Implications for Design of Personal Mobility Devices with Balance-Based Natural User Interfaces

  • Aleksander RemEmail author
  • Suhas Govind Joshi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9170)


In this paper, we present a set of guidelines for designing personal mobility devices (PMDs) with body balance exclusively as input modality. Using an online survey, focus group and design workshop, we designed several PMD prototypes that used a natural user interface (NUI) and balance as its only form of user input. Based on these designs we constructed a physical and functional PMD prototype, which was tested using a usability test to explore how the balance interface should be designed. In conclusion, we discuss whether the guidelines from the literature could apply when designing PMDs and present a set of implications for the design of PMDs with balance-based NUIs based on both the guidelines and our own findings.


Personal mobility Embodied interaction Natural user interface 


  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Fikkert, W., Hoeijmakers, N., van der Vet, P., Nijholt, A.: Navigating a maze with balance board and wiimote. In: Nijholt, A., Reidsma, D., Hondorp, H. (eds.) INTETAIN 2009. LNICST, vol. 9, pp. 187–192. Springer, Heidelberg (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Wang, J., Lindeman, R.W.: Comparing isometric and elastic surfboard interfaces for leaning-based travel in 3D virtual environments. In: 2012 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI), pp. 31–38 (2012)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Haan, G., Griffith, E.J., Post, F.H.: Using the Wii balance board as a low-cost VR interaction device. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology – VRST 2008, p. 289 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Moen, J.: From hand-held to body-worn: embodied experiences of the design and use of a wearable movement-based interaction concept. In: Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction, pp. 251–258 (2007)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Larssen, A.T., Loke, L., Robertson, T., Edwards, J.: Understanding movement as input for interaction–A study of two EyetoyTM games. In: Proceedings of OzCHI, vol. 4 (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Benford, S., Schnadelbach, H., Koleva, B., Gaver, B., Schmidt, A., Boucher, A., Steed, A., Anastasi, R., Greenhalgh, C., Rodden, T., Gellersen, H.: Sensible, sensable and desirable: a framework for designing physical interfaces (2003)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Bellotti, V., Back, M., Edwards, W.K., Grinter, R.E., Henderson, A., Lopes, C.: Making sense of sensing systems: five questions for designers and researchers. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Changing our world, Changing Ourselves CHI 2002, vol. 1, pp. 415–422 (2002)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Blake, J.: The natural user interface revolution. In: Natural User Interfaces in .NET, 15th edn., pp. 2–43. Manning Publications (2010)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Morgan, D.L.: Focus groups. Annu. Rev. Sociol. 22, 129–152 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of InformaticsUniversity of OsloOsloNorway

Personalised recommendations