Advertisement

3D Interaction with Mouse-Keyboard, Gamepad and Leap Motion: A Comparative Study

  • Fabio Pittarello
  • Alexandru Dumitriu
  • Elisa Piazza
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes of the Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering book series (LNICST, volume 233)

Abstract

Serious gaming can represent a key for fostering learning and letting children to acquire new information and skills while doing engaging activities. Among the different types of games, those ones based on interactive 3D environments are widely diffused and appreciated. A key component of the design of these experiences is the choice of the input device that will be used by the players and the mapping of the users’ intentions to the actions in the 3D environment. The choice of the proper device can lead to benefits in terms of user engagement, which often is the prerequisite for learning. There are also additional dimensions to consider, as the usability and the physical fatigue. Their undervaluation, in an educational context, can hamper the successful outcome of the experience. For this reason in this work we compared the use of three different input devices (a mouse-keyboard set, a gamepad and the Leap Motion, a sensor for recognizing hand gestures) for controlling a 3D educational gaming experience focused on environmental sustainability. We organized a comparative study with 30 children of the Primary School, evaluating the interaction in terms of usability, engagement and physical fatigue. The results evidenced the potential of the Leap for engaging the children, but also drawbacks in terms of usability and physical fatigue that should be taken into consideration for the development of this technology and the design of experiences based on it.

Keywords

3D interaction Children Comparative study Engagement Gesture-based input Physical fatigue Serious gaming Usability 

References

  1. 1.
    Ardito, C., Buono, P., Costabile, M.F., Lanzilotti, R., Simeone, A.L.: Comparing low cost input devices for interacting with 3D virtual environments. In: 2nd Conference on Human System Interactions (HSI 2009), pp. 292–297. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Ardito, C., Costabile, M.F., Jetter, H.-C.: Gestures that people can understand and use. J. Vis. Lang. Comput. 25(5), 572–576 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Dipietro, L., Sabatini, A., Dario, P.: A survey of glove-based systems and their applications. IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. Part C: Appl. Rev. 38(4), 461–482 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dix, A., Finlay, J.E., Abowd, G.D., Beale, R.: Human-Computer Interaction, 3rd edn. Prentice-Hall Inc., Upper Saddle River (2003)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Grandhi, S.A., Joue, G., Mittelberg, I.: Understanding naturalness and intuitiveness in gesture production: insights for touchless gestural interfaces. In: CHI 2011, pp. 821–824. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Groenewald, C., Anslow, C., Islam, J., Rooney, C., Passmore, P., Wong, W.: Understanding 3D mid-air hand gestures with interactive surfaces and displays: a systematic literature review. In: 30th International BCS HCI Conference, pp. 43:1–43:13. BCS Learning & Development Ltd, Swindon (2016)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hodson, H.: Leap motion hacks show potential of new gesture tech. New Sci. 218(2911), 21 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Hoppe, A.H., van de Camp, F., Stiefelhagen, R.: Interaction with three dimensional objects on diverse input and output devices: a survey. In: Stephanidis, C. (ed.) HCI 2017. CCIS, vol. 713, pp. 130–139. Springer, Cham (2017).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-58750-9_18 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Jankowski, J., Hachet, M.: A survey of interaction techniques for interactive 3D environments. In: Sbert, M., Szirmay-Kalos, L. (eds.) Eurographics 2013 - State of the Art Reports. The Eurographics Association (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lapointe, J.-F., Savard, P., Vinson, N.: A comparative study of four input devices for desktop virtual walkthroughs. Comput. Hum. Behav. 27(6), 2186–2191 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Lindeman, R.W.: Making VR more usable: the state of effectiveness in virtual reality. J. Vir. Reality Soc. Japan 11(1), 24–27 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Markopoulos, P., Read, J.C., MacFarlane, S., Hoysniemi, J.: Evaluating Children’s Interactive Products: Principles and Practices for Interaction Designers. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco (2008)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    O’Brien, H.L., Toms, E.G.: The development and evaluation of a survey to measure user engagement. J. Am. Soc. Inf. Sci. Technol. 61(1), 50–69 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Sebok, A., Nystad, E., Helgar, S.: Navigation in desktop virtual environments: an evaluation and recommendations for supporting usability. Vir. Reality 8(1), 26–40 (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© ICST Institute for Computer Sciences, Social Informatics and Telecommunications Engineering 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fabio Pittarello
    • 1
  • Alexandru Dumitriu
    • 1
  • Elisa Piazza
    • 1
  1. 1.Università Ca’ Foscari VeneziaMestre-VeneziaItaly

Personalised recommendations