Advertisement

Virtual Reality

, Volume 16, Issue 4, pp 271–288 | Cite as

Toward the design of transitional interfaces: an exploratory study on a semi-immersive hybrid user interface

  • Felipe G. Carvalho
  • Daniela G. TrevisanEmail author
  • Alberto Raposo
Original Article

Abstract

A task that can be decomposed into subtasks with different technological demands may be a challenge, since it requires multiple interactive environments as well as transitions between them. Some of these transitions may involve changes in hardware devices and interface paradigms at the same time. Some previous works have proposed various setups for hybrid user interfaces, but none of them focused on the design of transition interactions. Our work emphasizes the importance of interaction continuity as a guideline in the design and evaluation of transitional interfaces within a hybrid user interface (HUI). Finally, an exploratory study demonstrates how this design aspect is perceived by users during transitions in an HUI composed by three interactive environments.

Keywords

Transitional interfaces Hybrid user interfaces Continuity properties 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank all volunteer users who took part in the experiments. Thanks also to Petrobras, the National Council for Scientific and Technological Development (CNPq), and FAPERJ for the financial support of this work.

Supplementary material

PDF (5732 KB)

References

  1. Alencar MFC, Raposo AB, Barbosa SDJ (2011) Composition of HCI evaluation methods for hybrid virtual environments. In: proceedings of the 2011 ACM symposium on applied computing, pp 1237–1244Google Scholar
  2. Baumgartner S, Ebert A, Deller M (2007) Dimensional congruence for interactive visual data mining and knowledge discovery. In: EuroVis, Eurographics Association, pp 99–106Google Scholar
  3. Benko H, Ishak E, Feiner S (2005) Cross-dimensional gestural interaction techniques for hybrid immersive environments. In: Virtual Reality 2005, IEEE, pp 209–216Google Scholar
  4. Billinghurst M, Kato H, Poupyrev I (1999) The magicbook—moving seamlessly between reality and virtuality. In: IWAR 99, pp 35–44Google Scholar
  5. Bornik A, Beichel R, Kruijff E, Reitinger B, Schmalstieg D (2006) A hybrid user interface for manipulation of volumetric medical data. In: IEEE symposium on 3D user interfaces, IEEEGoogle Scholar
  6. Bowman D, Kruijff E, LaViola J, Poupyrev I (2005) 3D user interfaces—theory and practice. Addison-WesleyGoogle Scholar
  7. Butz A, Hollerer T et al (1999) Enveloping users and computers in a collaborative 3D augmented reality. In: IWAR 99, pp 35–44Google Scholar
  8. Carvalho F, Raposo A, Gattass M (2009) A transitional interface between 2D/3D functional spaces in a desktop semi-immersive system. In: VRCAI 2009 The 8th international ACM conference on virtual-reality continuum and its applications in industry, ACMGoogle Scholar
  9. Czerwinski M, Tan DS, Robertson GG (2002) Women take a wider view. In: CHI ’02: proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, ACM, New York, pp 195–202Google Scholar
  10. Demiralp C, Karelitz DB, Zhang S, Laidlaw DH (2006) Cave and fishtank virtual-reality displays: a qualitative and quantitative comparison. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 12(3):323–330, member-Cullen D. JacksonGoogle Scholar
  11. De Souza CS (2005) The semiotic engineering of human-computer interaction. MIT Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  12. Dubois E, Nigay L, Troccaz J (2002) Assessing continuity and compatibility in augmented reality systems. J Univers Access Inf Soc 1(4):263–273CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Feiner S, Shamash A (1991) Hybrid user interfaces: breeding virtually bigger interfaces for physically smaller computers. In: ACM UIST 91, ACM, pp 9–17Google Scholar
  14. Grasset R, Looser J, Billinghurst M (2006) Transitional interface: concept, issues and framework. In: ISMAR, IEEE, pp 231–232Google Scholar
  15. Grasset R, Duenser A, Billinghurst M (2008) Moving between contexts—a user evaluation of a transitional interface. In: ICAT 2008: 18th international conference on artificial reality and telexistence, Keio University, YokohamaGoogle Scholar
  16. Hall ET (1969) The hidden dimension. Anchor BooksGoogle Scholar
  17. Ishii H, Kobayashi M, Arita K (1994) Iterative design of seamless collaboration media. Commun ACM 37(8):83–97CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kiyokawa K, Takemura H, Yokoya N (2000) SeamlessDesign for 3D object creation. IEEE Multimedia IEEE 7(1):22–33CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Masso JPM (2008) A structured approach to the development of 3D user interfaces. PhD thesis, ALBACETE, ES, adviser-Pascual Gonzalez LopezGoogle Scholar
  20. Milgram P, Colquhoun HJ (1999) A taxonomy of real and virtual world display integration. Mixed reality: merging real and virtual worlds. Ohmsha and Springer pp 5–30Google Scholar
  21. Milgram P, Kishino F (1994) A taxonomy of mixed reality visual displays. IECE transactions on information and systems, pp 1321–1329Google Scholar
  22. Nakashima K, Machida T, Kiyokawa K, Takamura H (2005) A 2D–3D integrated environment for cooperative work. In: symposium on virtual reality software and technology, ACM, pp 16–22Google Scholar
  23. Polys NF, Kim S, Bowman DA (2005) Effects of information layout, screen size, and field of view on user performance in information-rich virtual environments. In: VRST ’05: proceedings of the ACM symposium on virtual reality software and technology, ACM, New York, pp 46–55Google Scholar
  24. Prabhat, Forsberg A, Katzourin M, Wharton K, Slater M (2008) A comparative study of desktop, fishtank, and cave systems for the exploration of volume rendered confocal data sets. IEEE Trans Visual Comput Gr 14(3):551–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Raja D, Bowman D, Lucas J, North C (2004) Exploring the benefits of immersion in abstract information visualization. In: 8th international immersive projection technology workshopGoogle Scholar
  26. Raposo A, Santos I, Soares L, Wagner G, Corseuil E, Gattas M (2009) Environ: integrating VR and CAD in engineering projects. In: IEEE computer graphics and applications, IEEE, vol 29, pp 91–95Google Scholar
  27. Rascar R, Welch G, Cutts M, et al (1998) The office of the future: a unified approach to image-based modeling and spatially immersive displays. In: SIGGRAPH, ACM, pp 179–188Google Scholar
  28. Raymaekers C, Boeck JD, Weyer TD, Coninx K (2005) The effect of display size on navigation in a virtual environment. In: proceedings international conference on enactive interfaces—enactive ’05Google Scholar
  29. Rekimoto J, Nagao K (1995) The world through the computer: computer augmented interaction with real world environments. In: proceedings of the ACM symposium on user interface software and technology, ACM, pp 29–36Google Scholar
  30. Rekimoto J, Saitoh M (1999) Augmented surfaces: a spatially continuous work space for hybrid computing environments. In: proceedings of CHI’99, ACM, pp 378–385Google Scholar
  31. Steed A, Parker C (2005) Evaluating effectiveness of interaction techniques across immersive virtual environmental systems. Presence Teleoper Virtual Environ 14(5):511–527CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. Tan DS, Gergle D, Scupelli P, Pausch R (2006) Physically large displays improve performance on spatial tasks. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact 13(1):71–99CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Trevisan DG (2004) Designing smooth connections between worlds. In: extended abstracts of the 2004 conference on human factors and computing systems CHI2004, Session doctoral consortium, ACM Press, pp 1043–1044Google Scholar
  34. Trevisan DG, Vanderdonckt J, Macq B (2004) Conceptualizing mixed spaces of interaction for designing continuous interaction. Virtual Real J 8(2):83–95CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Limited 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Felipe G. Carvalho
    • 1
  • Daniela G. Trevisan
    • 2
    Email author
  • Alberto Raposo
    • 3
  1. 1.Computer Graphics Technology Group, TecgrafPontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, PUC-RioRio de JaneiroBrazil
  2. 2.Computer InstituteFederal Fluminense UniversityNiteroiBrazil
  3. 3.Department of InformaticsPontifical Catholic University of Rio de Janeiro, PUC-RioRio de JaneiroBrazil

Personalised recommendations