- Thank you for the introduction.
Good afternoon, everyone.
It was great to see many of you at our demo.
I am Yoshiki Kudo of Tohoku University in Japan.
So, today I'd like to talk about
our research project, AdapTable.
In this project, we explore
how to extend reach over large tabletops
through flexible multi-display configuration.
In everyday life, we are all familiar
with various kinds of workspaces, for instance,
connected table, group table, individual places
or a combination of these.
Besides individual work, we also give presentations,
organizing meeting, or engage in group work.
With many activities taking place within short time,
so how should our work environment be designed
to switch efficiently between activities?
Surely one approach would be
to have dedicated rooms for each activity.
However, we believe there is a growing need
for reconfigurable workspace.
Many researchers have presented a way
to achieve reconfigurable workspace.
Transform Table can automatically achieve
table top shape-shifting.
Users do not have to move or change the tables
for different situations.
It provides an appropriate configuration
according to number of users and their spatial behavior.
Living Desktop can automatically change display,
keyboard and mouse position based on user behavior.
Shape-shifting wall display can automatically
change displays' position and orientation
based on content and user position.
So, today we focus on the flexible multi-display
large table top that can physically reconfigure its layout.
Interactive tabletops comes with a few characteristics
offering certain benefits.
They offer interactive horizontal display
and serve a strong communication with neighbors.
Therefore, they are often used in places
such as office and classrooms.
For larger workspaces, you can fine tabletops
ranging from 50 to 65 inch size for individuals and groups.
In special case, such as museum or control centers,
you can find tabletop exceeding 100 inches for larger group.
So, such large tables can provide best workspaces
and users can potentially work
more efficiently and comfortably.
However, it is not clear how benefit increases with size.
Large tabletops have a content access issue
that is, when user want to reach distant objects,
they may forced into an unnatural posture
or need to move around the tables.
Following previous research, they can only aim
for a limited reach area, here shown in red.
So, most of the time,
users do not benefit from the entire display
and cannot comfortably manipulate remote objects,
which is problem we address today.
Remote object manipulation has been proposed
as one way to overcome the issue of reach.
I-Grabber allow the user to select and move distant content.
The user can use a technique by touch gesture.
Pointable allow the user to manipulate the content
through a pointer which is controlled
by the user's gesture.
Using these techniques,
users can manipulate distant content, but these technique
does not efficiently support complex interaction.
Panning is a more established way
to interact with remote object.
Users can easily bring content closer,
but can also lose content.
This may cause repetitive movements,
sometimes called crouching.
In contrast to these techniques, our proposal:
bring a user closer to the content.
We propose AdapTable.
It's a flexible, multi-display tabletop
that can physically reconfigure its layout
and allows for interactions
with difficult-to-reach regions directly.
Users can easily make use of flexible layout,
depending on the current task.
This video shows a few typical layouts.
In this research, first, we conducted a layout design study
to find the user's preferred table layouts
with full-screen interaction.
We then prototyped AdapTable.
Based on this, we conducted a user study
to evaluate the AdapTable system.
In the layout design study, we explore the questions,
depending on scenario and task category,
will users make use of flexible layout?
If yes, which layout do they prefer?
How do the layouts affect task performance?
To investigate the questions,
we prepared seven target distribution scenarios,
two tasks, and two layout condition.
We used a group design and we recruited 14 participants.
The right image represent
the seven target distribution scenarios.
The greens areas offer more interaction,
and the yellow area offer less interaction.
Here, we see the reaching task.
Participants were instructed to select the red objects
as fast as possible.
In the merged condition, participant couldn't change
the table layout during the task.
In the flexible condition,
participant could change the table layout.
To the right, we see the docking task.
Participants were instructed to translate
and scale the red objects by using
touch, drag, and pinch motions
to place it on the target squares.
The docking task is more complex and difficult
than reaching task.
During the tasks, participant could walk
in front of the tables and create a new space
by changing table layout.
For multi-display tabletops,
we prepared four 27 inch displays horizontally mounted
on cars with casters connected to desktop PC.
Participants could easily move each of the tables.
From the tasks, we found that participant
prefer to change table layout.
More than half of participant change the table layout
on the five layout.
From here, we consider the result from the five scenarios.
For each tasks, we counted how many times
each layout was chosen
and show the top three candidates.
Here is presentation of all choices.
Participants reported they changed the layout
to access distant content more easily.
They found that slide layouts were good
to achieve more equal reach per screen,
and that single slide does the job with a smaller change.
Finally, they told that split layout
keeps the content vertically aligned.
In addition, we learned that participant
experienced reduced physical demand
by changing the table layout.
For the docking task, they also reported lower frustration.
Through the layout design study,
we learned that users preferred
to change table layouts
and could work more comfortably and efficiently.
As a next step, we prototyped AdapTable with five layouts.
To prototype AdapTable,
we used the same multi-display tabletop
from the layout design study,
and mounted each table on a Roomba to move the tables.
Each table and the user was tracked
by a motion tracking system.
For controlling the AdapTable,
we implemented three interfaces.
The first one was touch menu
by selecting an image which represents layout.
A user could change the layout.
The second one was touch gesture.
Users could change the layout
by swiping their fingers on the display.
The final one was user position.
Unlike touch menu and touch gesture,
this system automatically changed the layout
based on user position.
From the informal user study,
we found that users preferred the touch menu.
They reported it was easier to use
and required less memorization.
Hence, we chose touch menu
for the AdapTable system implementation.
Finally, we conducted a comparative evaluation,
where we compared the Panning with AdapTable
by task completion time and NASA-TLX.
For the study, we prepared
five target distribution scenario,
two tasks, and two interaction technique.
We used the group design and we recruited 20 participants.
Here we see the flag task.
In this task, participants were instructed
to translate and scale each flag
by using touch, drag and pinch motions
to place it on the target square
of the corresponding country.
In AdapTable situation, participant could change
the table layout any number of times.
In Panning situation, participants could move the content
by swiping two fingers any time.
To the right, we see the number task.
Again, participants were instructed
to translate and scale each red square
by using touch, drag, and pinch motions
to place it on the corresponding target square
showing the same number.
The difference between the flag task and the number task
was the cost of visual touch.
In the flag task, we displayed a world map as a background,
so participant would know where to place each flag.
In number task, the background was white,
so there was no information.
Through these tasks,
we found that AdapTable could significantly
reduce task completion time compared with Panning
in the large and left vertical scenarios.
For NASA-TLX, AdapTable significantly reduced frustration
compared with Panning in the number task,
since with Panning, participants sometimes lost content
and needed to retry or remember it.
Okay so, let's move on to discussion.
In summary, AdapTable offers its users
to keep all content visible,
and it also enables full-screen interaction.
However, there are still open issues
that call for further research and engineering.
By moving the tables and bezels around the screen,
the content is divided.
To build a more flexible workspace,
we think workspace personalization is important.
In AdapTable, we used fewer predefined layouts,
but it would be beneficial if user can customize menu
according to their preference.
The AdapTable prototype can switch its layout
in two seconds.
We set the speed to switch quickly and safety.
Yet, participants sometimes felt this was too slow.
So, it would be helpful if the user could customize
the speed of the automatic reconfiguration.
In this research, we explored large tabletops
with four tables, but we think our idea
can be used more or fewer tabletops
to build more dynamic and adaptive workspace
for different situation.
Our process can change layout horizontally,
but to build a more flexible reconfigurable workspace
it would be helpful if the user
could adjust the height of the tables.
Of course, this concept can work for collaboration.
For example, a user could change the layout
based on content or move the table for communication.
So, what did we learn through this work?
First, we conducted a layout design study,
where we found users preferred to change table layout
for full-screen interaction.
We then prototyped AdapTable
using four orchestrated tabletop display,
each prepared by a mobile robot,
and the touch menu was chosen to control the layout.
Finally, we conducted a comparative evaluation
and found that AdapTable provides a more efficient method
for complex, full-screen interaction in some scenario.
Thank you for your attention.
(applause)
- [Host] Do you have any questions for our speaker?
- [Questioner] Yeah, I'm (inaudible)
interactive media at (inaudible).
Thanks a lot, this is very inspiring and interesting work,
and I also enjoyed the demo,
and unfortunately it doesn't clean at the same time,
as the Roomba robots
(laughter)
do not clean the ground at the same time
while you're using that.
I just wanted to make a comment actually,
I didn't want to ask a question.
I just wanted to comment on that
because this paper is somehow really nicely reflecting
our name change from the ITS to ISS.
It's important because it picks up the idea of, of course,
extending the tabletops to a more movable, yeah,
into a space basically,
to changing architecture, to changing displays.
I like this idea of extending this
just flat and stiff surfaces to a more flexible, yeah,
displays or interaction surfaces,
which extend in our physical space.
So, congratulations on that,
that you picked up the name change very well in this paper.
- Thank you.
- [Johannes] I had one question.
Johannes Shurning, University of Prim,
and thanks for this nice presentation.
Maybe I have the questions,
the question regarding Raymond's comment.
I was wondering especially when you showed the video
in the end where you showed the scenario
with the eight by eight or yeah
- The 16 or more
- [Johannes] Or 16 whatever display.
You need some space and you know,
and I was thinking, you some space to move them around.
And typically, in your rooms and the renderings
were completely empty.
And if I think of situation rooms
or board rooms or discussional meeting rooms,
space is limited and you're maybe not able to move
the displays around as freely as possible.
Have you considered the additional space you need
for moving them around probably,
is there a restriction?
Have you thought about that?
Because if not, I think that's a very interesting point
for future work that you also have the additional space
to provide those transformation of those displays.
- Thank you for the question.
Yeah so,
if there are no space to move the table,
this system is not good.
But we are thinking,
so we have space around the table,
and if we don't move the table
usually move around the table
to interact with this kind of object.
But instead of that, by moving the table,
we provide additional other space into the table.
So, this is for our system command.
To build a more flexible workspace
by controlling whole system,
I think we need to think about not only table,
but also wall or other physical space to manage.
So, yeah.
- [Rujal] Hi, my name is Rujal.
I wanted to ask again about the last animation you showed.
Have you thought about the,
yeah, this one.
Oh, not this one.
Where there are multi people involved in this.
- So, this one?
- [Rujal] Yeah, like this.
So, if there are multi interactions
within the user interface,
then how this will work?
Have you, is this a future work,
or you are working...
- Yeah, so, in this research,
we focused on a single user.
So yeah, the collaboration is our next step.
But yeah, to build the adaptive workspace
for the multiple people, we need to think about
how to control the more, the tables,
or how to manage their workspace
for each user, yeah.
- [Rujal] Yeah, or will it looks like a puzzle or something,
where is, you know, two, three people
are interacting with the table
and the table is moving from, you know,
various areas that I can think about it.
- Sorry, uh.
- [Rujal] So, I'm thinking
if there are two, three interactions going on,
and if the table is understanding
two or three interactions and moving,
wouldn't it look like puzzle or something like,
it will, you know, yeah.
Yeah, it will break into pieces
and then come again and something like that.
That sort of interaction will happen.
This is what I'm feeling.
- Uh
- [Rujal] It's not a question, just a comment.
(laughter) Don't worry.
Thanks, thank you.
- [Host] Thank you, one last hand for