The final project is about to be turned over to Orit and Michael for their final assessment. My partner Ian Asaff and I couldn't be prouder of our work, which has come to fruition with our final user interface. Titled with a pun, "Out to Launch!" is our Tangible User interface that models the processes of a computer through sequences of user-built numeric codes.
The use case for the final interface proceeds as follows. The user constructs a valid code in a row and presses the execute button. The terminal then displays the appropriate information about the program that has been run, or displays an error message if the code has been displayed incorrectly. Behind the scenes, computer vision is used to see if complete codes have been constructed, and Ian has written a program in Java that interprets the code and runs AutoIt scripts in Windows to run the appropriate programs.
I am comfortable with the final outcome of this project, and our usability tests helped to show that others enjoy using the interface. There were few problems through tests that we ran, and there are simply a few usability tweaks, such as the position of the Execute button and number of tokens, that we need to fix for the system to be truly "complete."
Overall, the class COMP TUI: Tangible User Interfaces, has been a great experience that will help me find my place in the computing world. It was helpful to go through the design and implementation processes for this final project, and it was interesting to learn the different ways of modeling systems. I appreciated the fact that we were given applications for projects throughout the class, and we were able to apply our final design to a use case in the end.
Sunday, May 4, 2008
Monday, March 10, 2008
Final Project designs
Ian Asaff and I are working together to make our final project for the TUI class. Ian came up with the original idea for the project, which is an exhibit to be included in the Computer Corner in the Boston Museum of Science. The idea is to model RAM usage with a Tangible User Interface, thus mimicking the actions of a computer with human actions.
In last week's class, we modeled the idea using clay from our HCI lab. As seen below, we modeled the frame of the system, as well as a "focus" frame where a process would be in action. We also had a space for an operating system, and if you look hard, you can see the different program tokens that we sculpted. Also, to the right, you can see our first draft of a storyboard for a scenario in the system.
This week, we made a rough prototype of the system using posterboard and printed icons. This version can be seen below, and was well received by the class. We are now working on a new prototype based on suggestions from this class.
The week before spring break, we decided to further modify the design by modeling the entire interface with a pyramid shape, and having specific slots in which we want to keep the programs instead of an open canvas. These changes came about because of concerns with the implementation and time frame issues. From now, we have five weeks to complete the project, so we must now start work on the final version of what we would like to show in the museum. It is very important that our product is robust and complete, so we are going to decide which aspects of the project we are going to be able to implement in the week to come. By the end of this week, we hope to have a good idea of what our final implementation will be, as well as starting the actual building process. A picture of our latest prototype is soon to follow.
In last week's class, we modeled the idea using clay from our HCI lab. As seen below, we modeled the frame of the system, as well as a "focus" frame where a process would be in action. We also had a space for an operating system, and if you look hard, you can see the different program tokens that we sculpted. Also, to the right, you can see our first draft of a storyboard for a scenario in the system.
This week, we made a rough prototype of the system using posterboard and printed icons. This version can be seen below, and was well received by the class. We are now working on a new prototype based on suggestions from this class.
The week before spring break, we decided to further modify the design by modeling the entire interface with a pyramid shape, and having specific slots in which we want to keep the programs instead of an open canvas. These changes came about because of concerns with the implementation and time frame issues. From now, we have five weeks to complete the project, so we must now start work on the final version of what we would like to show in the museum. It is very important that our product is robust and complete, so we are going to decide which aspects of the project we are going to be able to implement in the week to come. By the end of this week, we hope to have a good idea of what our final implementation will be, as well as starting the actual building process. A picture of our latest prototype is soon to follow.
Tuesday, February 26, 2008
Technology Demo: TopCodes
Yesterday, we had our first Technology Demo using a technology that is used in Tangible User Interfaces. I chose to use TopCodes, which stands for Tangible Object Placement Codes. TopCodes are a type of technology used in Computer Vision. Within the given library, I chose to modify the file DebugWindow in order to implement the recognition of the TopCodes.
The functionality that I added to the program was as follows. First, I added a keystroke command to display text over a picture. Next, I detailed the event that would happen when that key was pressed. I would display a string of text that was paired with the TopCode that was included in my picture, which I used a switch statement to implement. I hard-coded the four pictures that I added, and the screenshot of one is shown below.
Monday, February 11, 2008
Me vs. Us - Compete or Cooperate
This past weekend, we took a field trip to the Boston Museum of Science to learn more about the applications of Tangible User Interfaces and to observe them in action. In the interest of the latter, I took a look at an Economics-based exhibit in the social learning area of the museum. It was entitled Me vs. Us - Compete or Cooperate, and it is a decision making game for two people.
This exhibit is constructed as follows: there are two terminals that face each other at an open angle, and each has a control console consisting of three simple buttons. The displays are immediately recognized as an activity for two because of how the exhibit is split with the title breaching the halves, and the controls are immediately accessible. The only actions according to the controls are Take, Share, and Proceed to the Next Screen. The Proceed button was used when the user was reading the directions, and the other two were used in gameplay.
The game consists of five rounds of decision making. At the beginning of each round, $100 dollars is available to be split between the two players. The players decide whether they would like to share this money or take it all. There are three scenarios, then - If they both share, they both get $50, if they both take, they each get $0, and if one shares and one takes, the taker gets all $100. Both players enter their choice, and they receive feedback after they have both input their decision.
This exhibit is concerned with the economic principles of Game Theory, especially relating to a capitalist society. The learning goals would then be to stimulate interest in the subject of economics in adolescents and teenagers, those who would likely have the opportunity to take a class in economics in the near future. The exhibit appeared to draw an older crowd, as it presented itself as an opportunity for couples to compete using their business sense. I did not observe any young children attempt to play the game, as adults would likely steer their kids away from the relatively sophisticated gameplay, and kids would likely not approach it on their own.
Overall, I find this exhibit to be a fun competition in a museum that doesn't have too many competitive exhibits. It is meant as a teaching tool for younger kids, but it can be enjoyed by older museum-goers as well. One problem that I found with the game was that it didn't mention the underlying principles to any extent, and it didn't tell the users how much they would have won if they'd made different decisions. The interface was also very plain; it didn't have too much visual appeal, and it only involved the sense of sight. If the game were to be extended to involve other senses, possibly with objects and speech, it may be more engaging to the user.
This exhibit is constructed as follows: there are two terminals that face each other at an open angle, and each has a control console consisting of three simple buttons. The displays are immediately recognized as an activity for two because of how the exhibit is split with the title breaching the halves, and the controls are immediately accessible. The only actions according to the controls are Take, Share, and Proceed to the Next Screen. The Proceed button was used when the user was reading the directions, and the other two were used in gameplay.
The game consists of five rounds of decision making. At the beginning of each round, $100 dollars is available to be split between the two players. The players decide whether they would like to share this money or take it all. There are three scenarios, then - If they both share, they both get $50, if they both take, they each get $0, and if one shares and one takes, the taker gets all $100. Both players enter their choice, and they receive feedback after they have both input their decision.
This exhibit is concerned with the economic principles of Game Theory, especially relating to a capitalist society. The learning goals would then be to stimulate interest in the subject of economics in adolescents and teenagers, those who would likely have the opportunity to take a class in economics in the near future. The exhibit appeared to draw an older crowd, as it presented itself as an opportunity for couples to compete using their business sense. I did not observe any young children attempt to play the game, as adults would likely steer their kids away from the relatively sophisticated gameplay, and kids would likely not approach it on their own.
Overall, I find this exhibit to be a fun competition in a museum that doesn't have too many competitive exhibits. It is meant as a teaching tool for younger kids, but it can be enjoyed by older museum-goers as well. One problem that I found with the game was that it didn't mention the underlying principles to any extent, and it didn't tell the users how much they would have won if they'd made different decisions. The interface was also very plain; it didn't have too much visual appeal, and it only involved the sense of sight. If the game were to be extended to involve other senses, possibly with objects and speech, it may be more engaging to the user.
Saturday, January 26, 2008
An Introduction to Tangible User Interfaces
This class is a Computer Science elective that discusses a burgeoning field that combines Computer Science, haptics, human factors, and usability. A Tangible User Interface, or TUI, is comprised of a physical representation of digital information that one is able to touch in order to manipulate the digital data. TUIs are ideal for collaborative work, as more than one person is able to manipulate the data, as it is not confined to the digital world.
A good example of a TUI is the ReacTable, which is a electro-acoustic instrument with tabletop interface. The ReacTable makes different sounds depending on the location of the different modules, which are the tokens of the interface. The surface is the top of the ReacTable, and the tokens act as constraints on each other as they manipulate each other when placed close together. The ReacTable has been used by Bjork in live performances in 2007.
A good example of a TUI is the ReacTable, which is a electro-acoustic instrument with tabletop interface. The ReacTable makes different sounds depending on the location of the different modules, which are the tokens of the interface. The surface is the top of the ReacTable, and the tokens act as constraints on each other as they manipulate each other when placed close together. The ReacTable has been used by Bjork in live performances in 2007.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)