This video presents late-breaking work that discusses a study on deformation techniques for shape changing interfaces.
In this work, we aimed to explore how people physically interact with shape changing interfaces that exhibit different deformable properties.
A set of deformable properties was established based on classifications of shape changing interfaces derived from literature.
Models were developed for each of the 7 subcategories: volume, curvature, folded, granularity, malleable, stretchable, and permeability.
The models were 3D printed with PLA and flexible filament.
An elicitation study was designed to collect a large number of diverse deformation techniques.
Participants sat at a table.
They were asked to propose any interaction technique they could think of to deform the model corresponding to its deformation type.
They were allowed to use either one or both hands, and make use of the table surface as they saw fit.
The interactions with the models were recorded for analysis.
Four participants took part in the study.
The interactions with 14 models resulted in a total of 537 deformations,
of which 288 were observed in interactions with 2D models and 249 in interactions with 3D models.
The analysis of the recordings focused on object handling and classification of deformation techniques.
We distinguished between two types of single-handed interactions; performed with a subset of fingers or with the whole hand.
Symmetric and asymmetric methods were observed for bimanual interactions.
Lastly, we looked at whether the table surface was used to perform the interaction.
This table shows the frequency with which single-handed and bimanual interactions were observed,
with and without use of the table surface.
Additionally, we identified 19 different types of deformation techniques.
This table shows the frequency with which the different types of deformations were observed in interactions with 2D models,
and in interactions with 3D models.
Some techniques were only observed in rigid or flexible models, while the majority was observed in interactions with both.
We will discuss the individual deformation techniques in more detail.
Starting with deformations that were mostly observed in rigid models.
Slide interactions were often used to create changes in volume or area
and were more often observed in interactions with 2D models compared to 3D models,
Flipping techniques were used to alter the orientation and were most common in rigid models.
Spinning was only observed in rigid models that supported rotation.
Flick interactions were performed to change the orientation, volume or area of rigid models.
Next, we will discuss typical interaction techniques for flexible models.
These include methods to apply pressure such as pinching,
squeezing,
and punching.
Lastly, we will go through the deformation techniques
that were applicable to rigid as well as flexible models.
Pushing was commonly observed in flexible models and models that supported changes in volume and area.
Pull interactions were mostly observed in flexible and spatial models.
These interactions were often performed with spherical, pinch, or hook and snap grasp.
Shear deformations were the result of changes ‌in orientation of bimanual symmetric push and pull interactions.
Twisting was observed in flexible models and rigid models that supported rotation.
Similar to turn interactions, which were also observed in models that supported a change in orientation or rotation.
These interactions were often performed bimanually.
In contrast to swing interactions, which were performed single-handed,
using the momentum of the arm swing to inflict a deformation in the model’s volume or orientation.
Rolling interactions were often performed with a flat hand or with extended fingers.
Spread interactions were initiated by extension of the thumb or a subset of fingers,
to stretch flexible models or change the orientation or volume of rigid models.
Stroke interactions were observed in flexible and modular models.
Poke interactions were most common in permeable models, but were also seen in rigid models that supported changes in orientation and volume.
Flexible models were most inviting for slap interactions.
However, they were also observed in rigid models that supported changes in orientation and volume.
Lastly, we noticed that in flexible and modular models,
participants used their hands to mold and shape the model.
The insights from this work can be used to inspire interaction mapping with 2D and 3D interfaces with deformable properties
and inform the design of haptic interactions with shape changing interfaces.
There are several limitations to this work that need to be addressed.
First, the interaction techniques that were observed in the study were affected by the shape and size of the models.
Second, the initial set presented here shows how different interaction techniques relate to different deformable properties of shape changing interfaces
based on a preliminary study with a small sample size.
Therefore, these insights serve as a starting point rather than a complete overview of deformation techniques for shape changing interfaces.