Personal and Ubiquitous Computing

, Volume 16, Issue 1, pp 39–52 | Cite as

Pico-ing into the future of mobile projection and contexts

  • Max L. Wilson
  • Dan Craggs
  • Simon Robinson
  • Matt Jones
  • Kristian Brimble
Original Article

Abstract

Ten years ago, we were on the verge of having cameras built into our mobile phones, but knew very little about what to expect or how they would be used. Now we are faced with the same unknowns with mobile projector phones. This research seeks to explore how people will want to use such technology, how they will feel when using it, and what social effects we can expect to see. This paper describes our two-phase field investigation that uses a combination of methods to investigate how, when, and why mobile projections may be used. The first study used an experience sampling method to investigate responses to a range of different media types, and, for example, the choice of surfaces used in each case. The second study asked users to create video diary entries showing when, where, and why they would have wanted to project information. Together these studies provide complementary insights into the future use of mobile projector phones. Our results cover detailed responses to a range of media types from the first study, while the second identified which of the known mobile information needs were commonly recorded by participants. Both studies provide insights that may help shape the hardware, software, and interaction design of mobile projector phones as they become increasingly available.

Keywords

Pico-projectors Diary study Experience sampling Mobile 

References

  1. 1.
    Mälekä A, Giller V, Tscheligi M, Sefelin R (2000) Joking, storytelling, artsharing, expressing affection: a field trial of how children and their social network communicate with digital images in leisure time. In: CHI ’00: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. ACM Press, pp 548–555Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kindberg T, Spasojevic M, Fleck R, Sellen A (2005) The ubiquitous camera: An in-depth study of camera phone use. IEEE Pervasive Comput 4(2):42–50CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Frohlich D, Tallyn E (1999) Audiophotography: practice and prospects. In: CHI ‘99 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems. ACM Press, pp 296–297Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Venta L, Isomursu M, Ahtinen A, Ramiah S (2008) ‘My Phone is a Part of My Soul’—how people bond with their mobile phones. In: The second international conference on mobile ubiquitous computing, systems, services and technologies, Sept. 29 2008–Oct. 4 2008, pp 311–317Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hang A, Rukzio E, Greaves A (2008) Projector phone: a study of using mobile phones with integrated projector for interaction with maps. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on human computer interaction with mobile devices and services, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, ACM, pp 207–216. doi:http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1409240.1409263
  6. 6.
    Greaves A, Rukzio E (2008) Evaluation of picture browsing using a projector phone. In: Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Human computer interaction with mobile devices and services, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, ACM, pp 351–354. doi:10.1145/1409240.1409286
  7. 7.
    Beardsley P, Van Baar J, Raskar R, Forlines C (2005) Interaction using a handheld projector. IEEE Comput Graph Appl 25(1):39–43CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Blasko G, Feiner S, Coriand F (2005) Exploring interaction with a simulated wrist-worn projection display. In: Proceedings of the ninth IEEE international symposium on wearable computers. IEEE computer society, pp 2–9. doi:10.1109/iswc.2005.21
  9. 9.
    Karitsuka T, Sato K (2003) A wearable mixed reality with an on-board projector. In: Proceedings of the 2nd IEEE/ACM international symposium on mixed and augmented reality. IEEE Computer Society, p 321Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Sugimoto M, Miyahara K, Inoue H, Tsunesada Y (2005) Hotaru: intuitive manipulation techniques for projected displays of mobile devices. In: INTERACT 2005. Springer, pp 57–68Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cao X, Balakrishnan R (2006) Interacting with dynamically defined information spaces using a handheld projector and a pen. In: UIST ‘06: proceedings of the 19th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology. ACM Press, pp 225–234Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cao X, Forlines C, Balakrishnan R (2007) Multi-user interaction using handheld projectors. In: UIST ’07: proceedings of the 20th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology. ACM Press, pp 43–52Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    McFarlane DC, Wilder SM (2009) Interactive dirt: increasing mobile work performance with a wearable projector-camera system. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on Ubiquitous computing, Orlando, Florida, USA. ACM, pp 205–214. doi:10.1145/1620545.1620577
  14. 14.
    Raskar R, Beardsley P, Baar Jv, Wang Y, Dietz P, Lee J, Leigh D, Willwacher T (2004) RFIG lamps: interacting with a self-describing world via photosensing wireless tags and projectors. ACM Trans Graph 23(3):406–415. doi:10.1145/1015706.1015738 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schöning J, Rohs M, Kratz S, Löchtefeld M, Krüger A (2009) Map torchlight: a mobile augmented reality camera projector unit. In: Proceedings of the 27th international conference extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, Boston, MA, USA. ACM, pp 3841–3846. doi:10.1145/1520340.1520581
  16. 16.
    Greaves A, Kerman PM, Rukzio E, Cheverst K, Hakkila J (2009) Exploring user reaction to personal projection when used in shared public places: a formative study. In: MobileHCI 2009 Workshop: CAM3SNGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Greaves A, Rukzio E (2009) View and share: supporting co-present viewing and sharing of media using personal projection. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 11th international conference on human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services, Bonn, GermanyGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mistry P, Maes P (2009) SixthSense: a wearable gestural interface. In: ACM SIGGRAPH ASIA 2009 Sketches, Yokohama, Japan. ACM. doi:10.1145/1667146.1667160
  19. 19.
    Harrison C, Tan D, Morris D (2010) Skinput: appropriating the body as an input surface. In: Proceedings of the 28th international conference on human factors in computing systems, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. ACM, pp 453–462. doi:10.1145/1753326.1753394
  20. 20.
    Raskar R, Baar JV, Beardsley P, Willwacher T, Rao S, Forlines C (2005) iLamps: geometrically aware and self-configuring projectors. In: ACM SIGGRAPH 2005 courses, Los Angeles, California. ACM, p 5. doi:10.1145/1198555.1198715
  21. 21.
    Chan L-W, Kao H-S, Chen MY, Lee M-S, Hsu J, Hung Y-P (2010) Touching the void: direct-touch interaction for intangible displays. In: Proceedings of the 28th international conference on human factors in computing systems, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. ACM, pp 2625–2634. doi:10.1145/1753326.1753725
  22. 22.
    Benko H, Wilson AD (2010) Pinch-the-sky dome: freehand multi-point interactions with immersive omni-directional data. In: Proceedings of the 28th of the international conference extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. ACM, pp 3045–3050. doi:10.1145/1753846.1753915
  23. 23.
    Molyneaux D, Gellersen H, Kortuem G, Schiele B (2007) Cooperative augmentation of smart objects with projector-camera systems. In: Proceedings of the 9th international conference on Ubiquitous computing, Innsbruck, Austria. Springer, pp 501–518Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Gupta S, Jaynes C (2006) The universal media book: tracking and augmenting moving surfaces with projected information. In: Proceedings of the 5th IEEE and ACM international symposium on mixed and augmented reality. IEEE Computer Society, pp 177–180. doi:10.1109/ismar.2006.297811
  25. 25.
    Larson R, Csikszentmihalyi M (1983) The experience sampling method. New Dir Methodol Social Behav Sci 15(1):41–56Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wilson ML, Robinson S, Craggs D, Brimble K, Jones M (2010) Pico-ing into the future of mobile projector phones. In: Proceedings of the 28th of the international conference extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, Atlanta, Georgia, USA. ACM, pp 3997–4002. doi:10.1145/1753846.1754092
  27. 27.
    Brandt J, Weiss N, Klemmer SR (2007) txt 4 l8r: lowering the burden for diary studies under mobile conditions. In: CHI ’07 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, San Jose, CA, USA. ACM, pp 2303–2308. doi:10.1145/1240866.1240998
  28. 28.
    Eldridge M, Lamming M, Flynn M (1993) Does a video diary help recall? In: Proceedings of the conference on people and computers VII, York, United Kingdom. Cambridge University Press, pp 257–269Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sohn T, Li KA, Griswold WG, Hollan JD (2008) A diary study of mobile information needs. In: Proceeding of the twenty-sixth annual SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, Florence, Italy. ACM, pp 433–442. doi:10.1145/1357054.1357125
  30. 30.
    Reitmayr G, Eade E, Drummond T (2005) Localisation and interaction for augmented maps. In: Proceedings of the 4th IEEE/ACM international symposium on mixed and augmented reality. IEEE Computer Society, pp 120–129. doi:10.1109/ismar.2005.39
  31. 31.
    Puikkonen A, Häkkilä J, Ballagas R, Mäntyjärvi J (2009) Practices in creating videos with mobile phones. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services, Bonn, Germany. ACM, pp 1–10. doi:10.1145/1613858.1613862
  32. 32.
    Häkkilä J, Chatfield C (2005) ‘It’s like if you opened someone else’s letter’: user perceived privacy and social practices with SMS communication. In: Proceedings of the 7th international conference on Human computer interaction with mobile devices and services, Salzburg, Austria. ACM, pp 219–222. doi:10.1145/1085777.1085814

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Max L. Wilson
    • 1
  • Dan Craggs
    • 1
  • Simon Robinson
    • 1
  • Matt Jones
    • 1
  • Kristian Brimble
    • 1
  1. 1.Future Interaction Technology Lab, Department of Computer ScienceSwansea UniversitySwanseaUK

Personalised recommendations