Proxemic Flow: Dynamic Peripheral Floor Visualizations for Revealing and Mediating Large Surface Interactions

  • Jo VermeulenEmail author
  • Kris Luyten
  • Karin Coninx
  • Nicolai Marquardt
  • Jon Bird
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9299)


Interactive large surfaces have recently become commonplace for interactions in public settings. The fact that people can engage with them and the spectrum of possible interactions, however, often remain invisible and can be confusing or ambiguous to passersby. In this paper, we explore the design of dynamic peripheral floor visualizations for revealing and mediating large surface interactions. Extending earlier work on interactive illuminated floors, we introduce a novel approach for leveraging floor displays in a secondary, assisting role to aid users in interacting with the primary display. We illustrate a series of visualizations with the illuminated floor of the Proxemic Flow system. In particular, we contribute a design space for peripheral floor visualizations that (a) provides peripheral information about tracking fidelity with personal halos, (b) makes interaction zones and borders explicit for easy opt-in and opt-out, and (c) gives cues inviting for spatial movement or possible next interaction steps through wave, trail, and footstep animations. We demonstrate our proposed techniques in the context of a large surface application and discuss important design considerations for assistive floor visualizations.


Feedback Proxemic interactions Implicit interaction Discoverability Intelligibility Spatial feedback 



This work was supported by ICRI Cities.


  1. 1.
    Ballendat, T., Marquardt, N., Greenberg, S.: Proxemic interaction: designing for a proximity and orientation-aware environment. In: Proceedings ITS 2010, pp. 121–130. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Müller, J., Alt, F., Michelis, D., Schmidt, A.: Requirements and design space for interactive public displays. In: Proceedings of MM 2010, pp. 1285–1294. ACM (2010)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Huang, E.M., Koster, A., Borchers, J.: Overcoming assumptions and uncovering practices: when does the public really look at public displays? In: Indulska, J., Patterson, D.J., Rodden, T., Ott, M. (eds.) PERVASIVE 2008. LNCS, vol. 5013, pp. 228–243. Springer, Heidelberg (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Müller, J., Wilmsmann, D., Exeler, J., Buzeck, M., Schmidt, A., Jay, T., Krüger, A.: Display blindness: the effect of expectations on attention towards digital signage. In: Tokuda, H., Beigl, M., Friday, A., Brush, A., Tobe, Y. (eds.) Pervasive 2009. LNCS, vol. 5538, pp. 1–8. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Ojala, T., Kostakos, V., Kukka, H., Heikkinen, T., Linden, T., Jurmu, M., Hosio, S., Kruger, F., Zanni, D.: Multipurpose interactive public displays in the wild: three years later. Computer 45, 42–49 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Walter, R., Bailly, G., Müller, J.: StrikeAPose: revealing mid-air gestures on public displays. In: Proceedings of CHI 2013, pp. 841–850. ACM, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Brignull, H., Rogers, Y.: Enticing people to interact with large public displays in public spaces. In: Proceedings of INTERACT 2003 (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ju, W., Lee, B.A., Klemmer, S.R.: Range: exploring implicit interaction through electronic whiteboard design. In: Proceedings of CSCW 2008, pp. 17–26. ACM (2008)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Vogel, D., Balakrishnan, R.: Interactive public ambient displays: transitioning from implicit to explicit, public to personal, interaction with multiple users. In: Proceedings of UIST 2004, pp. 137–146. ACM, New York (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Weiser, M., Brown, J.S.: Designing calm technology. PowerGrid J. 1, 75–85 (1996)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Augsten, T., Kaefer, K., Meusel, R., Fetzer, C., Kanitz, D., Stoff, T., Becker, T., Holz, C., Baudisch, P.: Multitoe: high-precision Interaction with back-projected floors based on high-resolution multi-touch input. Proc. UIST 2010, pp. 209–218. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Schmidt, D., Ramakers, R., Pedersen, E.W., Jasper, J., Köhler, S., Pohl, A., Rantzsch, H., Rau, A., Schmidt, P., Sterz, C., Yurchenko, Y., Baudisch, P.: Kickables: tangibles for feet. In: Proceedings of CHI 2014, pp. 3143–3152. ACM, USA (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Michelis, D., Müller, J.: The audience funnel: observations of gesture based interaction with multiple large displays in a city center. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 27, 562–579 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Houben, S., Weichel, C.: Overcoming interaction blindness through curiosity objects. In: Proceedings of CHI EA 2013, pp. 1539–1544. ACM, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Cheung, V., Scott, S.D.: Investigating attraction and engagement of animation on large interactive walls in public settings. In: Proceedings of ITS 2013, pp. 381–384. ACM, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Wang, M., Boring, S., Greenberg, S.: Proxemic Peddler: A public advertising display that captures and preserves the attention of a passerby. In: Proceedings of PerDis 2012, pp. 3:1–3:6. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Greenberg, S., Boring, S., Vermeulen, J., Dostal, J.: Dark patterns in proxemic interactions: a critical perspective. In: Proceedings of DIS 2014, pp. 523–532. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Beyer, G., Binder, V., Jäger, N., Butz, A.: The puppeteer display: attracting and actively shaping the audience with an interactive public banner display. In: Proceedings of DIS 2014, pp. 935–944. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jurmu, M., Ogawa, M., Boring, S., Riekki, J., Tokuda, H.: Waving to a touch interface: descriptive field study of a multipurpose multimodal public display. In: Proceedings of PerDis 2013, pp. 7–12. ACM, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Müller, J., Walter, R., Bailly, G., Nischt, M., Alt, F.: Looking glass: a field study on noticing interactivity of a shop window. In: Proceedings of CHI 2012, pp. 297–306. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Marquardt, N., Ballendat, T., Boring, S., Greenberg, S., Hinckley, K.: Gradual engagement: facilitating information exchange between digital devices as a function of proximity. In: Proceedings of ITS 2012, pp. 31–40. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Gellersen, H., Fischer, C., Guinard, D., Gostner, R., Kortuem, G., Kray, C., Rukzio, E., Streng, S.: Supporting device discovery and spontaneous interaction with spatial references. Pers. Ubiquitous Comput. 13, 255–264 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Annett, M., Grossman, T., Wigdor, D., Fitzmaurice, G.: Medusa: a proximity-aware multi-touch tabletop. In: Proceedings of UIST 2011, pp. 337–346. ACM, USA (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hespanhol, L., Tomitsch, M., Bown, O., Young, M.: Using embodied audio-visual interaction to promote social encounters around large media façades. In: Proceedings of DIS 2014, pp. 945–954. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Karatzas, E.: Proximity Lab: Studies in Physical-Computational Interface and Self-Directed User Experience (2005)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Rehman, K., Stajano, F., Coulouris, G.: Visually interactive location-aware computing. In: Beigl, M., Intille, S.S., Rekimoto, J., Tokuda, H. (eds.) UbiComp 2005. LNCS, vol. 3660, pp. 177–194. Springer, Heidelberg (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Wilson, A.D., Benko, H.: Combining multiple depth cameras and projectors for interactions on, above and between surfaces. In: Proceedings of UIST 2010, pp. 273–282. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Sodhi, R., Benko, H., Wilson, A.: LightGuide: projected visualizations for hand movement guidance. In: Proceedings of CHI 2012, pp. 179–188. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Ozturk, O., Matsunami, T., Suzuki, Y., Yamasaki, T., Aizawa, K.: Real-time tracking of humans and visualization of their future footsteps in public indoor environments. Multimed. Tools Appl. 59, 65–88 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rogers, Y., Hazlewood, W.R., Marshall, P., Dalton, N., Hertrich, S.: Ambient influence: can twinkly lights lure and abstract representations trigger behavioral change? In: Proceedings of Ubicomp 2010, pp. 261–270. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Grønbæk, K., Iversen, O.S., Kortbek, K.J., Nielsen, K.R., Aagaard, L.: IGameFloor: a platform for co-located collaborative games. In: Proceedings of ACE 2007, pp. 64–71. ACM, New York (2007)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Dalton, N.S.: TapTiles: LED-based floor interaction. In: Proceedings of ITS 2013, pp. 165–174. ACM, New York (2013)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Visell, Y., Law, A., Cooperstock, J.R.: Touch is everywhere: floor surfaces as ambient haptic interfaces. IEEE Trans. Haptics 2, 148–159 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Mueller, F., Stellmach, S., Greenberg, S., Dippon, A., Boll, S., Garner, J., Khot, R., Naseem, A., Altimira, D.: Proxemics play: understanding proxemics for designing digital play experiences. In: Proceedings of DIS 2014, pp. 533–542. ACM (2014)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Bird, J., Harrison, D., Marshall, P.: The Challenge of Maintaining Interest in a Large-Scale Public Floor Display. In: Proceedings of EIPS 2013 workshop (2013)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Heun, V., von Kapri, A., Maes, P.: Perifoveal display: combining foveal and peripheral vision in one visualization. In: Proceedings of Ubicomp 2012, pp. 1150–1155. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jo Vermeulen
    • 1
    Email author
  • Kris Luyten
    • 2
  • Karin Coninx
    • 2
  • Nicolai Marquardt
    • 3
  • Jon Bird
    • 4
  1. 1.HCI CentreUniversity of BirminghamBirminghamUK
  2. 2.Hasselt University – tUL – iMinds, Expertise Centre for Digital MediaDiepenbeek Belgium
  3. 3.UCL Interaction Centre/ICRI CitiesUniversity College LondonLondonUK
  4. 4.City University LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations