Multimedia Tools and Applications

, Volume 76, Issue 4, pp 5607–5629

Personalized presentation annotations using optical HMDs

Article
  • 46 Downloads

Abstract

It is difficult to adjust the content of traditional slide presentations to the knowledge level, interest and role of individuals. This might force presenters to include content that is irrelevant for part of the audience, which negatively affects the knowledge transfer of the presentation. In this work, we present a prototype that is able to eliminate non-pertinent information from slides by presenting annotations for individual attendees on optical head-mounted displays. We first create guidelines for creating optimal annotations for HMDs by evaluating several types of annotations alongside different types of slides. Then we evaluate the knowledge acquisition of presentation attendees using the prototype versus traditional presentations. Our results show that annotations with a limited amount of information, such as text up to 5 words, can significantly increase the amount of knowledge gained from attending a group presentation. Additionally, presentations where part of the information is moved to annotations are judged more positively on attributes such as clarity and enjoyment.

Keywords

Head-mounted device (HMD) Smart spaces Presentations Annotations 

References

  1. 1.
    Bartsch RA, Cobern KM (2003) Effectiveness of powerpoint presentations in lectures. Comput Educ 41(1):77–86CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Brooke J (1996) Sus-a quick and dirty usability scale. Usab Eval Indus 189 (194):4–7Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Cakmakci O, Rolland J (2006) Head-worn displays: a review. J Disp Technol 2(3):199–216CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Condorcet.Vote (2015) Condorcet Vote. Retrieved on 9/16/2015 from http://www.condorcet.vote/
  5. 5.
    DBpedia (2015) DBpedia. Retrieved on 9/16/2015 from http://wiki.dbpedia.org/
  6. 6.
    Edge D, Savage J, Yatani K (2013) Hyperslides: dynamic presentation prototyping. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 671–680Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Firebase (2015) Firebase. Retrieved on 9/16/2015 from https://www.firebase.com/
  8. 8.
    GitHub User Hakimel (2015) reveal.js. Retrieved on 9/16/2015 from https://github.com/hakimel/reveal.js/
  9. 9.
    Google (2015) Google developers: glass. Retrieved on 9/16/2015 from https://developers.google.com/glass/
  10. 10.
    Google (2015) Google glass development kit. Retrieved on 9/16/2015 from https://developers.google.com/glass/develop/gdk/
  11. 11.
    handlebars.js (2015) Handlebars.js semantic web templates. Retreived on 9/16/2015 from http://handlebarsjs.com/
  12. 12.
    Hong J (2013) Considering privacy issues in the context of google glass. Commun ACM 56(11):10–11CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Jiang X, Tan AH (2009) Learning and inferencing in user ontology for personalized semantic web search. Inf Sci 179(16):2794–2808CrossRefMATHGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Kelley DH, Gorham J (1988) Effects of immediacy on recall of information. Commun Educ 37(3):198–207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kobsa A (2007) Generic user modeling systems. In: The adaptive web. Springer, pp 136–154Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Lai YS, Tsai HH, Yu PT (2011) Integrating annotations into a dual-slide powerpoint presentation for classroom learning. Educ Technol Soc 14(2):43–57Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Lichtschlag L, Hess T, Karrer T, Borchers J (2012) Fly: studying recall, macrostructure understanding, and user experience of canvas presentations. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 1307–1310Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Mann S (1997) Wearable computing: a first step toward personal imaging. Computer 30(2):25–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mann S (2015) Wearable technology as a human right. MIT Technology ReviewGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Mayer RE, Heiser J, Lonn S (2001) Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: when presenting more material results in less understanding. J Educ Psychol 93(1):187CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Mayer RE, Moreno R (2003) Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educ Psychol 38(1):43–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Microsoft (2015) Microsoft Hololens. Retrieved on 9/16/2015 from http://www.microsoft.com/microsoft-hololens/en-us
  23. 23.
    Microsoft (2015) Powerpoint. Retrieved on 9/16/2015 from http://products.office.com/en-us/powerpoint
  24. 24.
    Norman G (2010) Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Adv Health Sci Educ 15(5):625–632CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Pschetz L, Yatani K, Edge D (2014) Turningpoint: narrative-driven presentation planning. In: Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 1591–1594Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Qvarfordt P, Golovchinsky G, Dunnigan T, Agapie E (2013) Looking ahead: query preview in exploratory search. In: Proceedings of the 36th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval. ACM, pp 243–252Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Rolland J, Cakmakci O (2009) Head-worn displays: the future through new eyes. Opt Photon News 20(4):20–27CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rolland J, Hua H (2005) Head-mounted display systems. Encycloped Opt Eng:1–13Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Rolland JP, Fuchs H (2000) Optical versus video see-through head-mounted displays in medical visualization. Pres Teleoperat Virt Environ 9(3):287–309CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Savoy A, Proctor RW, Salvendy G (2009) Information retention from powerpoint and traditional lectures. Comput Educ 52(4):858–867CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Schulze M (2003) A new monotonic and clone-independent single-winner election method. Voting Matt 17(1):9–19MathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Tribe Te (2015) The Eye Tribe Tracker. Retrieved on 9/16/2015 from https://theeyetribe.com/products/
  33. 33.
    Trinh H, Ring L, Bickmore T (2015) Dynamicduo: co-presenting with virtual agents. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI ’15. doi:10.1145/2702123.2702584. ACM, New York, pp 1739–1748
  34. 34.
    Tufte ER (2003) The cognitive style of PowerPoint, vol 2006. Graphics Press Cheshire, CTGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    U.S. Department of Defense (1998) Design criteria for military systems, equipment, and facilities, MIL-STD-1472f. Department of defense design criteria standard human engineeringGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Van Krevelen D, Poelman R (2010) A survey of augmented reality technologies, applications and limitations. Int J Virt Real 9(2):1Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Wikipedia (2015) List of United States Cities by population. Retrieved on 9/16/2015 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population
  38. 38.
    Wikitude (2015) Wikitude augmented reality SDK. Retrieved on 9/16/2015 from http://www.wikitude.com/products/wikitude-sdk/
  39. 39.
    Yates J, Orlikowski W (2007) The powerpoint presentation and its corollaries: how genres shape communicative action in organizations. In: Communicative practices in workplaces and the professions: cultural perspectives on the regulation of discourse and organizations, pp 67–91Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Youtube Account of Expedia.com (2015) Expedia travel guide for Dallas. Retrieved on 9/16/2015 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kt7lpqdbNgA

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.FX Palo Alto LaboratoryPalo AltoUSA
  2. 2.University of AmsterdamAmsterdamNetherlands

Personalised recommendations