Study on generic tangible objects used to collaborate remotely on RFID tabletops

Original Paper
  • 13 Downloads

Abstract

Having the tools to work remotely with other people is one of the ambitions of people who work in a group context. In fact they have to move and to link their team-work in order to collaborate on one or several tasks. This paper describes a study on an innovative system designed to support remote collaborative applications on tabletops with tangible interaction. We propose a set of generic tangible objects. They model a set of collaborative styles which are possible between tabletop users. Our goal is to study the usability of and satisfaction with such objects that provide remote collaboration among users of interactive tabletops for tangible interaction. An application adapted to remote collaboration was tested in the laboratory with adult participants. Twelve test groups, each composed of three participants, tested a distributed application for the learning and recognition of colors. Our analysis, supported by observations, log file analysis and questionnaires, focuses on whether the use of generic objects to collaborate remotely is easy and understandable for users. It also considers user satisfaction when using the distributed tabletop with tangible objects.

Keywords

Tangible interaction Tabletop Remote collaboration Tangiget RFID 

Notes

Acknowledgements

The authors warmly thank the 36 participants in the study. They also thank Steve Gabet for his efficient help in the programming of the distributed application and the study, and Bako Rajanoah for her help during the definition of the experimental protocol. The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their numerous constructive remarks.

References

  1. 1.
    Kubicki S, Lepreux S, Kolski C (2012) RFID-driven situation awareness on TangiSense, a table interacting with tangible objects. Pers Ubiquit Comput 16(8):1079–1094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kubicki S, Lepreux S, Kolski C (2011) Evaluation of an interactive table with tangible objects: application with children in a classroom. In: Proceedings 2nd workshop child computer interaction. UI Technol. Educ. Pedagogy. At CHI 201, VancouverGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chen R, Chen P-J, Feng R et al (2014) SciSketch: a tabletop collaborative sketching system. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on tangible, embedded and embodied interaction. ACM, New York, pp 247–250Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Morris MR, Lombardo J, Wigdor D (2010) WeSearch: supporting collaborative search and sensemaking on a tabletop display. In: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work (CSCW’10). ACM, New York, pp 401–410Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Qin Y, Liu J, Wu C, Shi Y (2012) uEmergency: a collaborative system for emergency management on very large tabletop. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces. ACM, New York, pp 399–402Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rittenbruch M (2015) Supporting collaboration on very large-scale interactive wall surfaces. Comput Support Coop Work CSCW 24(2–3):121–147CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Smeaton AF, Lee H, Foley C, McGivney S (2007) Collaborative video searching on a tabletop. Multimedia Syst 12(4–5):375–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bellotti V, Bly S (1996) Walking away from the desktop computer: distributed collaboration and mobility in a product design team. In: Proceedings of the 1996 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work. ACM, New York, pp 209–218Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Minatani S, Kitahara I, Kameda Y, Ohta Y (2007) Face-to-face tabletop remote collaboration in mixed reality. In: Proceedings of the 2007 6th IEEE and ACM international symposium on mixed and augmented reality (ISMAR’07). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, pp 1–4Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Martinez-Maldonado R, Clayphan A, Kay J (2015) Deploying and visualising teacher’s scripts of small group activities in a multi-surface classroom ecology: a study in-the-wild. Comput Support Coop Work CSCW 24(2–3):177–221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Zillner J, Rhemann C, Izadi S, Haller M (2014) 3D-board: a whole-body remote collaborative whiteboard. In: Proceedings of the 27th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology. ACM, New York, pp 471–479Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Bouabid A, Lepreux S, Kolski C, Havrez C (2014) Context-sensitive and collaborative application for distributed user interfaces on tabletops. In: Proceedings of the 2014 workshop on distributed user interfaces and multimodal interaction. ACM, New York, pp 23–26Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Kharrufa A, Balaam M, Heslop P et al (2013) Tables in the wild: lessons learned from a large-scale multi-tabletop deployment. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 1021–1030Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Ishii H, Ullmer B (1997) Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI’97). ACM, New York, pp 234–241Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Isenberg P, Fisher D, Morris MR et al (2010) An exploratory study of co-located collaborative visual analytics around a tabletop display.  https://doi.org/10.1109/VAST.2010.5652880
  16. 16.
    Lepreux S, Kubicki S, Kolski C, Caelen J (2012) From centralized interactive tabletops to distributed surfaces: the tangiget concept. Int J Hum Comput Interact 28:709–721CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Olson GM, Olson JS (2000) Distance matters. Hum Comput Interact 15, 2(September 2000):139–178CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Idan A, Wallach HS, Almagor M et al (2015) Mediated telemedicine vs. face-to-face medicine: efficiency in distress reduction. J Multimodal User Interfaces 9:333–339CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Esenther A, Ryall K, Esenther A, Ryall K (2006) RemoteDT: support for multi-site table collaboration. In: Proceedings of the international conference on collaboration and technologyGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Yamashita N, Kaji K, Kuzuoka H, Hirata K (2011) Improving visibility of remote gestures in distributed tabletop collaboration. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on computer supported cooperative work. ACM, New York, pp 95–104Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cuendet S, Dehler-Zufferey J, Ortoleva G, Dillenbourg P (2015) An integrated way of using a tangible user interface in a classroom. Int J Comput Support Collab Learn 10(2):183–208Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Melchior J (2011) Distributed user interfaces in space and time. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGCHI symposium on engineering interactive computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 311–314Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sluis RJW, Weevers I, van Schijndel CHGJ et al (2004) Read-it: five-to-seven-year-old children learn to read in a tabletop environment. In: Proceedings of the 2004 conference on interaction design and children: building a community. ACM, New York, pp 73–80Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Tuddenham P, Robinson P (2009) Territorial coordination and workspace awareness in remote tabletop collaboration. In: Proceedings of the 27th international conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI 2009, Boston, April 4–9, 2009. ACM 2009, pp 2139–2148Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Tang A, Tory M, Po B et al (2006) Collaborative coupling over tabletop displays. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 1181–1190Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Caelen J, Becker M, Pellegrin A (2011) Tangibility and human–computer interaction: an alternative approach to affordance. In: Blashki K (ed) Proceedings of the IADIS international conference on interfaces and human computer interaction, Rome, 20–26 July 2011Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Fishkin KP (2004) A taxonomy for and analysis of tangible interfaces. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 8:347–358.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-004-0297-4 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Kubicki S, Lepreux S, Kolski C (2013) Distributed UI on interactive tabletops: issues and context model. Distributed user interfaces: usability and collaboration. Springer, London, pp 27–38CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Lebrun Y, Lepreux S, Haudegond S et al (2014) Management of distributed RFID surfaces: a cooking assistant for ambient computing in kitchen. Proc Comput Sci 32:21–28.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2014.05.393 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Havrez C, Lepreux S, Lebrun Y et al (2016) A design model for tangible interaction: case study in waste sorting. IFAC-Pap 49:373–378.  https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.10.594 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Kubicki S, Wolff M, Lepreux S, Kolski C (2015) RFID interactive tabletop application with tangible objects: exploratory study to observe young children’behaviors. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 19:1259–1274CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kubicki S, Lepreux S, Lebrun Y, Dos santos P, Kolski C, Caelen J (2009) New human–computer interactions using tangible objects: application on a digital tabletop with RFID technology. In: Human–computer interaction, 13th international conference, HCI international 2009 (San Diego, CA, USA, July 19–24, 2009), Proceedings, Part III, LNCS 5612. Springer, Berlin, pp 446–455Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Bouabid A, Lepreux S, Kolski C (2016) Distributed tabletops: study involving two RFID tabletops with generic tangible objects. In: Casteleyn S, Dolog P, Pautasso C (eds) Current trends in web engineering - ICWE 2016 international workshops, DUI, TELERISE, SoWeMine, and Liquid Web, Lugano, Switzerland, June 6–9, 2016, Revised selected papers, Lecture notes in computer science 9881, Springer, pp 167–173Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Vidal GM, Geerts M, Feki MA (2013) The role of affordances and interaction bits in the design of a new tangible programming interface: a preliminary result. Bell Labs Tech J 17:157–174.  https://doi.org/10.1002/bltj.21581
  35. 35.
    Regenbrecht H, Haller M, Hauber J, Billinghurst M (2006) Carpeno: interfacing remote collaborative virtual environments with table-top interaction. Virtual Real 10:95–107.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-006-0045-3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Moreno A, Poppe R (2016) Automatic behavior analysis in tag games: from traditional spaces to interactive playgrounds. J Multimodal User Interfaces 10:63–75.  https://doi.org/10.1007/s12193-016-0211-1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.LAMIH-UMR CNRS 8201University of ValenciennesValenciennes Cedex 9France
  2. 2.SETITUniversity of SfaxSfaxTunisia

Personalised recommendations