Tanja D¨ oring, Germany Carlos Duarte, Portugal Emannuel Dubois, France Casey Dugan, USA Sophie Dupuy-Chessa, France Achim Ebert, Germany Niklas Elmqvist, USA David England, UK Paul Engelfield, UK Thomas Erickson, USA Vanessa Evers, The Netherlands Antilles Giorgio Faconti, Italy Stefano Faralli, Italy

Carla Faria Leit˜ ao, Brazil William Farr, UK Loe Feijs, The Netherlands Daniel Felix, Switzerland Ylva Fernaeus, Sweden Amyris Fernandez, Brazil Danyel Fisher, USA Morten Fjeld, Sweden Daniela Fogli, Italy Eelke Folmer, USA Joan Fons, Spain Manuel Joao Fonseca, Portugal Amanda Fonville, USA Peter Forbrig, Germany David Fourney, Canada Silvia Gabrielli, Italy Luigi Gallo, Italy Craig Ganoe, USA Nestor Garay-Vitoria, Spain Roberto Garc´ıa, Spain Stavros Garzonis, UK Franca Garzotto, Italy Jean-Marc Gauthier, Singapore Miguel Gea, Spain Helene Gelderblom, South Africa Cristina Gena, Italy Gautam Ghosh, Norway Carlo Giovannella, Italy Audrey Girouard, USA Kentaro Go, Japan Paula A. Gomes da Silva, Portugal Daniel Gon¸calves, Portugal Maria Paula Gonzalez, Argentina Connor Graham, Australia Nicholas Graham, Australia Raphael Grasset, New Zealand Marianne Graves Petersen, Denmark Phil Gray, UK Marde Greefff, South Africa William Green, The Netherlands Joshua Gross, USA Tom Gross, Germany John Grundy, New Zealand Nuno Guimaraes, Portugal Jan Gulliksen, Sweden


Adriana Mihaela Guran, Romania Francisco Luis Gutierrez Vela, Spain J¨ org Haake, Germany Michael Haller, Austria Lars Halln¨ as, Sweden Kim Halskov, Denmark Morten Borup Harning, Denmark Richard Harper, UK Michael Harrison, UK Steve Harrison, USA Kirstie Hawkey, Canada Steve Haynes, USA Matthias L. Hemmje, Germany Michael Herczeg, Germany Morten Hertzum, Denmark Martin Hitz, Austria Wolfgang Hochleitner, Austria Paul Holleis, Germany Lars Erik Holmquist, Sweden Kristina H¨ oo¨k, Sweden John Hosking, New Zealand Aaron Houssian, USA Nancy Houston, USA Stefan Hrastinski, Sweden William Hudson, UK Jina Huh, USA Stéphane Huot, France Duke Hutchings, USA Ebba Hvannberg, Iceland Netta Iivari, Finland Shamshi Iqbal, USA Poika Isokoski, Finland Minna Isomursu, Finland Giulio Jacucci, Finland Lars-Erik Janlert, Sweden Eva Jettmar, USA Sune Alstrup, Denmark Chris Johnson, UK Matt Jones, UK Steve Jones, New Zealand Joaquim Jorge, Portugal Anirudha Joshi, India Christophe Jouffrais, France Oskar Juhlin, Sweden Anne Kaikkonen, Finland

XIX

Matthew Kam, USA Bridget Kane, Isle of Man Anne Marie Kanstrup, Denmark Maurits Kaptein, The Netherlands Victor Kaptelinin, Sweden John Karat, USA Kostas Karpouzis, Greece Dinesh S. Katre, India Rick Kazman, USA Christina Keller, Sweden Babak Khazaei, UK Olga Khroustaleva, USA Stephen Kimani, Australia Alex Klippel, USA Anders Kluge, Norway Michael Koch, Germany Christina K¨ offel, Austria Christophe Kolski, France Andreas Komninos, UK Joseph A. Konstan, USA Ilpo Koskenin, Finland Paula Kotzé, South Africa Kostas Koukouletsos, Greece Matthias Kranz, Germany Subramanian Krishnamurthy, India Steinar Kristoffersen, Norway Antonio Kr¨ uger, Germany Sari Kujala, Finland Juliusz Kulikowski, Poland Kari Kuutti, Finland Jennifer Lai, USA Michael Lankes, Austria Ann Lantz, Sweden Rosa Lanzilotti, Italy Andreas C. Larsson, Sweden Marta Larusdottir, Iceland Effie Law, UK Marco Lazzari, Italy Eric Lecolinet, France Minkyung Lee, New Zealand Jair Leite, Brazil Barbara Leporini, Italy Stefano Levialdi, Spain Henry Lieberman, USA Ann Light, UK

XX


Youn-Kyung Lim, Republic of Korea Gitte Lindgaard, Canada Silvia Lindtner, USA Zhengjie Liu, China Steffen Lohmann, Germany Nicole Lompré, France Vctor M. López Jaquero, Spain Christopher Lueg, Australia Artur Lugmayr, Finland Paul Lukowicz, Denmark Christof Lutteroth, New Zealand Kris Luyten, Belgium Saturnino Luz, Isle of Man Baillie Lynne, UK José Antonio Mac´ıas, Spain Lachlan MacKinnon, UK Allan MacLean, UK Charlotte Magnusson, Sweden Ana Gabriele Maguitman, Argentina Lone Malmborg, Denmark Jani M¨ antyj¨ arvi, Finland Mari-Carmen Marcos, Spain Annelise Mark Pejtersen, Denmark Gary Marsden, South Africa Jean-Bernard Martens, The Netherlands Benoˆıt Martin, France Jean-Claude Martin, France Masood Masoodian, New Zealand Sara Mastro, USA Vaclav Matousek, Czech Republic Tara Matthews, USA Emanuela Mazzone, UK Graham McAllister, UK Scott McCrickard, USA Gregor McEwan, Australia Tom McEwan, UK Joseph McKnight, Isle of Man Gerrit Meixner, Germany Eduarda Mendes Rodrigues, UK Alexander Meschtscherjakov, Austria Jorn Messeter, Sweden Thomas Mirlacher, Austria Sonia Modeo, Italy

Tonja Molin-Juustila, Finland Francisco Montero Simarro, Spain Anders Mrch, Norway Roberto Moriyon, Spain Ann Morrison, Finland Florian Mueller, Australia Christian Mueller-Tomfelde, Australia J¨ org M¨ uller, Denmark Piero Mussio, Italy Miguel A. Nacenta, Canada Linda Napoletano, Italy Domenico Natale, Italy David Navarre, France Karsten Nebe, Germany Luciana Nedel, Brazil Jeff Nichols, USA Colette Nicolle, UK Janni Nielsen, Denmark Laurence Nigay, France Erik G Nilsson, Norway Sylvie Noël, Canada Monique Noirhomme, Belgium Mie Norgaard, Denmark Jasminko Novak, Switzerland Nuno Nunes, Portugal Clemens N. Klokmose, Denmark Horst Oberquelle, Germany Marianna Obrist, Austria Sergio Ochoa, Chile Lars Oestreicher, Sweden Michael OGrady, Isle of Man Brian OKeefe, UK Marta Oliva, Spain Rikke Orngreen, Denmark Alvaro Ortigosa, Spain Dan Orwa Ochieng, Kenya Lidia Oshlyansky, UK Benoit Otjacques, Luxembourg Antti Oulasvirta, Finland Saila Ovaska, Finland Philippe Palanque, France Emanuele Panizzi, Italy Luca Paolino, Italy Eleftherios Papachristos, Greece Tessy C. Pargman, Sweden


Cecile Paris, Australia Timo Partala, Finland Avi Parush, Canada Oscar Pastor, Spain Isabelle Pecci, France Samuli Pekkola, Finland Helen Petrie, UK Emmanuel Pietriga, France Marcelo Pimenta, Brazil Ian Pitt, Isle of Man Fabio Pittarello, Italy Andreas Pleuss, Germany Beryl Plimmer, New Zealand Karolien Poels, The Netherlands Klaus Pohl, Germany Roberto Polillo, Italy Vesna Popovic, Australia Dorin Mircea Popovici, Romania Chris Power, UK Mathura Prasad Thapliyal, India Marco Pretorius, South Africa Costin Pribeanu, Romania Angel Puerta, USA Pernilla Qvarfordt, USA Victor Ruiz Penichet, Spain Kari-Jouko Raiha, Finland Roope Raisamo, Finland Nitendra Rajput, USA Ismo Rakkolainen, USA Roberto Ranon, Italy Dimitrios Raptis, Greece Matthias Rauterberg, The Netherlands Madhu Reddy, USA Johan Redstr¨ om, Sweden Karen Renaud, UK Yann Riche, USA Laurel D. Riek, UK Thomas Rist, Germany Chris Roast, UK Markus Rohde, Germany Teresa Roselli, Italy Chiara Rossitto, Sweden Ling Rothrock, USA Amanda Rotondo, USA Anne Roudaut, France

Jose Rouillard, France Nicolas Roussel, France Elisa Rubegni, Switzerland Marco S´ a, Portugal Saqib Saeed, Germany Antti Salovaara, Finland Nithya Sambasivan, USA Jaime Sanchez, Chile Frode Eika Sandnes, Norway Chris Sandor, Australia Carmelina Santoro, Italy Giuseppe Santucci, Italy Corina Sas, UK Anthony Savidis, Greece Dominique Scapin, France Chris Schmandt, USA Albrecht Schmidt, Germany Johannes Sch¨ oning, Germany Gerhard Schwabe, Switzerland Montserrat Sendin Veloso, Spain Tacha Serif, Turkey Cec´ılia Sik L´ anyi, Hungary Gavin Robert Sim, UK Carla Simone, Italy Mikael B. Skov, Denmark Andy Smith, UK Andrew Smith, South Africa Marc Smith, USA Eva Snee, USA Hugo Solis, USA Jan Stage, Denmark Emil Stanescu, Romania Christian Stary, Austria Gunnar Stevens, Germany Didier Stricker, Denmark Sriram Subramanian, UK Noi Sukaviriya, USA S. Shyam Sundar, USA Yngve E Sundblad, Sweden John Tang, USA Jean-Claude Tarby, France Deborah Tatar, USA Patrice Terrier, France Nadia Thalmann, Switzerland Jakob Tholander, Sweden

XXI

XXII


Michael Toomim, USA Stefan Trausan-Matu, Romania Daniela Trevisan, Brazil Sanjay Tripathi, India Manfred Tscheligi, Austria Maurizio Tucci, Italy Tuomo Tuikka, Finland Phil Turner, UK Susan Turner, UK Jaime Urquiza-Fuentes, Spain Kaisa Väa¨n¨ anen-Vainio-Mattila, Finland Heli Väa¨t¨ aj¨ a, Finland Pedro Valderas, Spain Judy van Biljon, South Africa Elise van den Hoven, The Netherlands Charles van der Mast, The Netherlands Gerrit van der Veer, The Netherlands Betsy van Dijk, The Netherlands Darelle van Greunen, South Africa Lex van Velsen, The Netherlands Jean Vanderdonckt, Belgium Alison Varey, UK Radu-Daniel Vatavu, Romania Angel Velázquez, Spain Gina Venolia, USA Markel Vigo, Spain

Giuliana Vitiello, Italy Arnd Vitzthum, Germany J¨ org Voskamp, Germany Ljiljana Vukelja, Switzerland Dhaval Vyas, The Netherlands Marion Walton, South Africa Gerhard Weber, Germany Carolyn Wei, USA Alexandra Weilenmann, Sweden Astrid Weiss, Austria Janet Wesson, South Africa Mikael Wiberg, Sweden Daniel Wigdor, USA David Wilfinger, Austria Wolfgang Woerndl, Germany William Wong, UK Peta Wyeth, Australia Heng Xu, USA Diana Xu, UK Pradeep G Yammiyavar, India Alvin Yeo, Malaysia Yeliz Yesilada, UK Massimo Zancanaro, Italy Luke Zhang, USA J¨ urgen Ziegler, Germany John Zimmerman, USA


XXIII

Sponsors and Supporters Gold

IT-arkitekterna Swedish Foundation for Strategic Research

VINNOVA

Municipality of Uppsala

Silver

Microsoft Research

Bronze

IBM Research

ANTROP

Local Organizers

IFIP TC13

Uppsala University, Department of Information Technology

Swedish Interdisciplinary Organisation for Human-Computer Interaction (STIMDI)

XXIV


Swedish Interdisciplinary Interest Group for Human–Computer Interaction The Swedish Interdisciplinary Interest Group for Human–Computer Interaction (STIMDI) is a non-profit organization in Sweden that has the purpose of promoting cooperation between industry and academia within the field of HCI. STIMDI has been around since 1986 and also took the initiative of starting the NordiCHI conference series with NordiCHI 2000 in Stockholm. STIMDI is happy to be the co-organizer of INTERACT 2009 together with Uppsala University. More information can be found on www.stimdi.se

Uppsala University Uppsala University is the oldest university in northern Europe. It was founded in 1477 and has about 40,000 students. Uppsala University is a complete university with all subjects that exist in its research area. It is the biggest center for HCI research in Sweden with three different departments of HCI at the Faculty of Science and Technology, at the Faculty of Social Science and at the Faculty of Medicine. The research conducted by the HCI group at the department of Information Technology at Uppsala University concerns the analysis and design of computerized work environments. A goal is to ensure usability (satisfaction, efficiency and effectiveness) and reduce complexity for computer users. Most of the research is performed within governmental authorities, organizations and industrial settings, where the role is to guide the development of usable systems through usercentered design activities. A significant part of the research concerns complex computer systems intended for professional users in their everyday work. This also involves studying organizational aspects and work environment problems. Current research domains are: – Human control of complex systems: high-speed ferry operation, train driver operation, train traffic control, simulators – Administrative work environments: case-handling, call center operation – Health care: decision support systems, tele-radiology, home health care – Visualization: tactical control and command systems, virtual learning lab, 3D tools – Work environment: Physical, psychosocial and cognitive work environment in computer supported work

Table of Contents – Part II

Multimodal Interfaces 1 Ambiguous Keyboards and Scanning: The Relevance of the Cell Selection Phase . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Julio Mir´ o-Borr´ as, Pablo Bernabeu-Soler, Raul Llinares, and Jorge Igual

1

Force Feedback Magnitude Effects on User’s Performance during Target Acquisition: A Pilot Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lode Vanacken, Joan De Boeck, and Karin Coninx

5

Gaze-Assisted Pointing for Wall-Sized Displays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hans-Joachim Bieg, Lewis L. Chuang, and Harald Reiterer

9

Hand Pointing Accuracy for Vision-Based Interactive Systems . . . . . . . . . Kelvin Cheng and Masahiro Takatsuka

13

Pen-Based Video Annotations: A Proposal and a Prototype for Tablet PCs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Diogo Cabral and Nuno Correia

17

Human Perception of Near-Duplicate Videos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rodrigo de Oliveira, Mauro Cherubini, and Nuria Oliver

21

Multimodal Interfaces 2 PressureMove: Pressure Input with Mouse Movement . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kang Shi, Sriram Subramanian, and Pourang Irani

25

Bimanual Interaction with Interscopic Multi-Touch Surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . Johannes Sch¨ oning, Frank Steinicke, Antonio Kr¨ uger, Klaus Hinrichs, and Dimitar Valkov

40

Multimodal Media Center Interface Based on Speech, Gestures and Haptic Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Markku Turunen, Jaakko Hakulinen, Juho Hella, Juha-Pekka Rajaniemi, Aleksi Melto, Erno M¨ akinen, Jussi Rantala, Tomi Heimonen, Tuuli Laivo, Hannu Soronen, Mervi Hansen, Pellervo Valkama, Toni Miettinen, and Roope Raisamo Comparing Gestures and Traditional Interaction Modalities on Large Displays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ant´ onio Neto and Carlos Duarte

54

58

XXVI


Multimodal Interfaces 3 Bodily Explorations in Space: Social Experience of a Multimodal Art Installation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Giulio Jacucci, Anna Spagnolli, Alessandro Chalambalakis, Ann Morrison, Lassi Liikkanen, Stefano Roveda, and Massimo Bertoncini Advanced Maintenance Simulation by Means of Hand-Based Haptic Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michele Nappi, Luca Paolino, Stefano Ricciardi, Monica Sebillo, and Giuliana Vitiello Multimodal Interaction within Ambient Environments: An Exploratory Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Yacine Bellik, Issam Reba¨ı, Edyta Machrouh, Yasmin Barzaj, Christophe Jacquet, Gaëtan Pruvost, and Jean-Paul Sansonnet Multimodal Interaction: Intuitive, Robust, and Preferred? . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anja B. Naumann, Ina Wechsung, and J¨ orn Hurtienne

62

76

89

93

Multi-user Interaction and Cooperation 1 Sharing Map Annotations in Small Groups: X Marks the Spot . . . . . . . . . Ben Congleton, Jacqueline Cerretani, Mark W. Newman, and Mark S. Ackerman

97

Effect of Peripheral Communication Pace on Attention Allocation in a Dual-Task Situation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sofiane Gueddana and Nicolas Roussel

111

Is the Writing on the Wall for Tabletops? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nadia Pantidi, Yvonne Rogers, and Hugh Robinson

125

Investigating the Effect of Hyperlink Information Scent on Users’ Interaction with a Web Site . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nikolaos Tselios, Christos Katsanos, and Nikolaos Avouris

138

Multi-user Interaction and Cooperation 2 Interpersonal Privacy Management in Distributed Collaboration: Situational Characteristics and Interpretive Influences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sameer Patil, Alfred Kobsa, Ajita John, Lynne S. Brotman, and Doree Seligmann Assessing the “Quality of Collaboration” in Technology-Mediated Design Situations with Several Dimensions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jean-Marie Burkhardt, Fran¸coise Détienne, Anne-Marie Hébert, and Laurence Perron

143

157


XXVII

A Multi-touch Tool for Co-creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Geke D.S. Ludden and Tom Broens

161

GColl: A Flexible Videoconferencing Environment for Group-to-Group Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Petr Slov´ ak, Pavel Troubil, and Petr Holub

165

Space as a Resource in Creative Design Practices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dhaval Vyas, Gerrit van der Veer, Dirk Heylen, and Anton Nijholt

169

Novel User Interfaces and Interaction Techniques 1 five: Enhancing 3D Wall Displays with a 2D High-Resolution Overlay . . . Daniel Steffen, Achim Ebert, Matthias Deller, and Peter Dannenmann

173

Improving Window Switching Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Susanne Tak, Andy Cockburn, Keith Humm, David Ahlstr¨ om, Carl Gutwin, and Joey Scarr

187

The Panopticon and the Performance Arena: HCI Reaches within . . . . . . Ann Light and Peter Wright

201

Novel User Interfaces and Interaction Techniques 2 Exploring the Use of Discrete Gestures for Authentication . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ming Ki Chong and Gary Marsden

205

AirMouse: Finger Gesture for 2D and 3D Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Michael Ortega and Laurence Nigay

214

Follow My Finger Navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rami Ajaj, Frédéric Vernier, and Christian Jacquemin

228

DGTS: Integrated Typing and Pointing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iman Habib, Niklas Berggren, Erik Rehn, Gustav Josefsson, Andreas Kunz, and Morten Fjeld

232

Novel User Interfaces and Interaction Techniques 3 Understanding Multi-touch Manipulation for Surface Computing . . . . . . . Chris North, Tim Dwyer, Bongshin Lee, Danyel Fisher, Petra Isenberg, George Robertson, and Kori Inkpen How Not to Become a Buffoon in Front of a Shop Window: A Solution Allowing Natural Head Movement for Interaction with a Public Display . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Omar Mubin, Tatiana Lashina, and Evert van Loenen

236

250

XXVIII


Chucking: A One-Handed Document Sharing Technique . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nabeel Hassan, Md. Mahfuzur Rahman, Pourang Irani, and Peter Graham

264

This Just In! Your Life in the Newspaper . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bruno Antunes, Tiago Guerreiro, and Daniel Gon¸calves

279

Novel User Interfaces and Interaction Techniques 4 Instruction, Feedback and Biometrics: The User Interface for Fingerprint Authentication Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chris Riley, Graham Johnson, Heather McCracken, and Ahmed Al-Saffar

293

Measurement of Olfactory Characteristics for Two Kinds of Scent in a Single Breath . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kaori Ohtsu, Junta Sato, Yuichi Bannai, and Kenichi Okada

306

Keyboard before Head Tracking Depresses User Success in Remote Camera Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dingyun Zhu, Tom Gedeon, and Ken Taylor

319

QualiTrack: Highspeed TUI Tracking for Tabletop Applications . . . . . . . . Ramon Hofer, Thomas Nescher, and Andreas Kunz

332

Augmenting Surface Interaction through Context-Sensitive Mobile Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alex Olwal

336

Novel User Interfaces and Interaction Techniques 5 Designing Novel Image Search Interfaces by Understanding Unique Characteristics and Usage . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paul André, Edward Cutrell, Desney S. Tan, and Greg Smith

340

Crossmedia Systems Constructed around Human Activities: A Field Study and Implications for Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Katarina Segerst˚ ahl

354

Query Suggestion for On-Device Troubleshooting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Frédéric Roulland, Stefania Castellani, Ye Deng, Antonietta Grasso, and Jacki O’Neill

368

Novel User Interfaces and Interaction Techniques 6 Acquisition of Animated and Pop-Up Targets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Guillaume Faure, Olivier Chapuis, and Michel Beaudouin-Lafon

372


An Optical Pen Tracking System as Alternative Pointing Device . . . . . . . Ingmar Seeliger, Ulrich Schwanecke, and Peter Barth Did “Minority Report” Get It Wrong? Superiority of the Mouse over 3D Input Devices in a 3D Placement Task . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fran¸cois Bérard, Jessica Ip, Mitchel Benovoy, Dalia El-Shimy, Jeffrey R. Blum, and Jeremy R. Cooperstock The MAGIC Touch: Combining MAGIC-Pointing with a Touch-Sensitive Mouse . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Heiko Drewes and Albrecht Schmidt

XXIX

386

400

415

Social Media/Social Networks Honeycomb: Visual Analysis of Large Scale Social Networks . . . . . . . . . . . Frank van Ham, Hans-J¨ org Schulz, and Joan M. Dimicco

429

Simulating Social Networks of Online Communities: Simulation as a Method for Sociability Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Chee Siang Ang and Panayiotis Zaphiris

443

Designing Interaction for Local Communications: An Urban Screen Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fiona Redhead and Margot Brereton

457

WidSets: A Usability Study of Widget Sharing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kristiina Karvonen, Theofanis Kilinkaridis, and Olli Immonen

461

Tangible User Interfaces and Robotics A Model for Steering with Haptic-Force Guidance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Xing-Dong Yang, Pourang Irani, Pierre Boulanger, and Walter F. Bischof

465

Designing Laser Gesture Interface for Robot Control . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kentaro Ishii, Shengdong Zhao, Masahiko Inami, Takeo Igarashi, and Michita Imai

479

A Haptic-Enhanced System for Molecular Sensing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sara Comai and Davide Mazza

493

Tools for Design, Modelling and Evaluation 1 Designing with Only Four People in Mind? – A Case Study of Using Personas to Redesign a Work-Integrated Learning Support System . . . . . Amir Dotan, Neil Maiden, Valentina Lichtner, and Lola Germanovich

497

XXX


Play-Personas: Behaviours and Belief Systems in User-Centred Game Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alessandro Canossa and Anders Drachen

510

Developing and Validating Personas in e-Commerce: A Heuristic Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Volker Thoma and Bryn Williams

524

Tools for Design, Modelling and Evaluation 2 Picking Up Artifacts: Storyboarding as a Gateway to Reuse . . . . . . . . . . . Shahtab Wahid, Stacy M. Branham, Lauren Cairco, D. Scott McCrickard, and Steve Harrison

528

Are User Interface Pattern Languages Usable? A Report from the Trenches . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regina Bernhaupt, Marco Winckler, and Florence Pontico

542

Get Your Requirements Straight: Storyboarding Revisited . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mieke Haesen, Kris Luyten, and Karin Coninx

546

Usability Evaluation Methods Hello World! – Experiencing Usability Methods without Usability Expertise . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Elina Eriksson, ˚ Asa Cajander, and Jan Gulliksen

550

Supporting Worth Mapping with Sentence Completion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gilbert Cockton, Sari Kujala, Piia Nurkka, and Taneli H¨ oltt¨ a

566

What Is an Activity? Appropriating an Activity-Centric System . . . . . . . Svetlana Yarosh, Tara Matthews, Thomas P. Moran, and Barton Smith

582

Sharing Usability Problem Sets within and between Groups . . . . . . . . . . . Gudmundur Freyr Jonasson and Ebba Thora Hvannberg

596

Obstacles to Option Setting: Initial Results with a Heuristic Walkthrough Method . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Silvia Gabrielli and Anthony Jameson

600

User Experience 1 Dimensions of Context Affecting User Experience in Mobile Work . . . . . Heli Wigelius and Heli V¨ a¨ at¨ aj¨ a

604


XXXI

When Joy Matters: The Importance of Hedonic Stimulation in Collocated Collaboration with Large-Displays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jasminko Novak and Susanne Schmidt

618

The ‘Joy-of-Use’-Button: Recording Pleasant Moments While Using a PC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Robert Schleicher and Sandra Tr¨ osterer

630

Introducing a Pairwise Comparison Scale for UX Evaluations with Preschoolers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bieke Zaman

634

User Experience 2 The Effect of Brand on the Evaluation of Websites . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Antonella De Angeli, Jan Hartmann, and Alistair Sutcliffe

638

Does Branding Need Web Usability? A Value-Oriented Empirical Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Davide Bolchini, Franca Garzotto, and Fabio Sorce

652

What Needs Tell Us about User Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Annika Wiklund-Engblom, Marc Hassenzahl, Anette Bengs, and Susanne Sperring

666

User Interfaces for Safety Critical Systems and Health Care 1 From Paper to PDA: Design and Evaluation of a Clinical Ward Instruction on a Mobile Device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anne Marie Kanstrup and Jan Stage Designing User Interfaces for Smart-Applications for Operating Rooms and Intensive Care Units . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Martin Christof Kindsm¨ uller, Maral Haar, Hannes Schulz, and Michael Herczeg Interactive Therapeutic Multi-sensory Environment for Cerebral Palsy People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cesar Mauri, Agusti Solanas, Toni Granollers, Joan Bagés, and Mabel Garc´ıa Designing Systems for Health Promotion and Autonomy in Older Adults . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Helena Lindgren and Ingeborg Nilsson

670

684

696

700

XXXII


User Interfaces for Safety Critical Systems and Health Care 2 CLINICAL SURFACES – Activity-Based Computing for Distributed Multi-Display Environments in Hospitals . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jakob E. Bardram, Jonathan Bunde-Pedersen, Afsaneh Doryab, and Steffen Sørensen

704

Designing a Safer Interactive Healthcare System - The Impact of Authentic User Participation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kathryn L. Went, Peter Gregor, and Ian W. Ricketts

718

A Novel Approach for Creating Activity-Aware Applications in a Hospital Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jakob E. Bardram

731

Investigating CAPTCHAs Based on Visual Phenomena . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anja B. Naumann, Thomas Franke, and Christian Bauckhage

745

User Interfaces for Web Applications and E-commerce Reflection of a Year Long Model-Driven Business and UI Modeling Development Project . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Noi Sukaviriya, Senthil Mani, and Vibha Sinha

749

Designing Tools for Supporting User Decision-Making in e-Commerce . . . Alistair Sutcliffe and Faisal Al-Qaed

763

Designing for Culturally Contextualized Learning Activity Planning: Matching Learning Theories and Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aparecido Fabiano Pinatti de Carvalho, Junia Coutinho Anacleto, and Vania Paula de Almeida Neris

777

Visualisation Techniques WIPDash: Work Item and People Dashboard for Software Development Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mikkel R. Jakobsen, Roland Fernandez, Mary Czerwinski, Kori Inkpen, Olga Kulyk, and George G. Robertson CGD – A New Algorithm to Optimize Space Occupation in Ellimaps . . . Benoˆıt Otjacques, Maël Cornil, Monique Noirhomme, and Fernand Feltz Visual Search Strategies of Tag Clouds - Results from an Eyetracking Study . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Johann Schrammel, Stephanie Deutsch, and Manfred Tscheligi

791

805

819


XXXIII

Part Three: Demonstrations Interactive and Lightweight Mechanisms to Coordinate Interpersonal Privacy in Mediated Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Natalia Romero, Laurens Boer, and Panos Markopoulos

832

Liberating Expression: A Freehand Approach to Business Process Modeling . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nicolas Mangano and Noi Sukaviriya

834

Multimodal Interaction with Speech, Gestures and Haptic Feedback in a Media Center Application . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Markku Turunen, Jaakko Hakulinen, Juho Hella, Juha-Pekka Rajaniemi, Aleksi Melto, Erno M¨ akinen, Jussi Rantala, Tomi Heimonen, Tuuli Laivo, Hannu Soronen, Mervi Hansen, Pellervo Valkama, Toni Miettinen, and Roope Raisamo Social Circles: A 3D User Interface for Facebook . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Diego Rodrigues and Ian Oakley Socio-Technical Evaluation Matrix (STEM): A Collaborative Tool to Support and Facilitate Discussion on Socio-Technical Issues of a Design Process . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Souleymane Boundaouda Camara and José Abdelnour-Nocera Take Three Snapshots - A Tool for Fast Freehand Acquisition of 3D Objects . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gabriele Peters and Klaus H¨ aming

836

838

840

842

Part Four: Doctoral Consortium Blended Interaction Design: A Spatial Workspace Supporting HCI and Design Practice . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Florian Geyer

844

Designing an Artificial Robotic Interaction Language . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Omar Mubin

848

Designing Mobile Service Experiences, the Role of Emotional Dimension . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teresa Sarmento

852

Development of a Method for Evaluating the Usability of In-Vehicle Information Systems (IVISs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Catherine Harvey

856

Evaluating Human Computer Interaction through Self-rated Emotion . . . Danielle Lottridge

860

XXXIV


Human-Computer Interaction Techniques in Firefighting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sebastian Denef

864

Retrieval of User Interface Templates Based on Tasks . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jordan Janeiro

868

Supporting Aphasics for Capturing, Organizing and Sharing Personal Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abdullah Al Mahmud

872

The Role of Personal and Shared Displays in Scripted Collaborative Learning . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sara Streng

876

Towards a Flexible User Simulation for Evaluating Spoken Dialogue Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dmitry Butenkov

880

User Aware Technology: From Inter-human Awareness to Technology-User Awareness . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ditte Hvas Mortensen

884

User eXperience: Tools for Developers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anssi J¨ a¨ askel¨ ainen

888

Part Five: Interactive Posters A Dynamic Environment for Video Surveillance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Paolo Bottoni, Maria De Marsico, Stefano Levialdi, Giovanni Ottieri, Mario Pierro, and Daniela Quaresima An Integrated Approach for Creating Service-Based Interactive Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marius Feldmann, Jordan Janeiro, Tobias Nestler, Gerald H¨ ubsch, Uwe Jugel, André Preussner, and Alexander Schill

892

896

Implicit Interaction: A Modality for Ambient Exercise Monitoring . . . . . . J. Wan, M.J. O’Grady, and G.M.P. O’Hare

900

Interacting with Casework Documents Using Timelines . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Morten Bohøj and Niels Olof Bouvin

904

Measuring Emotional Wellbeing with a Non-intrusive Bed Sensor . . . . . . Gert van der Vloed and Jelle Berentsen

908

Using a Dynamic Model to Simulate the Heuristic Evaluation of Usability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nuria Hurtado, Mercedes Ruiz, and Jes´ us Torres

912


Using Avatars for Improving Speaker Identification in Captioning . . . . . . Quoc V. Vy and Deborah I. Fels

XXXV

916

Part Six: Panels Biometrics in Practice: What Does HCI Have to Say? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Lynne Coventry, Graham I. Johnson, Tom McEwan, and Chris Riley

920

Demarcating User eXperience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Virpi Roto

922

Mobility, Emotion, and Universality in Future Collaboration . . . . . . . . . . . Mark Chignell, Naotsune Hosono, Deborah Fels, Danielle Lottridge, and John Waterworth

924

Part Seven: Special Interest Groups Designing Interaction for Next Generation Personal Computing . . . . . . . . Giorgio De Michelis, Marco Loregian, Claudio Moderini, Patrizia Marti, Cesare Colombo, Liam Bannon, Cristiano Storni, and Marco Susani

926

Postgraduate Studies in the Field of HCI . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teija Vainio, Veikko Surakka, Roope Raisamo, Kari-Jouko R¨ aih¨ a, Poika Isokoski, Kaisa V¨ a¨ an¨ anen-Vainio-Mattila, and Sari Kujala

928

Part Eight: Tutorials Advanced Perceptual User Interfaces: Applications for Disabled and Elderly People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Francisco J. Perales L´ opez

930

Combining Requirements and Interaction Design through Usage Scenarios . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Hermann Kaindl

932

Design Patterns for User Interfaces on Mobile Equipment . . . . . . . . . . . . . Erik G. Nilsson

934

Eye Tracking in Human-Computer Interaction and Usability Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Tommy Strandvall

936

HCI in the Era of Ambient Media – And beyond 2009 INTERACT Tutorial . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Artur Lugmayr

938

XXXVI


Introduction to Social Network Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Panayiotis Zaphiris and Chee Siang Ang

940

Key Issues in Planning and Making Sense of International Field Research . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Susan M. Dray and David A. Siegel

942

Measuring the Subjective User eXperience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maurits Kaptein

944

Methods and Tools for Ethical Usability . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Iordanis Kavathatzopoulos, Agata Kostrzewa, and Mikael Laaksoharju

946

Model a Discourse and Transform It to Your User Interface . . . . . . . . . . . Hermann Kaindl

948

Understanding Users in Context: An In-Depth Introduction to Fieldwork for User Centered Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Susan M. Dray and David A. Siegel

950

Part Nine: Workshops 2nd Workshop on Design for Social Interaction through Physical Play . . . Tilde Bekker, Janienke Sturm, and Emilia Barakova

952

4th Workshop on Software and Usability Engineering Cross-Pollination: Usability Evaluation of Advanced Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Regina Bernhaupt, Peter Forbrig, Jan Gulliksen, and Janet Wesson

954

Culture and Technologies for Social Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Qinying Liao, Susan R. Fussell, Sheetal K. Agarwal, Arun Kumar, Amit A. Nanavati, Nitendra Rajput, and Yingxin Pan Design and Evaluation of e-Government Applications and Services (DEGAS 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marco Winckler, Monique Noirhomme-Fraiture, Dominique Scapin, Gaëlle Calvary, and Audrey Serna Designing for Naturally Engaging Experiences . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . David Browning, Marlyn van Erp, Mads Bødker, Nicola Bidwell, and Truna Aka J. Turner Ethics, Roles and Relationships in Interaction Design in Developing Regions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anxo Ceriejo-Roibas, Andy Dearden, Susan Dray, Phil Gray, John Thomas, and Niall Winters

957

959

961

963


XXXVII

Human Aspects of Visualization . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Achim Ebert, Alan Dix, Nahum Gershon, and Margit Pohl

965

Innovation for an Inclusive Future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mark Springett, Mark Rice, Alex Carmichael, and Richard Griffiths

967

Interplay between Usability Evaluation and Software Development (I-USED 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Silvia Abrah˜ ao, Kasper Hornbæk, Effie Law, and Jan Stage

969

New Challenges for Participation in Participatory Design in Family, Clinical and Other Asymmetrical, Non-work Settings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Olav Wedege Bertelsen and Per-Olof Hedvall

971

New Sociotechnical Insights in Interaction Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . José Abdelnour-Nocera and Anders I. Mørch

973

Team Meetings within Clinical Domains – Exploring the Use of Routines and Technical Support for Communication . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kristina Groth, Ann Lantz, Eva-Lotta Salln¨ as, Oscar Frykholm, and Anders Green

975

Touch Affordances . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Karin Slegers, Dries De Roeck, and Timo Arnall

977

Towards a Manifesto for Living Lab Co-creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Asbjørn Følstad, Petter Bae Brandtzæg, Jan Gulliksen, Mikael B¨ orjeson, and Pirjo N¨ akki

979

User Experience Evaluation Methods in Product Development (UXEM 2009) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Virpi Roto, Kaisa V¨ a¨ an¨ anen-Vainio-Mattila, Effie Law, and Arnold Vermeeren

981

Virtual Teams and Human Work Interaction Design - Learning to Work in and Designing for Virtual Teams . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rikke Orngreen, Torkil Clemmensen, and Annelise Mark Pejtersen

983

Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

985

Table of Contents – Part I

Part One: Keynote Speakers Mobile Life – Innovation in the Wild . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kristina H¨ o¨ ok

1

Towards Human-Centred Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Liam J. Bannon

3

Part Two: Long and Short Papers Accessibility 1 DTorial: An Interactive Tutorial Framework for Blind Users in a Web 2.0 World . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joshua Hailpern, Loretta Guarino Reid, and Richard Boardman The Attentive Hearing Aid: Eye Selection of Auditory Sources for Hearing Impaired Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jamie Hart, Dumitru Onceanu, Changuk Sohn, Doug Wightman, and Roel Vertegaal Video Gaming for Blind Learners School Integration in Science Classes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jaime S´ anchez and Mauricio S´ aenz

5

19

36

Accessibility 2 Speech-Based Navigation: Improving Grid-Based Solutions . . . . . . . . . . . . Shaojian Zhu, Yao Ma, Jinjuan Feng, and Andrew Sears

50

Useful, Social and Enjoyable: Mobile Phone Adoption by Older People . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Mario Conci, Fabio Pianesi, and Massimo Zancanaro

63

Overview of Behaviour Characteristics of High and Low Literacy Users: Information Seeking of an Online Social Service System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Neesha Kodagoda, B.L. William Wong, and Nawaz Kahan

77

‘I Have Something to Say’: Supporting Aphasics for Organizing and Sharing Personal Experiences by Photos . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abdullah Al Mahmud and Jean-Bernard Martens

81

XL


Affective HCI and Emotion The Attractiveness Stereotype in the Evaluation of Embodied Conversational Agents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Rabia Khan and Antonella De Angeli

85

Interpreting Human and Avatar Facial Expressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sylvie Noël, Sarah Dumoulin, and Gitte Lindgaard

98

Emotional Bandwidth: Information Theory Analysis of Affective Response Ratings Using a Continuous Slider . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Danielle Lottridge and Mark Chignell

111

Can You Be Persuaded? Individual Differences in Susceptibility to Persuasion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maurits Kaptein, Panos Markopoulos, Boris de Ruyter, and Emile Aarts The Subjective and Objective Nature of Website Aesthetic Impressions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Eleftherios Papachristos and Nikolaos Avouris

115

119

Child Computer Interfaces Biting, Whirling, Crawling – Children’s Embodied Interaction with Walk-through Displays . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Satu Jumisko-Pyykk¨ o, Mandy Weitzel, and Ismo Rakkolainen

123

Causes of Simultaneous Keystrokes in Children and Adults . . . . . . . . . . . . Akiyo Kano and Janet C. Read

137

Evaluating a Tangible Game Video Console for Kids . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Javier Marco, Eva Cerezo, and Sandra Baldassarri

141

Exploring Geometric Shapes with Touch . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thomas Pietrzak, Andrew Crossan, Stephen A. Brewster, Benoˆıt Martin, and Isabelle Pecci

145

Gender and Cultural Differences in Perceiving Game Characters of Digital Educational Games . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Effie Lai-Chong Law, Tim Gamble, and Daniel Schwarz

149

Ethics and Privacy Staging Urban Interactions with Media Fa¸cades . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Martin Brynskov, Peter Dalsgaard, Tobias Ebsen, Jonas Fritsch, Kim Halskov, and Rune Nielsen

154


Location-Based Services and Privacy in Airports . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . John Paulin Hansen, Alexandre Alapetite, Henning Boje Andersen, Lone Malmborg, and Jacob Thommesen

XLI

168

‘I Know That You Know’ – Ascertaining Mutual Awareness of Recipient’s Availability Status in Instant Messaging Applications . . . . . . Agnieszka Matysiak Sz´ ostek and Berry Eggen

182

Automatic Translation System to Spanish Sign Language with a Virtual Interpreter . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sandra Baldassarri, Eva Cerezo, and Francisco Royo-Santas

196

Towards an Approach to Ethics and HCI Development Based on Løgstrup’s Ideas . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sandra Burri Gram-Hansen

200

Evaluation 1 Evidence Based Design of Heuristics for Computer Assisted Assessment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gavin Sim, Janet C. Read, and Gilbert Cockton Physical Fidelity: Exploring the Importance of Physicality on Physical-Digital Conceptual Prototyping . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Joanna Hare, Steve Gill, Gareth Loudon, Devina Ramduny-Ellis, and Alan Dix

204

217

Considering Cost in Usability Evaluation of Mobile Applications: Who, Where and When . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Georgios Fiotakis, Dimitrios Raptis, and Nikolaos Avouris

231

Is the ‘Figure of Merit’ Really That Meritorious? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jarinee Chattratichart and Gitte Lindgaard

235

User-Centered Evaluation of the Responsiveness of Applications . . . . . . . Gerd Waloszek and Ulrich Kreichgauer

239

Evaluation of User Interface Design and Input Methods for Applications on Mobile Touch Screen Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Florence Balagtas-Fernandez, Jenny Forrai, and Heinrich Hussmann

243

Evaluation 2 Multi-format Notifications for Multi-tasking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Julie S. Weber, Mark W. Newman, and Martha E. Pollack

247

Making Pen-Based Operation More Seamless and Continuous . . . . . . . . . . Chuanyi Liu and Xiangshi Ren

261

XLII


Insight into Goal-Directed Movements: Beyond Fitts’ Law . . . . . . . . . . . . . Karin Nieuwenhuizen, Dzmitry Aliakseyeu, and Jean-Bernard Martens

274

A Model to Simulate Web Users’ Eye Movements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Myriam Chanceaux, Anne Guérin-Dugué, Benoˆıt Lemaire, and Thierry Baccino

288

Games, Fun and Aesthetic Design 1 Balancing Skills to Optimize Fun in Interactive Board Games . . . . . . . . . . Eva Kraaijenbrink, Frank van Gils, Quan Cheng, Robert van Herk, and Elise van den Hoven

301

For Your Eyes Only: Controlling 3D Online Games by Eye-Gaze . . . . . . . Howell Istance, Aulikki Hyrskykari, Stephen Vickers, and Thiago Chaves

314

Situating Productive Play: Online Gaming Practices and Guanxi in China . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Silvia Lindtner, Scott Mainwaring, Paul Dourish, and Yang Wang

328

Games, Fun and Aesthetic Design 2 Head Tracking in First-Person Games: Interaction Using a Web-Camera . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Torben Sko and Henry J. Gardner

342

Playability: How to Identify the Player Experience in a Video Game . . . . J.L. Gonz´ alez S´ anchez, N. Padilla Zea, and F.L. Gutiérrez

356

SimCompany: An Educational Game Created through a Human-Work Interaction Design Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pedro Campos and Ana Campos

360

HCI and Web Applications 1 What’s Next? A Visual Editor for Correcting Reading Order . . . . . . . . . . Daisuke Sato, Masatomo Kobayashi, Hironobu Takagi, and Chieko Asakawa Looking Ahead: A Comparison of Page Preview Techniques for Goal-Directed Web Navigation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Aaron Genest, Carl Gutwin, Adrian Reetz, Regan Mandryk, David Pinelle, and Andre Doucette

364

378


Comparison of Tag Cloud Layouts: Task-Related Performance and Visual Exploration . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Steffen Lohmann, J¨ urgen Ziegler, and Lena Tetzlaff

XLIII

392

HCI and Web Applications 2 Bringing Web 2.0 to the Old Web: A Platform for Parasitic Applications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Florian Alt, Albrecht Schmidt, Richard Atterer, and Paul Holleis

405

Are Ten Participants Enough for Evaluating Information Scent of Web Page Hyperlinks? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Christos Katsanos, Nikolaos Tselios, and Nikolaos Avouris

419

Navigational Consistency in Websites: What Does it Mean to Users? . . . Helen Petrie, George Papadofragkakis, Christopher Power, and David Swallow

423

CloudMonster: Support Flexible Browsing and Searching within Music Collections . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Ya-Xi Chen, Matthias Hoyer, and Andreas Butz

428

Combinable Tabs: An Interactive Method of Information Comparison Using a Combinable Tabbed Document Interface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Gonglue Jiang, Chen Zhao, Matthew R. Scott, and Fang Zou

432

Web User Modeling via Negotiating Information Foraging Agent . . . . . . . Xuehong Tao, Yin-Leng Theng, and Terence Ting

436

Human Cognition and Mental Load 1 Distinguishing Difficulty Levels with Non-invasive Brain Activity Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Audrey Girouard, Erin Treacy Solovey, Leanne M. Hirshfield, Krysta Chauncey, Angelo Sassaroli, Sergio Fantini, and Robert J.K. Jacob

440

Memorization and Information-Retrieval Behaviors . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jun-ichiro Watanabe and Youichi Horry

453

Aspects of Auditory Perception and Cognition for Usable Display Resolution in Data Sonification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Johan Kildal

467

Human Cognition and Mental Load 2 Simulating Perceptive Processes of Pilots to Support System Design . . . . Andreas L¨ udtke and Jan-Patrick Osterloh

471

XLIV


Cognitive Load Measurement from User’s Linguistic Speech Features for Adaptive Interaction Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . M. Asif Khawaja, Fang Chen, Christine Owen, and Gregory Hickey

485

Using Psychophysiological Measurements in Physically Demanding Virtual Environments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Domen Novak, Matjaˇz Mihelj, and Marko Munih

490

Human Error and Safety Resilience of Interaction Techniques to Interrupts: A Formal Model-Based Approach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Maurice H. ter Beek, Giorgio P. Faconti, Mieke Massink, Philippe A. Palanque, and Marco Winckler Adaptive Security Dialogs for Improved Security Behavior of Users . . . . . Frederik De Keukelaere, Sachiko Yoshihama, Scott Trent, Yu Zhang, Lin Luo, and Mary Ellen Zurko

494

510

Perceptions of Risk and Control: Understanding Acceptance of Advanced Driver Assistance Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Somya Joshi, Thierry Bellet, Vanessa Bodard, and Angelos Amditis

524

Detection of Pilot Errors in Data by Combining Task Modeling and Model Checking . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Florian Frische, Tomasz Mistrzyk, and Andreas L¨ udtke

528

Human-Work Interaction Design Improving the Cost Structure of Sensemaking Tasks: Analysing User Concepts to Inform Information System Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Simon Attfield and Ann Blandford

532

Vote and Be Heard: Adding Back-Channel Signals to Social Mirrors . . . . Tony Bergstrom and Karrie Karahalios

546

Ownership and Evolution of Local Process Representations . . . . . . . . . . . . Thomas P. Moran, Tara L. Matthews, Laurian Vega, Barton Smith, James Lin, and Stephen Dill

560

Designing for Improving Verbal Patient Transfer . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Abdullah Al Mahmud, Max Eichenbrenner, and Omar Mubin

574

Exploring Manual Interaction and Social Behaviour Patterns in Intensely Collaborative Teamwork . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Natalie Ruiz, Kelvin Cheng, and Markus Rittenbruch

578


XLV

Interaction with Small and Large Displays 1 A Comparison of Direct and Indirect Multi-touch Input for Large Surfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Dominik Schmidt, Florian Block, and Hans Gellersen

582

Evaluating Gaze and Touch Interaction and Two Feedback Techniques on a Large Display in a Shopping Environment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Angelique Kessels, Evert van Loenen, and Tatiana Lashina

595

Design and Evaluation of a Large Interactive Display to Support Social Interaction at Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sanjin Pajo, Senka Zubić, Agnieszka Matysiak Sz´ ostek, and Janienke Sturm

608

Interactivity for Museums: Designing and Comparing Sensor-Based Installations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Pedro Campos, André D´ oria, and Magno Sousa

612

Leaf Menus: Linear Menus with Stroke Shortcuts for Small Handheld Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anne Roudaut, Gilles Bailly, Eric Lecolinet, and Laurence Nigay

616

Interaction with Small and Large Displays 2 Spatial Cues in Small Screen Devices: Benefit Or Handicap? . . . . . . . . . . . Martina Ziefle

620

3DKey: An Accordion-Folding Based Virtual Keyboard for Small Screen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Khaldoun Al Faraj, Mustapha Mojahid, and Nadine Vigouroux

634

Investigating Temporal-Spatial Characteristics of Mouse and Touch Input . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Christian M¨ uller-Tomfelde

645

Adaptive Pointing – Design and Evaluation of a Precision Enhancing Technique for Absolute Pointing Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Werner A. K¨ onig, Jens Gerken, Stefan Dierdorf, and Harald Reiterer

658

International and Cultural Aspects of HCI The Perception of Cultural Differences in Online Self-presentation . . . . . . Yifan Jiang, Oscar de Bruijn, and Antonella De Angeli

672

Anchoring Design in Rural Customs of Doing and Saying . . . . . . . . . . . . . Nicola J. Bidwell

686

XLVI


Faces of Privacy: Effect of Culture and Context . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kari-Jouko R¨ aih¨ a and Saila Ovaska

700

Fair Partnerships – Working with NGOs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Shikoh Gitau and Gary Marsden

704

Mobile Computing 1 An Evaluation Framework for Mobile User Interfaces . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Marco de S´ a and Lu´ıs Carri¸co

708

Exploring Cross-Device Web Use on PCs and Mobile Devices . . . . . . . . . . Shaun K. Kane, Amy K. Karlson, Brian R. Meyers, Paul Johns, Andy Jacobs, and Greg Smith

722

Fancy a Drink in Canary Wharf?: A User Study on Location-Based Mobile Search . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Alia Amin, Sian Townsend, Jacco van Ossenbruggen, and Lynda Hardman Bringing Digital Storytelling to the Mobile . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Thomas Reitmaier and Gary Marsden Exploring User Requirements for Non-visual Mobile Navigation Systems . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Charlotte Magnusson, Kirsten Rassmus-Gr¨ ohn, Konrad Tollmar, and Hanna Stigmar

736

750

754

Mobile Computing 2 Multi-display Composition: Supporting Display Sharing for Collocated Mobile Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Kent Lyons, Trevor Pering, Barbara Rosario, Shivani Sud, and Roy Want

758

Animated Transitions for Adaptive Small Size Mobile Menus . . . . . . . . . . Jussi Huhtala, Jani M¨ antyj¨ arvi, Aino Ahtinen, Leena Vent¨ a, and Minna Isomursu

772

Investigating the Use of Voice and Ink for Mobile Micronote Capture . . . Adrienne H. Andrew, Amy K. Karlson, and A.J. Bernheim Brush

782

SmartActions: Context-Aware Mobile Phone Shortcuts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Akos Vetek, John A. Flanagan, Ashley Colley, and Tuomas Ker¨ anen

796

Can You Feel It? – Using Vibration Rhythms to Communicate Information in Mobile Contexts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Sebastian Feige

800


XLVII

Mobile Computing 3 An Evaluation of Product Identification Techniques for Mobile Phones . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Felix von Reischach, Florian Michahelles, Dominique Guinard, Robert Adelmann, Elgar Fleisch, and Albrecht Schmidt

804

Presence, Routines, and Technology Discrepancy – Information Exchange between Parents and Preschool Teachers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Stina Nylander

817

TimeTilt: Using Sensor-Based Gestures to Travel through Multiple Applications on a Mobile Device . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Anne Roudaut, Mathias Baglioni, and Eric Lecolinet

830

NFC-Based Mobile Interactions with Direct-View Displays . . . . . . . . . . . . Khoovirajsingh Seewoonauth, Enrico Rukzio, Robert Hardy, and Paul Holleis

835

Mobile Computing 4 Design and Evaluation of an Adaptive Mobile Map-Based Visualisation System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Bradley van Tonder and Janet Wesson

839

Exploring Multimodal Navigation Aids for Mobile Users . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Teija Vainio

853

Feature Use in Mobile Video Creation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Arto Puikkonen, Jonna H¨ akkil¨ a, Rafael Ballagas, and Jani M¨ antyj¨ arvi

866

Glaze: A Visualization Framework for Mobile Devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Roberto Sousa, Valentina Nisi, and Ian Oakley

870

A Collaborative Approach to Minimize Cellphone Interruptions . . . . . . . . Ashraf Khalil and Kay Connelly

874

Model-Based Design of Interactive Systems Augmented Interactions: A Framework for Adding Expressive Power to GUI Widgets . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Jared Cechanowicz and Carl Gutwin

878

Model-Based Design of Multi-device Interactive Applications Based on Web Services . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Fabio Patern` o, Carmen Santoro, and Lucio Davide Spano

892

Speed-Accuracy Tradeoff in Trajectory-Based Tasks with Temporal Constraint . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Xiaolei Zhou, Xiang Cao, and Xiangshi Ren

906

Author Index . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

921

Ambiguous Keyboards and Scanning: The Relevance of the Cell Selection Phase Julio Miró-Borrás, Pablo Bernabeu-Soler, Raul Llinares, and Jorge Igual Department of Communications Universidad Politécnica de Valencia, Plaza Ferrandiz-Carbonell s/n, 03801 Alcoy, Spain {jmirobo,pbernabe,rllinares,jigual}@dcom.upv.es

Abstract. This paper focuses on the relevance of the cell selection phase in the overall performance of a text entry system based on scanning and with an ambiguous keyboard. Most of the layouts are designed trying only to minimize the ambiguity of the keyboard, and taking into consideration only the disambiguation process when entering text. Nevertheless, the number of scan cycles necessary for selecting the cells has great importance in the overall performance. As we show, the performance depends on the number of cells and the linguistic model used in the cell selection phase. Keywords: Text Entry, Scanning, Ambiguous Keyboards, Disambiguation.

1 Introduction Keyboards with fewer keys1 than characters (ambiguous keyboards) can be used instead of scan matrices in text entry systems based on scanning in order to increase the text entry rate. Nevertheless, most proposals try to create layouts that minimize the ambiguity of the keyboard based only on the disambiguation process. This is the standard way when considering physical keyboards such as the ones used in mobile phones or small devices. MacKenzie et al. [1] compared most of the ambiguous keyboards proposed by other researchers in terms of KSPC (keystrokes per character). Although some of these keyboards work with scanning, they were all treated the same way: direct access. An ambiguous keyboard with indirect access and character-level disambiguation is presented in [2], [3]. Lesher et al. [4] proposed several ambiguous keyboards that minimize the ambiguity using what is called the confusability matrix. All these proposals consider only the disambiguation process, without analyzing the effect of scanning the different cells on the overall performance. This paper describes the research carried out with a single-switch text entry system using an ambiguous virtual keyboard and a word-level disambiguation process. Some of the current ambiguous layouts proposed by researchers are analyzed in our scanning system concluding that the best physical ambiguous layouts are not the best layouts when are used with scanning. 1

We use cells instead of keys when talking about virtual keyboards accessed through scanning.

T. Gross et al. (Eds.): INTERACT 2009, Part II, LNCS 5727, pp. 1–4, 2009. © IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2009

2

J. Miró-Borrás et al.

The remainder of this paper is organized as follows. In the next section we explain the methods employed in the research, specifically the mathematical model and the layouts to be analyzed. Next, the results are presented and analyzed and finally, some conclusions are drawn.

2 Methods The research is done using the proposal in [3]. It consists of a scanning system with ambiguous keyboard and a word-level disambiguation method. Instead of using a separate key for space and next function, it uses a combination of automatic and inverse scanning, and short and long keypresses as follows. The operation of this proposal is composed of two phases. The first one is the cell selection phase. Using direct scanning, the user presses the switch when the desired cell is highlighted. This is done for all the characters in a word except the last one. For the last letter, the user presses and keeps the switch pressed, indicating to the system that the word is finished. Then, the disambiguation phase starts, presenting the suggested words one after another using inverse scanning. When the desired word is shown, the user releases the switch and the word followed by a space is entered into the system. In this study, we used the same word-frequency list derived from the British National Corpus and described by Silverberg et al. [5], with the 9022 most common words in English. In the first phase, we obtained the probabilities of all characters for each position in a word, considering all the words in the list. Then, for each position, we obtained the key probabilities considering all letters in that key. In the second phase, we used the 9022 word list. In a scanning environment, both the action of pressing the switch as well as the cursor movement are traditionally considered as keystrokes. A parameter that comprises all kinds of keystrokes is nW or average weighted number of keystrokes per word (Equation 1), where nW(w) is the weighted number of keystrokes in word w, and p(w) its probability. Additionally, wS, wC, and wL are the weights for the scan cycles, the short and the long presses of the switch respectively, and nS, nC and nL are the average values of the respective number of keystrokes.

nW = ∑w nW (w) ⋅ p(w) = wS ⋅ nS + wC ⋅ nC + wL ⋅ n L .

(1)

When calculating the keystrokes values, nL and nS keep constant, so the best layouts are those that minimize the number of scan cycles. When considering physical layout performance, the main parameter is KSPC [1] or keystrokes per character (Equation 2), where KW is the number of keystrokes needed for entering word w, FW is the frequency of w, and CW is the number of letters in w. KSPC =

∑ (K ∑ (C

w w

× Fw )

× Fw )

.

(2)

In our research we evaluate the layouts of other keyboards presenting the lowest value of KSPC for a fixed number of keys. These are: L2K, UKO-II, TMK4, L6K, Mobile Phone, and QP10213.

Ambiguous Keyboards and Scanning: The Relevance of the Cell Selection Phase

3

3 Results We present in this section the number of scan cycles for the best physical layouts with 2, 3, 4, 6, 8 and 9 keys, i.e., those that present the smaller value of KSPC for the predictive method of disambiguation. The values for the number of short and long keystrokes for all layouts are: nC1= 3.50, nL1=1, nC2=1 and nL2=0 in both phases. In Table 1 we present the number of scan cycles in phase 1 (nS1), phase 2 (nS2) and total (nST) for the known layouts. The last column shows the KSPC. In Table 2 we present the values obtained for other layouts with alphabetical arrangement of letters with better performance when used with our scanning system. The value of KSPC is also shown in the same table. Table 1. Analysis of the best current keyboards Layout QP10213 Phone L6K TM4K UKO II L2K

Keys 9 8 6 4 3 2

nS1 10.82143 10.41355 6.11822 5.22093 3.74514 2.06310

nS2 nST 0.02337 10.84480 0.03479 10.44835 0.16165 6.27987 0.27777 5.49869 0.54090 4.28605 2.96924 5.03235

KSPC 1.00431 1.00641 1.02979 1.05118 1.09967 1.54712

4 Discussion The value of KSPC for physical keyboards working in predictive disambiguation mode, decreases generally when increasing the number of keys. The reason is that the ambiguity decreases when less characters share the same cell. As we can see in Table 1, the best physical layout is QP10213 with a KSPC of 1.00431. Nevertheless the number of scan cycles is 10.84, much greater than UKO-II, which needs only 4.29 scan cycles with only 3 keys. KSPC for UKO-II is 1.09967, i.e., it requires 8.7% more keystrokes than QP10213 when considering the disambiguation phase, but saves 153.0% scan cycles. The data in Table 1 shows that the keyboards with smaller KSPC are not the best keyboards when using scanning. In Table 2, we propose other keyboards with an alphabetical ordering of letters on the keys. They permit us to compare pairs of keyboards with the same number of keys. As we can see, all keyboards in Table 2 except AK2 present larger values of KSPC than their equivalents in Table 1. And what is more interesting, all keyboards present a smaller number of scan cycles. The highest differences are found in the 8-key devices: the AK8 needs 5.1% more keystrokes than the Phone keyboard, but it saves 51.8% scan cycles. Moreover, AK3 needs 15.1% more keystrokes than UKO-II, and saves 15.1% scan cycles. Notice that L2K presents a smaller number of scan cycles than AK2 but with a greater KSPC. In general, we can state that with higher number of keys, the savings in keystrokes are smaller than with keyboards with 2 or 3 keys, but the savings in scan cycles are just the opposite. This is because with more cells, the average number of scan cycles for selecting them increases, while the ambiguity is smaller.

4

J. Miró-Borrás et al.

Table 2. Proposal of several alternative keyboards (AK) with a smaller number of scan cycles Layout AK9 AK8 AK6 AK4 AK3 AK2

Keys 9 8 6 4 3 2

Layout a-i, jk, lm, no, pq, rst, uv, wx, yz a-i, jk, lm, no, pq, r-v, wx, yz a-i, j-l, m-o, p-t, u-w, x-z a-j, k-n, o-v, w-z a-g, h-t, u-z a-l, m-z

nS1 5.35468 4.70206 4.46755 3.37419 2.16769 2.13221

nS2 0.28484 0.32906 0.34948 0.63304 1.59956 2.93368

nST 5.63952 5.03112 4.81703 4.00723 3.76724 5.06589

KSPC 1.05249 1.06063 1.06440 1.11665 1.29474 1.54057

Traditional studies with ambiguous keyboards to be used with scanning try to get the best layouts for the disambiguation phase, and many times with a large number of keys [5]. Nevertheless, as we have shown here, it is more efficient to consider the cell selection phase in the design of the layout. The relevance of the cell selection phase in the total number of scan cycles depends on the linguistic model being used. The results presented in this work are obtained using a 1-gram model. With a fixed scanning pattern, the differences would be even greater, and with more elaborated prediction systems, the differences would be smaller. Only in the case of perfect prediction in phase 1, will the layouts with smaller KSPC have the best performance when using scanning. Acknowledgments. This study has been partly funded by Cátedra Telefónica - UPV.

References 1. MacKenzie, I.S., Tanaka-Ishii, K.: Text entry using a small number of buttons. In: Text Entry Systems: Mobility, Accessibility, Universality, pp. 105–121. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2007) 2. Miró, J., Bernabeu, P.A.: Text entry system based on a minimal scan matrix for severely physically handicapped people. In: Miesenberger, K., Klaus, J., Zagler, W.L., Karshmer, A.I. (eds.) ICCHP 2008. LNCS, vol. 5105, pp. 1216–1219. Springer, Heidelberg (2008) 3. Miró-Borrás, J., Bernabeu-Soler, P.: Text Entry in the E-Commerce Age: Two Proposals for the Severely Handicapped. J. theor. appl. electron. commer. res. 4, 101–112 (2009) 4. Lesher, G.W., Moulton, B.J., Higginbotham, D.J.: Optimal Character Arrangements for Ambiguous Keyboards. IEEE Trans. Rehab. Eng. 6, 415–423 (1998) 5. Silfverberg, M., MacKenzie, I.S., Korhonen, P.: Predicting text entry speed on mobile phones. In: SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 9–16 (2000)

Force Feedback Magnitude Effects on User’s Performance during Target Acquisition: A Pilot Study Lode Vanacken, Joan De Boeck, and Karin Coninx Hasselt University – tUL – IBBT, Expertise Centre for Digital Media (EDM) Wetenschapspark 2 B-3590 Diepenbeek (Belgium) {lode.vanacken,joan.deboeck,karin.coninx}@uhasselt.be

Abstract. Only a few guidelines exist for defining the force properties in a haptic interface; as a consequence, they are mostly determined in an ad-hoc manner. We investigate how the user's performance changes during target acquisition when increasing force amplitudes are applied. Using a simple multidirectional point-select task, forces with variable amplitudes are applied to the user while traversing from one target to the other. We find that the user’s performance suddenly degrades significantly, rather than decreasing progressively. This finding may be important for defining guidelines which forces may and may not be applied to a user in order to allow the haptic feedback to improve, rather than deteriorate the user’s performance. Keywords: Force Feedback, Target Acquisition.

1 Introduction and Related Work Force feedback can be applied to support pointing tasks in a desktop application or in a virtual environment. This can be achieved either by assisting the user e.g. using ‘gravity wells’ (a ‘snap-to’ effect that pulls the user’s pointer to the centre of the target) [1] or by giving haptic feedback in the form of a bump or a vibration as soon as an event occurs or a given zone is entered [2]. As not many guidelines exist, finding suitable values for the different parameters that define the forces is mostly performed using a ‘trial-and-error’ approach. In our research, we want to answer the fundamental question what kind of forces may or may not be applied in order to support the user. Ultimately, this approach may lead to a set of guidelines avoiding the aforementioned trial-and-error approach. In this paper we want to investigate the user’s behaviour with respect to the task completion time with changing forces. However, ‘changing’ a force may influence a number of degrees of freedom: force feedback device, force shape, duration, amplitude, force direction, …). Within the scope of this paper we define the force as a short force in a given direction, with given duration and amplitude. The amplitude of the force over time may follow a mathematical pattern such as a sine or a step function, which we define as the force shape. Fig. 1a illustrates such a sinusoidal ‘force bump’ which may occur lateral or longitudinal with respect to the user’s movement. T. Gross et al. (Eds.): INTERACT 2009, Part II, LNCS 5727, pp. 5–8, 2009. © IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2009

6

L. Vanacken, J. De Boeck, and K. Coninx

Fig. 1. a. (left) Force evolution of a sinusoidal haptic bump. b. (right) Setup of the experiment.

2 Experiment We conducted a multi-directional tapping experiment in which we evaluate the influence of the force magnitude on the performance of the user. 2.1 Setup As can be seen from Fig. 1b, our experimental setup consisted of a regular 19-inch CRT monitor and a Phantom premium 1.0 haptic device. The control display gain was 1 (one physical cm corresponds to one cm on the screen). Ten participants (one female and nine males) with an age between 22 and 30 (average 25), recruited among our co-workers, participated. All participants were right-handed and used their dominant hand during the experiment. A simple multidirectional point-select task, as described in ISO 9241-9 [3], was used for this experiment. Ten targets are placed in a circle on the screen (see Fig. 1b). The diameter of the circle is determined at 6 cm and the size of a target is 0.7 cm. This task has a Fitts' index of difficulty of 3.26 bits, a measure typically used in Fitts' law experiments to indicate the difficulty of the task [4]. The value is chosen to be comparable to the task difficulty of a typical icon selection task [5]. During the test, the ten targets were highlighted one after the other and users were requested to select (by pointing and clicking) the highlighted target as fast and accurate as possible. Highlighting is altered between opposite sides of the circle so that user movements are equally distributed among all directions with a maximum distance between the targets. As the task to perform was a 2D selection task and the haptic device we used is a 3D input device, a vertical guiding plane restricted the task to two dimensions. Finally, force feedback appearing in the form of a force bump with given shape, duration and varying amplitude was activated when exactly half-way in the path to the next target. 2.2 Design A repeated measures within-participant design was adopted. The independent variables were force direction D (lateral to movement direction dlat, longitudinal in the direction of the movement d+long and longitudinal opposed to the movement d-long) and force amplitude A (see Fig. 2). A fully crossed design resulted in 33 combinations of

Force Feedback Magnitude Effects on User’s Performance during Target Acquisition

7

Fig. 2. a. (left) Pair wise post hoc comparisons of the amplitude conditions for trial completion time, all significant differences (p < .05) are shaded. b. (right) Trial completion times for the different amplitudes.

A and D. Each participant performed the experiment in one session lasting about 20 minutes. The session consisted of 5 blocks with each block containing the 33 combinations (11 As and 3 Ds) repeated 3 times in a random order. For a total of 99 trials per block, this resulted in 495 trials per participant. Between each block, users were obliged to take a break of at least 15 seconds to minimise fatigue during the test. Before the experiment, participants were given all 33 conditions in random order to familiarise them with the task. During the experiment the time it took to select a target was recorded, as well as the amount of errors made during selection. 2.3 Results and Discussion We want to eliminate the results of any learning effects in our analysis; therefore we first investigated the influence of the block on the trial completion time. From this analysis, blocks 1 and 2 were significantly slower and were hence removed (F4, 36 = 5.3, p < .003). Trial Completion Time. A repeated measures analysis of variance of the faultless trials, showed main effects for D (F2, 18 = 5.42, p < .02) and A (F10, 90 = 12.6, p < .0001). The average trial completion times for direction are 901.5ms for d+long, 916.2ms d-long and 905.5ms for dlat. The differences between the D-conditions are small with respect to practical use. Post hoc comparison showed no significant differences except between d+long and d-long. This may not be surprising, as the first is assisting the user’s movement while the latter is opposing it. Post hoc comparisons for A showed many significant results. Fig. 2a represents these differences (p < .05) darkly shaded. Comparing the no-force condition with all other A-s (first column), a significant trial completion time deterioration, all p < .002, can be seen from A=1.4N. Fig. 2a shows that this deterioration is also confirmed by the comparison of the other A conditions. Fig. 2b also depicts all the average completion times for all A values: we see a small but non-significant deterioration for the smaller amplitudes and a stronger, significant degradation starting from 1.4N. This cut-off behaviour may be interesting for further research, when trying to formulate guidelines which forces may and may not support the user’s task.

8

L. Vanacken, J. De Boeck, and K. Coninx

Error Rates. The same pattern can be found for the error-rate. An error was recorded when the user clicked the button without having the correct target underneath the cursor. The overall error rate for the experiment was 114 errors or 2.3%. The direction had no significant effect on error rate D (F2, 18 = .668, p = .525). However, the amplitude values did show a significant effect A (F10, 90 = 2.62, p < .01). Post hoc comparisons showed that the no-force condition (0.7%) has a significant difference with the last two A conditions (1.8N and 2.0N, respectively 5.2% and 5.6%). In the scope of this finding, we might refer to the remarks of several users reporting involuntary miss-clicks due to the large forces, and due to the forces diverting them from an anticipated target click.

3 Conclusion and Future Work We investigated the user’s performance when forces with different amplitudes are applied during a targeting task. We observed performance deterioration as forces become stronger. It is important to notice that the degradation occurs according to a cut-off behaviour, rather than decreasing progressively. This pilot study only took the force amplitude and direction into account. However, several other parameters such as duration and shape can be changed as well. From the physical relation between force, acceleration and velocity, we foresee that the calculation of the integral may be a good prediction of the user’s behaviour, which we will investigate in our future work.

References 1. Hwang, F., Langdon, P., Keates, S., Clarkson, J.: The effect of multiple haptic distractors on the performance of motion-impaired users. In: Eurohaptics 2003, pp. 14–25 (2003) 2. Forlines, C., Balakrishnan, R.: Evaluating tactile feedback and direct vs. indirect stylus input in pointing and crossing selection tasks. In: CHI 2008, pp. 1563–1572 (2008) 3. ISO, International Organisation for Standardisation. ISO/TC 159/SC4/WG3 N147. Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) - Part 9 - Requirements for nonkeyboard input devices, May 25 (1998) 4. Fitts, P.: The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology 47, 381–391 (1954) 5. Soukoreff, R.W., MacKenzie, I.S.: Towards a standard for pointing device evaluation, perspectives on 27 years of fitts’ law research in HCI. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 61(6), 751– 789 (2004)

Gaze-Assisted Pointing for Wall-Sized Displays Hans-Joachim Bieg1, Lewis L. Chuang2, and Harald Reiterer1 1

University of Konstanz, HCI Group, Box D 73, Universitätsstraße 10, 78457 Konstanz, Germany 2 Max-Planck Institute for Biological Cybernetics, Box 2169, Spemannstraße 38, 72012 Tübingen, Germany {hans-joachim.bieg,harald.reiterer}@uni-konstanz.de, [email protected]

Abstract. Previous studies have argued for the use of gaze-assisted pointing techniques (MAGIC) in improving human-computer interaction. Here, we present experimental findings that were drawn from human performance of two tasks on a wall-sized display. Our results show that a crude adoption of MAGIC across a range of complex tasks does not increase pointing performance. More importantly, a detailed analysis of user behavior revealed several issues that were previously ignored (such as, interference of corrective saccades, increased decision time due to variability of precision, errors due to eye-hand asynchrony, and interference with search behavior) which should influence the development of gaze-assisted technology. Keywords: Eye-Tracking, Eye-Hand Coordination, Multimodal.

1 Introduction Advances in display technology and the user's need for more screen real-estate are likely to lead to considerable display size increases in the coming years. Already, displays typically extend beyond the size of 20”, up to that of large walls. With this comes a host of fresh challenges – such as the exploitation of large screen realestate [1] and complex display configurations [2] – that could be addressed by utilizing knowledge of a user’s current point of gaze on the screen. A technique for gaze-assisted pointing was previously presented by Zhai, Morimoto, and Ihde [3] that was based on the simple assumption that users tend to look at display items that were potential targets for selection. Using information from a gazetracking system, they were able to translocate the pointer to the user's current point of fixation. In other words, the pointer followed the user's gaze and reduced the movement that was typically required of the user. To enable uninterrupted manipulations, the pointer was only translocated if a fixation occurred with considerable (120 px) distance to the current pointer position and if the device was not in motion at that time. In addition, the users were still able to use their pointing device to override this modification. Zhai and colleagues showed that gaze-assisted pointing techniques resulted in (marginally) faster response times on a simple pointing task. We expected gaze-assisted pointing techniques to be especially useful on wallsized displays, given the large movement amplitudes that are required on such T. Gross et al. (Eds.): INTERACT 2009, Part II, LNCS 5727, pp. 9–12, 2009. © IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2009

10

H.-J. Bieg, L.L. Chuang, and H. Reiterer

interfaces, Furthermore, we decided to test these techniques on two tasks that reflected the complexities of a user's typical experience with display interfaces. The goals of this study were to evaluate whether the MAGIC technique would lead to substantial improvements of pointing speed and to see how the technique was affected by perceptual demand.

2 Method The experiment was carried out by 12 participants with normal or corrected-to-normal vision. In this study, participants were equipped with a mouse and were asked to perform different search and drag-and-drop tasks of varying complexity (see Fig. 1). On half of these trials, participants were provided with gaze-assisted pointing (MAGIC) and this modification was disabled on the remaining half. This order was counterbalanced to control for practice effects.

Fig. 1. Schematic representation of two experimental tasks. Left: in the first task, a single target had to be selected and dragged to a circular homing area, followed by a click on a button to confirm task completion. Right: in the second task participants had to visually search a 13 × 13 item grid for a single item, specified by shape (triangle, rectangle, circle) and color (red, green, blue) before performing the same drag-and-drop task. Such a combination of search and selection is frequently required during a range of human-computer interaction tasks [4]. The size of each item was approximately 20 px (3.3 cm, 1.92° visual angle).

Participants sat 100 cm in front of a back-projected display (resolution 1400 × 1050 px, size 94.1° × 89.1° visual angle). Subjects wore a head-mounted eye-tracker, with attached markers for head-tracking. These tracking data could thus be combined to compute the point of the user's gaze, on the screen [5]. This information was provided to the system in real-time and at 120 Hz. Experimental sessions lasted around 90 minutes and the system was recalibrated regularly to assure that gaze was tracked accurately.

3 Results and Discussion Comparison of task completion time and selection times showed better task completion times for trials without MAGIC, relative to trials that enabled MAGIC for task p1 (mean difference: 1094 ms, t(11)=6.6, p < 0.01) and task p2 (mean difference: 1720 ms, t(11)=6.7, p < 0.01). This was the case despite latencies of approximately one second between fixations on the target and selections on the MAGIC trials. Although users fixated the target early, triggering a translocation of the pointer in the

Gaze-Assisted Pointing for Wall-Sized Displays

11

Fig. 2. Left: difference in mean trial completion time (ms) between trials with MAGIC enabled and disabled (whiskers show std error). Right: movement profile of a trial during task 1. The pointer is translocated to the first inaccurate fixation (primary fixation). This fixation is followed by a corrective saccade which is below the 120 px threshold.

MAGIC condition, they were not able to benefit from this translocation and required equal or even more time to carry out fine-adjustments for the selection. A detailed analysis of user behavior with MAGIC revealed several reasons for this and suggests potential improvements: Large saccades tend to generate considerable error in their landing positions, relative to the intended targets. These are typically followed by small corrective saccades (see Fig. 2 right) which fall below our adopted threshold of 120 px [6]. In turn, these could have led to conflicts between the users’ expectations and the displayed position of the pointer. A solution to this problem would be to make the threshold dependent on the amplitude of the preceding saccade or disabling it for a fixed time span after a saccade. Based on our current data, we believe that a better threshold would be one that adapts to the saccade amplitude. A separate investigation of the effect of saccade length on fixation errors could provide more information about the benefits of such an adaptation and whether the function of this adaptation could be calibrated to fit the individual’s actual performance. Precision variability could also have increased selection time by requiring an additional cognitive task of evaluating if the pointer was displayed “accurately”. If the pointer was translocated precisely, the user was able to directly select the item underneath it. If it was off, a corrective action was required. This problem could be remedied by not translocating the pointer directly to a fixation but by introducing an artificial offset so that a more predictable correction can occur during the final manual acquisition movement. Errors also occurred when gaze moved away from targeted locations before the mouse actions were completed. For instance, participants sometimes started searching for the next target before they had dropped the item. This idiosyncratic tendency could be calibrated on an individual level by modifying the latency of pointer translocation to suit the given individual's behavioral patterns. A comparison of the second task against the first task showed an increase in task completion times because users required time to search for the target [7]. However, the increment was larger when MAGIC was enabled (see Fig. 2 left, t(11) = 3.5, p < 0.01). This result gives rise to the assumption that participants were distracted by

12

H.-J. Bieg, L.L. Chuang, and H. Reiterer

translocations of the pointer while searching for the target. Comparison of fixation duration showed that fixations during search were much shorter (mean = 281 ms, SD = 108 ms) than fixations directly preceding target selections (mean = 988 ms, SD = 455 ms). An adaptive mechanism that prevents translocation during series of short fixations could increase the performance of gaze-assisted pointing by reducing distractions due to unintended pointer motion during search.

4 Conclusion The applicability of MAGIC, a gaze-assisted pointing technique was tested with a large display. Contrary to our initial expectations, this technique did not induce any movement time savings during basic selection and search tasks. However, the experiment also revealed several issues that negatively affected performance. Specifically, we discuss how gaze-assisted pointing can benefit by being adapted to basic coordination patterns and individual differences in eye-movement behavior. The appropriate parameters for these adaptations can be approximated from a larger dataset.

References 1. Swaminathan, K., Sato, S.: Interaction design for large displays. Interactions 4(1), 15–24 (1997) 2. MacIntyre, B., Mynatt, E.D., Voida, S., Hansen, K.M., Tullio, J., Corso, G.M.: Support for multitasking and background awareness using interactive peripheral displays. In: Proceedings of the annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology (UIST), pp. 41–50 (2001) 3. Zhai, S., Morimoto, C.H., Ihde, S.: Manual and gaze input cascaded (MAGIC) pointing. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI), pp. 246–253 (1999) 4. Fleetwood, M.D., Byrne, M.D.: Modeling the visual search of displays: a revised ACT-R model of icon search based on eye-tracking data. Human-Computer Interaction 21(2), 153– 197 (2008) 5. Herholz, S., Chuang, L.L., Tanner, T.G., Bülthoff, H.H., Fleming, R.W.: LibGaze Real-time gaze-tracking of freely moving observers for wall-sized displays. In: Proceedings of the Vision, Modeling, and Visualization Workshop, VMV (2008) 6. Harris, C.M., Wolpert, D.M.: The Main Sequence of Saccades Optimizes Speed-accuracy Trade-off. Biological Cybernetics 95(1), 21–29 (2006) 7. Wolfe, J.M.: Visual Search. In: Pashler, E. (ed.) Attention, University College London Press, London (1998)

Hand Pointing Accuracy for Vision-Based Interactive Systems Kelvin Cheng1,2 and Masahiro Takatsuka2 1

HxI Initiative, NICTA, Australian Technology Park, 13 Garden St, Eveleigh, NSW 2015, Australia 2 ViSLAB, School of IT, The University of Sydney, NSW 2006 Australia [email protected], [email protected]

Abstract. Vision-based hand pointing interactive systems always assume implicitly that users’ physical pointing accuracy is perfect. However, this may not be the case. We investigated the accuracy provided by users in three pointing strategies. Result showed that pointing inaccuracy can be as high as 239mm at 3 metres away and suggest that the line-up method provides the best accuracy overall. Keywords: Hand Pointing, Pointing Accuracy, Computer Vision.

1 Introduction In most vision-based interactive systems the accuracy of the estimated pointing direction is an essential element to their success. The focus is usually on finding new ways of improving the detection, estimation and tracking the pointing hand or finger, and deduces the pointing direction [1, 2, 4]. However, these systems do not account for inaccuracies made by the user and assumed implicitly that the user is always pointing to the desired location. In this paper, we report on a study that was conducted to investigate the inherent accuracy provided by three common pointing strategies, which were widely used in previous interactive systems: 1) Forearm – only the forearm is used to point, with limited upper arm movement. 2) Straight-arm – the whole arm is used to point, without bending. 3) Line-up – the fingertip is positioned collinearly between the eye and the target. Several names have been used in the literatures for this method such as “eyefingertip”[3] or “head-hand line”[2], we call this the “line-up” method. Despite advances in computer vision, there is still no consistent method to segment and extract the pointing direction of the arm. To minimize errors introduced by computer vision systems, we made use of the laser pointing. A laser pointer can be attached to the arm and gives us a direct and simple resultant point, making it possible to quantitatively compare the different targeting strategies. However, it would be difficult to fix a laser pointer at a specific position on the arm. Consequently subjects were asked to hold the laser pointer in their hand in a way that best represent the extension of their arm direction, in a consistent manner across all three methods (Figure 1). Although physically pointing with hand or arm compared to holding the laser in the palm are slightly different, we believe that this difference would be consistent T. Gross et al. (Eds.): INTERACT 2009, Part II, LNCS 5727, pp. 13–16, 2009. © IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2009

14

K. Cheng and M. Takatsuka

enough so that it would still be comparable relatively between the strategies. Therefore until a more suitable method is found, we felt that it was appropriate in this case to use the laser pointer. In addition, users were not provided feedback from the laser pointer to adjust their accuracy. The effect of distance on the accuracy of pointing – whether pointing deteriorates as user moves away from the target – was also investigated in this experiment.

2 Experiment Fifteen volunteers (3 female, 12 male) participated in this study. Their age ranged from 20 to 31 (average of 24.9). One is left handed while 8 are right eye dominant. A 5x5mm black target was constructed on a wall at a height of 1.5 metres. The laser pointer used was a pen (1x14.7cm) with a red laser pointer fitted at the back end. In order to detect the target and the red laser dot, we used a webcam (Logitech Quickcam Pro 4000) positioned 2 metres away from the target, together with a custom image processing software (Visual C++ and OpenCV). The lighting in the room was dimmed to allow improved detection of the laser dot. The study was a within-subject study where each subject performed pointing tasks with all three pointing styles from three distances: 1, 2 and 3 metres from the target. Three blocks of trails were completed for each of the 9 combinations and the mean position for each combination was determined. The order of pointing styles and distances were counter-balanced. Without turning on the laser, subjects were asked to aim as accurately as possible, and hold the laser pointer in their dominant hand, in a way that best represents the direction of their pointing arm (for straight arm and forearm pointing, illustrated in Fig 1a). For the line-up method, users were asked to place the laser pointer so that both ends of the laser pointer are collinear with the target and the eye (Fig 1b). Subjects were free to use one or both eyes for this method. To prevent subjects receiving feedback from the laser dot, the laser was only turned on after they have taken aim. Subjects were asked to keep the orientation of the pen consistent throughout the entire experiment, in order to minimize unwanted deviation from the button press. A snapshot was then taken by the webcam. Accuracy was measured in terms of the distance between the target and the laser dot produced on the wall. The positions of the laser dots were determined off-line. In summary, the experimental design was: 15 subjects x 3 pointing techniques x 3 distances x 3 blocks = 405 pointing trials.

Target Laser

(a)

Laser

Eye

(b)

Fig. 1. (a) A laser pointer was used to represent the arm’s direction (b) The laser pointer used with the line-up method, where the target, two ends of the laser pointer and eye are collinear

Hand Pointing Accuracy for Vision-Based Interactive Systems

15

3 Results and Discussion

Mean Distance from target (mm)

Figure 2 illustrates the mean distance from target for each pointing method at the three distances, and their interactions, for all trials. A two-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) with repeated measures reveals a significant main effect for pointing technique on accuracy (F[2,28]=37.97, p

Human-Computer Interaction - INTERACT 2009: 12th IFIP TC 13 International Conference, Uppsala, Sweden, August 24-28, 2009, Proceedigns Part II ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Human-Computer Interaction. New Trends: 13th International Conference, HCI International 2009, San Diego, CA, USA, July 19-24, 2009, Proceedings, Part ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Internationalization, Design and Global Development: Third International Conference, IDGD 2009, Held as Part of HCI International 2009, San Diego, CA, ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Online Communities and Social Computing: Third International Conference, OCSC 2009, Held as Part of HCI International 2009, San Diego, CA, USA, July ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Ergonomics and Health Aspects of Work with Computers: International Conference, EHAWC 2009, Held as Part of HCI International 2009, San Diego, CA, ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Advances in Web and Network Technologies and Information Management: AP Web WAIM 2009 International Workshops: WCMT 2009, RTBI 2009, DBIR-ENQOIR 2009, ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Human-Computer Interaction. Ambient, Ubiquitous and Intelligent Interaction: 13th International Conference, HCI International 2009, San Diego, CA, ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

The Semantic Web - ISWC 2009: 8th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2009, Chantilly, VA, USA, October 25-29, 2009, Proceedings (Lecture ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Human-Computer Interaction. Novel Interaction Methods and Techniques: 13th International Conference, HCI International 2009, San Diego, CA, USA, July ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Advances in Web Based Learning - ICWL 2009: 8th International Conference, Aachen, Germany, August 19-21, 2009, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Advances in Web Based Learning - ICWL 2009: 8th International Conference, Aachen, Germany, August 19-21, 2009, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Haptic and Audio Interaction Design: 4th International Conference, HAID 2009 Dresden, Germany, September 10-11, 2009 Proceedings (Lecture Notes in ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

E-Commerce and Web Technologies: 10th International Conference, EC-Web 2009, Linz, Austria, September 1-4, 2009, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Data Warehousing and Knowledge Discovery: 11th International Conference, DaWaK 2009 Linz, Austria, August 31-September 2, 2009 Proceedings (Lecture ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Human-Computer Interaction. Interacting in Various Application Domains: 13th International Conference, HCI International 2009, San Diego, CA, USA, ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Electronic Government: 8th International Conference, EGOV 2009, Linz, Austria, August 31 - September 3, 2009, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Human Interface and the Management of Information. Information and Interaction: Symposium on Human Interface 2009, Held as Part of HCI International ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Entertainment Computing -- ICEC 2009: 8th International Conference, ICEC 2009, Paris, France, September 3-5, 2009, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

GeoSensor Networks: Third International Conference, GSN 2009, Oxford, UK, July 13-14, 2009, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Intelligent and Ubiquitous Interaction Environments: 5th International Conference, UAHCI 2009, Held as ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Web Reasoning and Rule Systems: Third International Conference, RR 2009, Chantilly, VA, USA, October 25-26, 2009, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Human Error, Safety and Systems Development: 7th IFIP WG 13.5 Working Conference, HESSD 2009, Brussels, Belgium, September 23-25, 2009, Revised ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Web Engineering: 9th International Conference, ICWE 2009 San Sebastián, Spain, June 24-26 2009 Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Web Information Systems Engineering - WISE 2009: 10th International Conference, Poznen, Poland, October 5-7, 2009, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Virtual and Mixed Reality: Third International Conference, VMR 2009, Held as Part of HCI International 2009, San Diego, CA USA, July, 19-24, 2009, ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Service-Oriented Computing: Agents, Semantics, and Engineering: AAMAS 2009 International Workshop, SOCASE 2009, Budapest, Hungary, May 11, 2009, ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Cooperative Design, Visualization, and Engineering: 6th International Conference, CDVE 2009, Luxembourg, Luxembourg, September 20-23, 2009, ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Next Generation Information Technologies and Systems: 7th International Conference, NGITS 2009 Haifa, Israel, June 16-18, 2009 Revised Selected Papers ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Next Generation Information Technologies and Systems: 7th International Conference, NGITS 2009 Haifa, Israel, June 16-18, 2009 Revised Selected Papers ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Digital Human Modeling: Second International Conference, ICDHM 2009, Held as Part of HCI International 2009 San Diego, CA, USA, July 19-24, 2009 ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Resource Discovery: Second International Workshop, RED 2009, Lyon, France, August 28, 2009, Revised Papers (Lecture Notes in Computer Science ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Human-Computer Interaction - INTERACT 2009: 12th IFIP TC 13 International Conference, Uppsala, Sweden, August 24-28, 2009, Proceedigns Part II ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Human-Computer Interaction. New Trends: 13th International Conference, HCI International 2009, San Diego, CA, USA, July 19-24, 2009, Proceedings, Part ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Internationalization, Design and Global Development: Third International Conference, IDGD 2009, Held as Part of HCI International 2009, San Diego, CA, ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Online Communities and Social Computing: Third International Conference, OCSC 2009, Held as Part of HCI International 2009, San Diego, CA, USA, July ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Ergonomics and Health Aspects of Work with Computers: International Conference, EHAWC 2009, Held as Part of HCI International 2009, San Diego, CA, ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Advances in Web and Network Technologies and Information Management: AP Web WAIM 2009 International Workshops: WCMT 2009, RTBI 2009, DBIR-ENQOIR 2009, ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Human-Computer Interaction. Ambient, Ubiquitous and Intelligent Interaction: 13th International Conference, HCI International 2009, San Diego, CA, ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

The Semantic Web - ISWC 2009: 8th International Semantic Web Conference, ISWC 2009, Chantilly, VA, USA, October 25-29, 2009, Proceedings (Lecture ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Human-Computer Interaction. Novel Interaction Methods and Techniques: 13th International Conference, HCI International 2009, San Diego, CA, USA, July ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Advances in Web Based Learning - ICWL 2009: 8th International Conference, Aachen, Germany, August 19-21, 2009, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Advances in Web Based Learning - ICWL 2009: 8th International Conference, Aachen, Germany, August 19-21, 2009, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Haptic and Audio Interaction Design: 4th International Conference, HAID 2009 Dresden, Germany, September 10-11, 2009 Proceedings (Lecture Notes in ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

E-Commerce and Web Technologies: 10th International Conference, EC-Web 2009, Linz, Austria, September 1-4, 2009, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Data Warehousing and Knowledge Discovery: 11th International Conference, DaWaK 2009 Linz, Austria, August 31-September 2, 2009 Proceedings (Lecture ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Human-Computer Interaction. Interacting in Various Application Domains: 13th International Conference, HCI International 2009, San Diego, CA, USA, ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Electronic Government: 8th International Conference, EGOV 2009, Linz, Austria, August 31 - September 3, 2009, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Human Interface and the Management of Information. Information and Interaction: Symposium on Human Interface 2009, Held as Part of HCI International ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Entertainment Computing -- ICEC 2009: 8th International Conference, ICEC 2009, Paris, France, September 3-5, 2009, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

GeoSensor Networks: Third International Conference, GSN 2009, Oxford, UK, July 13-14, 2009, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction. Intelligent and Ubiquitous Interaction Environments: 5th International Conference, UAHCI 2009, Held as ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Web Reasoning and Rule Systems: Third International Conference, RR 2009, Chantilly, VA, USA, October 25-26, 2009, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Human Error, Safety and Systems Development: 7th IFIP WG 13.5 Working Conference, HESSD 2009, Brussels, Belgium, September 23-25, 2009, Revised ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Web Engineering: 9th International Conference, ICWE 2009 San Sebastián, Spain, June 24-26 2009 Proceedings (Lecture Notes in Computer Science ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Web Information Systems Engineering - WISE 2009: 10th International Conference, Poznen, Poland, October 5-7, 2009, Proceedings (Lecture Notes in ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Virtual and Mixed Reality: Third International Conference, VMR 2009, Held as Part of HCI International 2009, San Diego, CA USA, July, 19-24, 2009, ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Service-Oriented Computing: Agents, Semantics, and Engineering: AAMAS 2009 International Workshop, SOCASE 2009, Budapest, Hungary, May 11, 2009, ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Cooperative Design, Visualization, and Engineering: 6th International Conference, CDVE 2009, Luxembourg, Luxembourg, September 20-23, 2009, ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Next Generation Information Technologies and Systems: 7th International Conference, NGITS 2009 Haifa, Israel, June 16-18, 2009 Revised Selected Papers ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Next Generation Information Technologies and Systems: 7th International Conference, NGITS 2009 Haifa, Israel, June 16-18, 2009 Revised Selected Papers ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Digital Human Modeling: Second International Conference, ICDHM 2009, Held as Part of HCI International 2009 San Diego, CA, USA, July 19-24, 2009 ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Resource Discovery: Second International Workshop, RED 2009, Lyon, France, August 28, 2009, Revised Papers (Lecture Notes in Computer Science ... Applications, incl. Internet Web, and HCI)

Recommend Documents