[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
10.1145/2836041.2836064acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmumConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Design probes study on user perceptions of a smart glasses concept

Published: 30 November 2015 Publication History

Abstract

Until today, mobile computing has been very much confined to conventional computing form factors, i.e. laptops, tablets and smartphones, which have achieved de facto design standards in outlook and shape. However, wearable devices are emerging, and especially glasses are an appealing form factor for future devices. Currently, although companies such as Google have productized a solution, little user research and design exploration has been published on either the user preferences or the technology. We set ourselves to explore the design directions for smart glasses with user research grounded use cases and design alternatives. We describe our user research utilizing a smart glasses design probe in an experience sampling method study (n=12), and present a focus group based study (n=14) providing results on perceptions on alternative industrial designs for smart glasses.

References

[1]
Ronald T. Azuma. 1993. Tracking Requirements for Augmented Reality. Communications of the ACM 36, 7: 50--51.
[2]
Louise Barkhuus, and Anind K. Dey. 2003. Is Context-Aware Computing Taking Control away from the User? Three Levels of Interactivity Examined. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp '03), 149--156.
[3]
Mark Billinghurst. 2014. Using Augmented Reality to Create Empathic Experiences. Keynote. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI'14), 5--6. httpp://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2557500.2568057
[4]
James C. Chung, Mark R. Harris, F. P. Brooks, Henry Fuchs, Michael T. Kelley, John Hughes, Ming Ouhyoung, Clement Cheung, Richard L. Holloway, and Michael Pique. 1989. Exploring Virtual Worlds with Head-Mounted Displays. In Proceedings of the SPIE Conference (SPIE '89), vol. 1083.
[5]
Marco de Sa, and Elizabeth Churchill. 2012. Mobile Augmented Reality: Exploring Design and Prototyping Techniques. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI '12), 221--230. httpp://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2371574.2371608
[6]
Google. Google Glass. 2015. Retrieved October 12, 2015 from http://www.google.com/glass/start/
[7]
Marc Hassenzahl, and Noam Tractinsky. 2006. User Experience - a Research Agenda. Behaviour & Information Technology 25, 2: 91--97.
[8]
Jason Hong. 2013. Considering Privacy Issues in the Context of Google Glass. Communications of the ACM 56, 11: 10--11.
[9]
Giovanni Iachello, Khai N. Truong, Gregory D. Abowd, Gillian R. Hayes, and Molly Stevens. 2006. Prototyping and Sampling Experience to Evaluate Ubiquitous Computing Privacy in the Real World. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '06), 1009--1018. httpp://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124923
[10]
Kohki Ikeuchi, Tomoaki Otsuka, Akihito Yoshii, Mizuki Sakamoto, and Tatsuo Nakajima. 2014. KinectDrone: Enhancing Somatic Sensation to Fly in the Sky with Kinect and AR. Drone. In Proceedings of the Augmented Human International Conference (AUGMENTED HUMAN '14), Article No. 53.
[11]
Jenny Kitzinger. 1995. Introducing Focus Group. British Medical Journal 311: 299--302.
[12]
Marion Koelle, Matthias Kranz, and Andreas Möller. 2015. Don't look at me that way!: Understanding User Attitudes Towards Data Glasses Usage. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI '15), 362--372. httpp://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2785830.2785842
[13]
Roisin McNaney, John Vines, Daniel Roggen, Madeline Balaam, Pengfei Zhang, Ivan Poliakov, and Patrick Olivier. 2014. Exploring the Acceptability of Google Glass as an Everyday Assistive Device for People with Parkinson's. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '14), 2551--2554. httpp://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557092
[14]
Paul Milgram, and Fumio Kishino. 1994. A Taxonomy of Mixed Reality Visual Displays. IEICE Transactions on Information Systems E77-D, 12: 1321--1329.
[15]
Oculus Rift. 2015. Retrieved October 12, 2015 from https://www.oculus.com/en-us/
[16]
Sami Ronkainen, Jonna Häkkilä, Saana Kaleva, Ashley Colley, and Jukka Linjama. 2007. Tap Input as an Embedded Interaction Method for Mobile Devices. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction (TEI '07), 263--270. httpp://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1226969.1227023
[17]
Ari-Heikki Sarjanoja, Minna Isomursu, Pekka Isomursu, and Jonna Häkkilä. 2013. Integrating Collaborative Context Information with Social Media -- A Study of User Perceptions. In Proceedings of the Australian Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (OzCHI'13), 437--446.
[18]
Sarah Sharples, Sue Cobb, Amanda Moody, and John R. Wilson. 2008. Virtual Reality Induced Symptoms and Effects (VRISE): Comparison of Head Mounted Display (HMD), Desktop and Projection Display Systems. Displays 29, 2: 58--69.
[19]
Thad Starner. 2013. Wearable Computing: through the Looking Glass. Keynote. In Proceedings of the International Semantic Web Conference (ISWC'13), 125.
[20]
Bruce Thomas, Wayne Piekarski, and Bernard Gunther. 1999. Using Augmented Reality to Visualise Architecture Designs in an Outdoor Environment. International Journal of Design Computing: Special Issue on Design Computing on the Net.
[21]
Jayne Wallace, John McCarthy, Peter C. Wright, and Patrick Olivier. 2013. Making Design Probes Work. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '13), 3441--3450. httpp://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2466473
[22]
Anthony Webster, Steve Feiner, Blair MacIntyre, William Massie, and Theodore Krueger. 1996. Augmented Reality in Architectural Construction, Inspection and Renovation. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Coastal Engineering (ASCE '96), 913-916.
[23]
Brenda Wiederhold, Dong P. Jang, Sun I. Kim, and Mark D. Wiederhold. 2002. Physiological Monitoring as an Objective Tool in Virtual Reality Therapy. Cyberpsychology & Behavior 5, 1: 77--82.
[24]
Max L. Wilson, Dan Craggs, Simon Robinson, Matt Jones, and Kristian Brimble. 2012. Pico-ing into the Future of Mobile Projection and Contexts. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 16, 1: 39--52.

Cited By

View all
  • (2025)Novice-friendly probes for the gathering and analysis of requirements and subsequent design of softwareInternational Journal of Human-Computer Studies10.1016/j.ijhcs.2024.103405195:COnline publication date: 1-Jan-2025
  • (2024)Searching in Professional Instant Messaging Applications: User Behaviour, Intent, and Pain-pointsProceedings of the 2024 Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval in the Asia Pacific Region10.1145/3673791.3698417(82-91)Online publication date: 8-Dec-2024
  • (2024)Ethical Implications of Pervasive Augmented RealityAdjunct Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Mobile Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/3640471.3686641(1-3)Online publication date: 21-Sep-2024
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Design probes study on user perceptions of a smart glasses concept

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    MUM '15: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia
    November 2015
    442 pages
    ISBN:9781450336055
    DOI:10.1145/2836041
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Sponsors

    • FH OOE: University of Applied Sciences Upper Austria
    • Johannes Kepler Univ Linz: Johannes Kepler Universität Linz

    In-Cooperation

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 30 November 2015

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. experience sampling method
    2. technology acceptance
    3. user experience
    4. user studies
    5. wearable computing

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Conference

    MUM '15
    Sponsor:
    • FH OOE
    • Johannes Kepler Univ Linz

    Acceptance Rates

    MUM '15 Paper Acceptance Rate 33 of 89 submissions, 37%;
    Overall Acceptance Rate 190 of 465 submissions, 41%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)46
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)5
    Reflects downloads up to 27 Jan 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2025)Novice-friendly probes for the gathering and analysis of requirements and subsequent design of softwareInternational Journal of Human-Computer Studies10.1016/j.ijhcs.2024.103405195:COnline publication date: 1-Jan-2025
    • (2024)Searching in Professional Instant Messaging Applications: User Behaviour, Intent, and Pain-pointsProceedings of the 2024 Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval in the Asia Pacific Region10.1145/3673791.3698417(82-91)Online publication date: 8-Dec-2024
    • (2024)Ethical Implications of Pervasive Augmented RealityAdjunct Proceedings of the 26th International Conference on Mobile Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/3640471.3686641(1-3)Online publication date: 21-Sep-2024
    • (2023)Beyond Hiding and Revealing: Exploring Effects of Visibility and Form of Interaction on the Witness ExperienceProceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/36042477:MHCI(1-23)Online publication date: 13-Sep-2023
    • (2023)Investigating In-Situ Personal Health Data Queries on SmartwatchesProceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies10.1145/35694816:4(1-19)Online publication date: 11-Jan-2023
    • (2022)Social Acceptability in Context: Stereotypical Perception of Shape, Body Location, and Usage of Wearable DevicesBig Data and Cognitive Computing10.3390/bdcc60401006:4(100)Online publication date: 23-Sep-2022
    • (2022)Obtrusive Subtleness and Why We Should Focus on Meaning, not Form, in Social Acceptability StudiesProceedings of the 21st International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia10.1145/3568444.3568457(89-99)Online publication date: 27-Nov-2022
    • (2022)One Ring to Rule Them AllProceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies10.1145/35503156:3(1-20)Online publication date: 7-Sep-2022
    • (2022)Adopting smart glasses responsibly: potential benefits, ethical, and privacy concerns with Ray-Ban storiesAI and Ethics10.1007/s43681-022-00155-73:1(325-327)Online publication date: 4-Apr-2022
    • (2021)Exploring Social Acceptability and Users’ Preferences of Head- and Eye-Based Interaction with Mobile DevicesProceedings of the 20th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia10.1145/3490632.3490636(12-23)Online publication date: 5-Dec-2021
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Figures

    Tables

    Media

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media