A comparison of user preferences for tangible objects vs touch buttons with a map-based tabletop application

M Brown, W Chinthammit, Patrick Nixon

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

    2 Citations (Scopus)

    Abstract

    Although finger touch is widely expected as the control mechanism for touch tables, tangible object interaction is another, if rarely implemented possibility. Little empirical research exists showing uptake, user engagement, or use preferences for adult users of multi-touch tangible systems (Antle & Wise, 2013; Schneider et al., 2010) with the majority of past research for tangible objects focusing on children (Marshall et al., 2003; Price et al, 2008; Zuckerman et al., 2005). Yet it is adults, as decision makers, who are the true targets of increasingly available commercial multi-touch table applications. By observing the interaction behaviours of 20 participants, this research investigates the appeal of two distinctly different styles of tangible objects compared with their finger touch equivalents. The explorative style study measures user preferences, perceived engagement, fit for purpose, usability, and enjoyment. The aim is to determine how the inclusion of tangible object interaction as part of the interface influences user preferences compares with a touch only system. This provides valuable base information to predict potential uptake and preferences of local adult users for future tangible or hybrid tangible touch systems.
    LanguageEnglish
    Title of host publicationUnknown Host Publication
    EditorsT Robertson, K O'Hara
    Pages1-4
    Number of pages4
    DOIs
    Publication statusPublished - 2014
    EventProceedings of the 26th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference (OzCHI 2014) - Sydney, Australia
    Duration: 1 Jan 2014 → …

    Conference

    ConferenceProceedings of the 26th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference (OzCHI 2014)
    Period1/01/14 → …

    Fingerprint

    User interfaces

    Keywords

    • tangible user interface
    • muti-touch interface
    • interaction design
    • physical vs virtual objects

    Cite this

    Brown, M., Chinthammit, W., & Nixon, P. (2014). A comparison of user preferences for tangible objects vs touch buttons with a map-based tabletop application. In T. Robertson, & K. O'Hara (Eds.), Unknown Host Publication (pp. 1-4) https://doi.org/10.1145/2686612.2686645
    Brown, M ; Chinthammit, W ; Nixon, Patrick. / A comparison of user preferences for tangible objects vs touch buttons with a map-based tabletop application. Unknown Host Publication. editor / T Robertson ; K O'Hara. 2014. pp. 1-4
    @inproceedings{dde7e237896646b883ecf6e6a4a8b7dd,
    title = "A comparison of user preferences for tangible objects vs touch buttons with a map-based tabletop application",
    abstract = "Although finger touch is widely expected as the control mechanism for touch tables, tangible object interaction is another, if rarely implemented possibility. Little empirical research exists showing uptake, user engagement, or use preferences for adult users of multi-touch tangible systems (Antle & Wise, 2013; Schneider et al., 2010) with the majority of past research for tangible objects focusing on children (Marshall et al., 2003; Price et al, 2008; Zuckerman et al., 2005). Yet it is adults, as decision makers, who are the true targets of increasingly available commercial multi-touch table applications. By observing the interaction behaviours of 20 participants, this research investigates the appeal of two distinctly different styles of tangible objects compared with their finger touch equivalents. The explorative style study measures user preferences, perceived engagement, fit for purpose, usability, and enjoyment. The aim is to determine how the inclusion of tangible object interaction as part of the interface influences user preferences compares with a touch only system. This provides valuable base information to predict potential uptake and preferences of local adult users for future tangible or hybrid tangible touch systems.",
    keywords = "tangible user interface, muti-touch interface, interaction design, physical vs virtual objects",
    author = "M Brown and W Chinthammit and Patrick Nixon",
    year = "2014",
    doi = "10.1145/2686612.2686645",
    language = "English",
    pages = "1--4",
    editor = "T Robertson and K O'Hara",
    booktitle = "Unknown Host Publication",

    }

    Brown, M, Chinthammit, W & Nixon, P 2014, A comparison of user preferences for tangible objects vs touch buttons with a map-based tabletop application. in T Robertson & K O'Hara (eds), Unknown Host Publication. pp. 1-4, Proceedings of the 26th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference (OzCHI 2014), 1/01/14. https://doi.org/10.1145/2686612.2686645

    A comparison of user preferences for tangible objects vs touch buttons with a map-based tabletop application. / Brown, M; Chinthammit, W; Nixon, Patrick.

    Unknown Host Publication. ed. / T Robertson; K O'Hara. 2014. p. 1-4.

    Research output: Chapter in Book/Report/Conference proceedingConference contribution

    TY - GEN

    T1 - A comparison of user preferences for tangible objects vs touch buttons with a map-based tabletop application

    AU - Brown, M

    AU - Chinthammit, W

    AU - Nixon, Patrick

    PY - 2014

    Y1 - 2014

    N2 - Although finger touch is widely expected as the control mechanism for touch tables, tangible object interaction is another, if rarely implemented possibility. Little empirical research exists showing uptake, user engagement, or use preferences for adult users of multi-touch tangible systems (Antle & Wise, 2013; Schneider et al., 2010) with the majority of past research for tangible objects focusing on children (Marshall et al., 2003; Price et al, 2008; Zuckerman et al., 2005). Yet it is adults, as decision makers, who are the true targets of increasingly available commercial multi-touch table applications. By observing the interaction behaviours of 20 participants, this research investigates the appeal of two distinctly different styles of tangible objects compared with their finger touch equivalents. The explorative style study measures user preferences, perceived engagement, fit for purpose, usability, and enjoyment. The aim is to determine how the inclusion of tangible object interaction as part of the interface influences user preferences compares with a touch only system. This provides valuable base information to predict potential uptake and preferences of local adult users for future tangible or hybrid tangible touch systems.

    AB - Although finger touch is widely expected as the control mechanism for touch tables, tangible object interaction is another, if rarely implemented possibility. Little empirical research exists showing uptake, user engagement, or use preferences for adult users of multi-touch tangible systems (Antle & Wise, 2013; Schneider et al., 2010) with the majority of past research for tangible objects focusing on children (Marshall et al., 2003; Price et al, 2008; Zuckerman et al., 2005). Yet it is adults, as decision makers, who are the true targets of increasingly available commercial multi-touch table applications. By observing the interaction behaviours of 20 participants, this research investigates the appeal of two distinctly different styles of tangible objects compared with their finger touch equivalents. The explorative style study measures user preferences, perceived engagement, fit for purpose, usability, and enjoyment. The aim is to determine how the inclusion of tangible object interaction as part of the interface influences user preferences compares with a touch only system. This provides valuable base information to predict potential uptake and preferences of local adult users for future tangible or hybrid tangible touch systems.

    KW - tangible user interface

    KW - muti-touch interface

    KW - interaction design

    KW - physical vs virtual objects

    U2 - 10.1145/2686612.2686645

    DO - 10.1145/2686612.2686645

    M3 - Conference contribution

    SP - 1

    EP - 4

    BT - Unknown Host Publication

    A2 - Robertson, T

    A2 - O'Hara, K

    ER -