- Alright I'm Liwei Chen
from National Chiao Tung University.
This work is in cooperation with Robin Chan
From National Taiwan University.
And the first author is Yi-Chi Liao.
Unfortunately he is not able to attend UIST
so on behalf of him I will be presenting Dwell+.
So let me show you a quick video demonstrating
the basic idea of Dwell+.
It is a meter that boosts the effectiveness
of traditional dwell by active haptic tics.
So when the users dwell touches the bottom
here in app groups, the haptic tics prompts the switches
of modes through the user's skin sensations.
To select an app, he release the touch until the app
of selection is haptically prompt.
The speed of previous video was actually turned down
a little bit for you to catch the idea.
Now lets have a look at the real speed.
As you can see, the original haptic tics
comes with high frequencies, and even under this speed,
the user can still manage it to select correctly.
So the main contribution of this work,
not only lies in the concept we introduced,
but also to effective drill press designs
derived from our user studies, which I will go through later
Because the mechanics of drill press requires
only touch input, and the vibration output,
it is easy to apply to a wide range of applications.
Such as typing on smart watches, with several keypads.
In aiding single handed typing on smart phones.
Unlocking devices by counting vibrations secretly.
And augmenting stylus based inter actions.
So while I have introduced the basic ideas of Dwell+
and here I will go through the motivations.
Dwell, also known as a long press, press and touch,
or touch and hold is one of
the most common mode switching matters.
And for a long time it has been used in stylus input
for switching mode and activating hidden menus.
Dwell is easy to use and understand,
and will still go farther in today's touch interfaces.
However Dwell suffers from two limitations.
Which are limited modes of variable
and the lower efficiency, say one second per switch.
As such, many research has been explored to increase
the touch input vocabulary for example,
single tap mode switching which improves the time efficiency
by different types of touch,
such as using different parts of the finger,
different contact variables, or different level of forces.
And another category is the two step mode switching,
which determines a mode according to the touch motion
that came after the touch, such as rolling,
shearing forces, and the finger motions.
And although this novel approaches can potentially
enable many modes, they have limitations too.
First, they often require extra motions
and require users to learn and memorize the motions
in association with the modes.
And second most of them require additional sensors
beyond the touch screens.
We therefore propose Dwell+, like typical dwell touch.
Dwell+ requires the least motor space,
and no additional hardware, and more importantly
it allows for multi-level fast selections.
We enable this by augmenting touch with rapid haptic tics,
with vib tics, these tics indicate the switch of modes
in allowing users to accurately access a mode
using single touch of various dwelling time.
So up to this point I have introduced the background
of Dwell+ and let's talk about the research questions
behind the effective dwell press design.
So the first question came to us,
was the effective level of Dwell+.
In general the accuracy degrades when counting more
vibrations for greater values.
For example counting vibrations first or second vibrations
is easier than counting eight or nine vibrations.
Therefore the question is when does accuracy
start to degrade.
Secondly if a degradation is inevitable,
can we extend the effective levels.
Moreover the Dwell+ use haptic counts
to notify the modes switch, but many touch interfaces
do not have built in haptic functions.
Such as a traditional keypad, keyboards,
the touch pads and the buttons found in our daily life.
Those device do not give us the active vibrations.
Other examples are the on body interfaces
that it is still challenging to deploy haptic functions.
Touch interface on skin or clothing.
For that, our third question is how to enable Dwell+
functions on those non-haptic touch interfaces.
So with a series of user studies,
we try to answer these three questions,
and the result leads to the optimal Dwell+ haptic design.
The goal of the study, one, is to find out
the effective level of monotonous Dwell+.
In the pilot study, we determined for candid intervals
as the independent variable of these studies,
which are the 170 milliseconds,
150, 130, and 110 millisecond intervals,
divided by short 10 millisecond haptic tics.
So for our intervals we ask the participants
to select the target vibrations using
one of the two gestures.
The single handed thumb input on the left,
and two handed index finger input on the right.
And the target vibration in each trial
was set to lie between zero to nine.
Zero reference to simple touch,
and the nine means that user has to count
vibration up to nine, and release their fingers to select.
So after the participants collected their top tics
with a dwell touch, he lift the finger
and the actual solution will be displayed on the screen.
This study was between subject design,
with four intervals, eight participants, two gestures
and 200 trials for each gesture,
which makes totally 12,800 data points.
As we expected, the accuracy drops significantly
as the target value grows higher.
In general the accuracy of selecting
vibration zero to three,
are higher than selecting vibration four to nine.
That means the effective level of a monotonous Dwell+
is less than three vibrations.
There are some more details about this analysis
if you are interested in that you can refer to our papers.
So we proceed to the second study, which tackle
the next questions, how to extend the effective level
for higher level selections using Dwell+.
Let's look again, the basic design of Dwell+,
each vibration is identical, so it is monotonous,
it is boring there is not reason in it.
So we argue that adding reasons
will help users to count beats.
So we add reason to the vibrating tics
and we call it the chunk design.
By arranging multiple bits into groups,
we can count them more steadily as we enjoy the music.
So then a follow up question is how to chuck properly.
Fortunately, our result of the previous study,
already provided a clue, that for most cases,
the effective level is three vibrations.
So we therefore propose three beats per chunk design.
And believe this could enhance the stability
of counting tics.
And we call it chunking Dwell+ design.
And we try to make our chunking design simple
and easy, hence we implement it by simply
extending the first vibration of every three vibrations,
which makes a three beats rhythm to the receivers.
So it's like a beep, beep, beep, beep, beep, beep.
As the vibrations.
And this chunking design is tested in our study too.
Again, the two common gestures were included.
On the left single handed thumb input,
and on the right is two handed index finger input.
The procedure and task were same as the study one,
and the participants were asked to perform
the selection of a given target value in each trial.
The only difference is that in these studies,
all participants were apprised, sorry, all intervals
were applied with three beats per chunk rhythm.
Before the study starts, all participants were informed
about that, this rhythm will be presenting in haptic tics.
Again the study was between subject design
with 12,800 data points, and this is the result of the study
to comparing that to the results
of original monotonous haptic tics.
It is clear to see that the performance
of higher level selection was improved.
Take a closer look at the two slower rhythm,
the 170 millisecond interval,
and the 150 millisecond intervals.
And we can find relatively stable and effective performance
for the 170 one, the slower chunking design,
the overall performance is around 95% accuracy
across ten level selections.
And for the 150 one, the faster chunking design,
and we can still achieve 94 accuracy.
For the first five selections.
At this point, we found two optimal designs
for dwell+ selections, which are the 170 one,
that is slower but allows for high level selections
up to 10 levels, and the 150 one, that is potentially
more stable for quick and short selection,
within five levels.
So in the final studies, we want to answer
the last two questions, how to generalize Dwell+
to the non haptic touch interfaces.
And the answer is the vibration tics
are not necessary come from the touch interface itself.
We can separate the vibrations and touch,
so therefore the user perform the touch with their one hand
and the vibration tics can be delivered to
the other part of their body.
Such as a wrist from the smart watch.
So the other example include that the user perform
the touch interactions through the stylus on the right hand.
And while the left hand touching the tablet
which delivers the vibrations.
To investigate the accuracy of such disparate touch
vibration situations, we conducted study three.
The study design is very similar to the previous studies.
However this time the participants touch
a separate copper foil with their right hand
to activate Dwell+.
While perceiving the vibration cues
from the other hand holding the phone.
And the result shows that whether the touch input
and the vibration output are co-located or not,
there is no difference in accuracy using 170 millisecond
chunking design, and also there is no difference
using the 150 millisecond chunking design.
So the study results suggest that we can use
a vibration output to provide haptic cues
to these non haptic touch interfaces.
After the three studies, we want to conclude
the most important things for you here.
First, monotonous vibration suffers from degradation
in performance in higher levels selections,
but these degradations can be improved
by three beats per chunk design.
Second, to enable effective Dwell+ the touch
and the vibration are not necessary to be co-located.
Which allows Dwell+ to be applied
to non haptic touch interfaces, for wider applications.
And we categorize our application into two parts,
the first part is the Dwell+
on vibration capable touch screens,
the application including here, what we have shown before.
Typing on a smart watch and smart phone,
and also secret input and augmented stylus based injections.
Also the non haptic touch interface Dwell+
can be used for enabling fast mode switching on keyboards.
Notice that the vibration tics here is come
from the smart watch, not from the touch interface itself.
So including, also augmenting functions
with single button devices and small touch pads.
Such as the touch pad in Google Glass.
So there are many things to be discussed.
Here I only discuss several key issues.
Dwell+ first, is usually works on haptic channel in this
work, it becomes a limitation that user needs to memorize
the functions of the mode by heart.
One potential solution is to have Dwell+
also work with visual and audio cues,
however one should be aware of that, these two channels
might be competing with each other,
and the visual cues might override haptic cues.
And vice versa, so whether mixing these two together
is a good choice, or just a distraction
needs further studies.
And the second issue is applying Dwell+.
Of course on body parts, through smart rings,
smart watch or smart belt,
the vibration can be delivered to these different body parts
But this effective Dwell+ design on different body parts
also needs further studies.
Finally Dwell+ can be easily integrated with other
input methods, such as using different
orientation, of finger press Dwell+, or different gestures.
Finally I would like to summarize our work.
In this paper we introduce the concept of Dwell+
which enhance human perceptions of time using haptic tics.
We conducted a series of user study
to obtain the design guideline and optimal reason.
Which are the two levels with three beat chunk design.
That provide about 95% accuracy,
for five and 10 level selections with activity.
And we also present a wide range of applications
by applying Dwell+ to work with non haptic touch interface
by separating the vibration output from the touch input.
And I would like to also acknowledge our other authors,
Yi-Chi Liao, Yen-Chiu Chen, and Bin-Yu Chen.
With that I'm happy to take questions, thank you.
(crowd applauding)
- Alright we're going to have time for a single question.
Anyone, the microphone's right there.
I have, okay.
- [Andy] Hi, Andy Wilson, Microsoft.
One of the problems with pressure sensitive touch screens
is that it's difficult to find different levels
you know they say it feels like a very continuous domain.
And it strikes me that one of the things you have here,
is a means to