Hello I am Lik-Hang LEE from The University of Oulu in
Finland. Our paper title is how subtle can
it gets a tri-modal study of ring size interface for one hand drone
control. In this paper, we mainly investigate the
minimal interface with one hand control for drone flight
Our computer is getting smaller nowadays but the IoT device like the flying
drones still require bulky controllers, so we questioned the
way to get rid of those bulky controllers and making more
body-centric device for drone controls but the flight can move in four
directional movements which are longitudinal, vertical,
lateral, rotational; and each movement has opposite directions. The rich
commands gives justification for two-hand
operations. But it is counterintuitive to squeeze
all the operations in a touch base buttons. Before we go
into our design process, we briefly explain the related work.
In the rightmost column, researchers investigate the user acceptance to the
drone as a companion device. As shown in the middle column,
the drone appearance has been studied, and the
leftmost column is highly relevant to our work.
They illustrate different models and controllers such as user
emotions and raycasting controllers. And we are the
first work to design a minimal and body-centric interface and
(we) investigate input models for flight controls.
We consider three types of input models to shrunken the size of the device, which
are touch-based interface, imu-driven interactions and force assisted
interactions. And we have some constraints here as
shown in the right-hand side for imu movement.
We cannot employ YAW movement because it will conflict with the user walking
posture, and the force spectrum, (the) force assisted
interactions cannot be divided into numerous levels
as it will be erroneous. Then, we carefully consider these
combinations and propose four candidate solutions;
And (we) implement them on smartphones. M1 is (a) uni-modal
which is touch-based interaction with two hand buttons.
M2 is bi-modal utilizing touch and wrist rotation.
M3 is tri-modal using touch, wrist and force interaction.
And M4 is bi-modal utilizing wrist and force interactions. M1 is our
baseline, which emulates the tangible two-hand
controllers. And M2, M3, M4 are one-hand button(s)
controllers for our research purposes. With the four interaction techniques, we
run a pilot study with 12 participants. Each participant performs five-unit
tasks: down, up, left-rotate, right-rotate, (and)
left-and-right-rotate, with three repetitions. We measure the completion
time, wrist rotation, interaction
footprints, and user workloads in four conditions.
And we evaluate the results with one-way ANOVA and post-hoc analysis.
The full details can be found in our paper and we only highlight our key
findings here. For the completion time, M2 is not
significantly faster than the baseline of
M1. But M3 and M4 are considerably faster than
M1. Regarding the wrist angle, M3 is the most subtle interaction.
Finally, M3 and M4 demonstrate in the interaction footprint with the thumb-size
buttons. So who is the winner? M3.
According to the design clues collected in the pilot evaluations,
we implement the selected method, M3, on a range-shaped prototype
for hands-off and single-hand interactions in
outdoor and mobile scenarios. Rather than an
opportunistic approach to putting sensors together,
we systematically measure the interaction area
in our pilot study. The rightmost column
shows our ring form design
and a demonstration. As the form factors change from a smartphone to a ring form
device, we need to run another evaluation study
to understand those changes, one-way ANOVA shows that
there exists statistical significance in the effect
of the form size to the completion time and the
ring form device is at least 27% faster than the smartphone condition in
all the flying tasks. However, there is no statistical
difference in the wrist movement so both conditions maintain gentle wrist
movement within 47 degrees. Finally, we conduct a technology
acceptance model to investigate the user perception of the new
technology. Overall the participants with the ring-form device give positive
rating to the usefulness, ease-of-use, and intention-of-use.
Before we end this presentation, a video is prepared to show the user interaction
with our ring-form prototype for flying drone control. Users with
our prototype can perform various movements,
like longitudinal movements, rotational movement.
As shown in this video, like up, down, rotate-left, rotate-right.
And it is very important to note that the user gesture is very subtle
and gentle. If you have any questions, please feel free to
contact me through the email shown in this slide. Thank you very much.