On Feelings of Comfort, Motivation and Joy that GUI and TUI Evoke

  • Julián Esteban Gutiérrez Posada
  • Elaine C. S. Hayashi
  • M. Cecília C. Baranauskas
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8520)


New ways to interact with technology are gaining ground over the familiar Graphical User Interfaces (GUI). The Tangible User Interfaces (TUI) are one example of this. However, while it may seem intuitive that such interfaces should evoke rather positive responses from users – e.g. feelings associated with pleasure – little has been studied in this sense. In this challenge of understanding the feelings that GUI and TUI have the potential to evoke, we present our findings from a research that involved more than a hundred people. The research question that guided our endeavors was: What are the relations between the feelings of joy, motivation and comfort when using TUI and GUI? We analyze the results and discuss some hypotheses to explain the behavior observed.


Feeling Comfort Motivation Joy TUI GUI Kodu Scratch 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Bernstein, D.: Essentials of psychology. Cengage Learning, Belmont (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bradley, M.M., Lang, P.J.: Measuring emotion: the self-assessment manikin and the semantic differential. Journal of Behavior Therapy and Experimental Psychiatry 25(1), 49–59 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Doering, T., Beckhaus, S., Schmidt, A.: Towards a sensible integration of paper-based tangible user interfaces into creative work processes. In: CHI 2009 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 4627–4632. ACM, Boston (2009)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Fishkin, K.P.: A taxonomy for and analysis of tangible interfaces. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 8(5), 347–358 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Garzotto, F., Gonella, R.: An open-ended tangible environment for disabled children’s learning. In: Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, pp. 52–61. ACM, Michigan (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Hayashi, E.C., Baranauskas, M.C.C.: The Affectibility Concept in Systems for Learning Contexts. International Journal for e-Learning Security (IJeLS) 1(1/2), 10–18 (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Horn, M.S., Solovey, E.T., Crouser, R.J., Jacob, R.J.: Comparing the use of tangible and graphical programming languages for informal science education. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 975–984. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ishii, H., Lakatos, D., Bonanni, L., Labrune, J.B.: Radical Atoms: Beyond Tangible Bits, Toward Transformable Materials. In: Interactions, vol. 19(1), pp. 38–51. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ishii, H., Ullmer, B.: Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 234–241. ACM (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Ishii, H.: The tangible user interface and its evolution. Communications of the ACM 51(6), 32–36 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kaltenbrunner, M.: reacTIVision and TUIO: A tangible tabletop toolkit. In: Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces, pp. 9–16. ACM, Banff (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Norman, D.A.: Cognitive engineering, User centered system design, pp. 31–61. Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Publisher, New Jersey (1986)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Norman, D.A.: Emotion & design: Attractive things work better. In: Interactions, vol. 9(4). ACM (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Oxford Dictionaries Language matters,
  15. 15.
    Patten, J., Ishii, H.: A comparison of spatial organization strategies in graphical and tangible user interfaces. In: Proceedings of DARE 2000 on Designing Augmented Reality Environments, pp. 41–50. ACM, New York (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Russell, J.A., Mehrabian, A.: Evidence for a three-factor theory of emotions. Journal of Research in Personality 11, 273–294 (1977)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Strawhacker, A., Sullivan, A., Bers, M.U.: TUI, GUI, HUI: is a bimodal interface truly worth the sum of its parts? In: Proceedings of the 12th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children, pp. 309–312. ACM, New York (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sylla, C., Branco, P., Coutinho, C., Coquet, E.: TUIs vs. GUIs: Comparing the learning potential with preschoolers. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 16(4), 421–432 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Xie, L., Antle, A.N., Motamedi, N.: Are tangibles more fun?: comparing children’s enjoyment and engagement using physical, graphical and tangible user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction, pp. 191–198. ACM, Bonn (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Xu, D.: Design and evaluation of tangible interfaces for primary school children. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. ACM, Aalborg (2007)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  • Julián Esteban Gutiérrez Posada
    • 1
  • Elaine C. S. Hayashi
    • 1
  • M. Cecília C. Baranauskas
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of ComputingUniversity of Campinas (UNICAMP)CampinasBrazil

Personalised recommendations