Muensterjuliana2013msc.Pdf (12.59Mb)
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Personal Augmented Space: Mobile 3D Visualisation and Interaction Study with Microblogging Julian M¨unster<[email protected]> a thesis submitted for the degree of Master of Science at the University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand. 27-03-2013 Abstract !eb 2.0 services su"h as Twitter or $acebook are all around us and with us every day through the introduction of smart&hones and tablets ali%e. The ever increasing feature set, faster ways to "onnect to the Internet and larger screen real estate that mobile devices are equi&&ed with, allow !eb 2.0 services to )ood users with more and more information. This avalan"he of information becomes unmanageable in its "omplexity and (uantity and turns into information overload. #o "ounteract the users’ feeling of information overload a new 3D &ersonalised augmented reality user space was designed and implemented. It employes the te"hni(ues such as augmented reality and information filtering in a 3D environment to reduce information comple*ity and information overload. #his new application was developed for a tablet computer and fo"uses on the humans+ natural abilities of spatial awareness. #o test the underlying assumptions a set of e*&eriments was designed and user trials are conducted to investigate the usability and navigability as well as the &erceived information load. $ollowing the data gathering &hase of the ex&eriment, it was statistically analysed to compare two di-erent approaches. $or this &ur&ose a 2D and a 3D version of the same application had been developed. Comparing the results of the user study, no statisti"ally relevant di-erence in usability "ould be established. The results suggest that the users+ &erception of information overload did not get better in the new 3D interface, and it did not get worse either. The results and observations analyses following the user ex&eriment strongly suggest that information overload should be "onsidered during the appli"ation development &rocess of !eb 2.0 applications. This resear"h shows there is no usability loss when using the 3D interface over the 2D interface. $urther resear"h and development into the areas of spatial %nowledge and awareness in 3D information systems may reduce the information load felt by users of current information rich systems. ii Acknowledgements ' would li%e to than% my su&ervisor Dr. Holger Regenbrecht and Dr. 1arius2 Nowostawski for their su&&ort and some timely advice on this &roject. Thanks to Constantin for his hel& when ' was stu"% on a programming &roblem, to 4onny for his sup&ort and help during the user study, to Cameron, Alan and 6imon for their ex"ellent hel& during the statisti"al analysis and than%s to all my &roof readers. #o my study &arti"ipants, than% you for your time and enthusiasm when you were all busy with your own pro3ects. And to all my friends in the lab, offi"e and outside the university8 ' would not have made it without your sup&ort. Than% you, you guys are the best9 iii Contents 1 Introduction 2 1. 6cope . .................... 3 1.2 1otivation . .................... 3 1.3 Outline . .................... .......: 1.: Abbreviations and #erms Used . ................; 2 Review of Related Work and Literature 7 2. Introduction . .................... 7 2.2 Augmented Reality on Mobile Devi"es . ............ 7 2.3 3D User Interfaces and 3D Environments . 10 2.: 1icro Blogging and Information Overload . 13 2.; Hy&otheses . .................... ; 3 Developing a Protot pe 16 3. Overview . .................... > 3.2 Devices and #ools . .................... > 3.2. The 1obile Devices . > 3.2.2 Development #ools . 20 3.3 User Interface Design and Implementation . 22 3.3. The 3D ?rototy&e . ................... 23 3.3.2 The 2D ?rototy&e . ................... 27 3.3.3 The !arm Up UI . .................... 27 3.: 5&plication Setup . .................... 29 " Investigating the 3D Browser 31 4. Overview . .................... 31 4.2 Resear"h Aariables . .................... 31 4.2. Inde&endent and De&endent Aariables . 31 4.2.2 Confounding Aariables . 32 4.3 1ethodology . .................... 33 4.3. ?artici&ants . .................... 33 4.3.2 Inclusion .riteria . 33 4.3.3 #asks . .................... 34 4.3.: Buestionnaires . ................... 35 4.3.; Materials and 5¶tus . 36 4.3.> <*&eriment Design . 37 4.3.7 Pro"edure . .................... 37 4.: Assumptions . .................... 38 4.; Data Collection . .................... 38 iv % &ser 'tud Results 39 5. Overview . .................... 39 5.2 User Interface <fficiency . ................... 40 5.3 User Interface <ffectiveness . : 5.: User Interface 6atisfaction . 42 5.; User Interface Information Overload . :: 5.> Other Discoveries and Observations . :; 5.6. ?ost-Study Buestionnaire . :; 5.6.2 ?artici&ant =ehaviours . :; ! )onclusions "* 6. Discussion . .................... :C 6.1. Usability . .................... :C 6.1.2 Information Overload . :@ 6.1.3 Overall ?erformance . :@ 6.1.: Observations . .................... 50 6.1.; Summary . .................... 50 6.2 $uture !or% . .................... 50 References 52 v List of Tables 5. Results for task "ompletion time. : 5.2 Results for "orrelations in efficiency data. : 5.3 Results for "ompleteness and "orrectness of tas%s. 42 5.: Results for "orrelations in effectiveness data. 42 5.; Results for user satisfaction. 43 5.> Results for information overload. :; 5.7 Results for "orrelations in information overload data. :; 5.C Results from the ?ost-Study Questionnaire. :> vi List of Figures 2. !ikitude - Overview D!i%itude, 2012bE . ............@ 2.2 !ikitude - 50 =rowser D!i%itude, 2012a] . ...........@ 2.3 4unaio - 50 Browser D4unaio, 2012a] . 10 2.: 4unaio - 50 Browser F#witterG D4unaio, 2012bE . 10 2.; Layar - 50 Browser DLayar, 2012c,a] . 3. ?ossible "omponent structure. 17 3.2 The 6amsung Ialaxy #ab 7.7. C 3.3 The 1otorola Xoom Ien.1. @ 3.: Unity 3D environment. ................... 20 3.; Details on the cube "onstruction. 21 3.> Hidden #witter tabs for the scrolling effect. 21 3.7 1ono Development environment. 22 3.C The <cli&se debug environment. 23 3.@ The idea of a cube. .................... 23 3.10 The three main faces of the virtual cube. 24 3. An illustration of the cube/room scenario. 25 3.12 The settings screen. .................... 26 3.13 6crolling individual panes. 26 3. : The ,rst &ane of the 2D 5&&li"ation. 27 3. ; The second pane of the 2D 5&&li"ation. 28 3. > The third &ane of the 2D 5&&lication. 28 3.17 The warm up UI. .................... 29 3. C The tablet setup. .................... 29 4. 5 &articipant using the &rototy&e. 36 4.2 Counterbalanced &ossibilities of order of &resentation for the two inde&endent UIs. 37 5. Normal distribution of collected information overload data indicating the use of the ANOA5 method for variance analysis. 40 5.2 Normal distribution of collected user satisfaction data indicating the use of the ANOA5 method for variance analysis. 40 5.3 6howing the difference in time between condition and 2 including error bars. : 5.: 6howing the difference of mean answers for every user satisfaction question between condition and 2 including error bars. 43 5.; 6howing the difference of mean answers for every information overload (uestion between condition and 2 including error bars. :: 5.> 6howing the difference of mean answers for every (uestion. :> vii Definitions In order of ap&earan"e: /.' - Human Computer Interface • 2D UI - 2 Dimensional User Interface • 3D UI - 3 Dimensional User Interface • O6 - O&erating 6ystem • Android - 5 mobile operating system designed by Ioogle • iO6 - 5 mobile operating system designed by 5&ple • !indows Mobile - 5 mobile operating system designed by 1icrosoft • ID< - Integrated Development Environment • DD16 - Dalvi% Debug Monitor Server • Chapter 1 Introduction Through the emergence of !eb 2.0 and microblogging more user generated content is brought to the world wide web F!!!G DHoney"utt M Herring, 2009; =elin M Nhachikian, 2007] and to users. #hese advances give the user the ability to write and read u&dates in real time. Users write status &osts about their current situation or anything they would li%e to share with an ever growing user-base. Twitter, $acebook, Ioogle+, 066 feeds and 6%y&e are a few examples of su"h web services DHoneycutt M Herring, 2009; Belin M Nhachikian, 2007; .urran et al., 2012]. 5t the same time mobile devices, in &articular smartphones and tablet computers, have become more &opular D$alaki et al., 2010]. They have given the ever growing !eb 2.0 mar%et a new &latform and enabled users mobility with a constant stream of information never e*&erienced before. #hese technological improvements also brought about a constantly in"reasing set of features for smart&hones and tablets. #hese ri"h feature sets include a number of sensors li%e a gyroscope, an accelerometer and the ability to stream a video feed from a bac% facing "amera among others. #hose sensors and cameras ma%e 50 applications and 3D animated applications a reality on mobile devi"es. .ombining the out&ut of a number of these sensors and features on a mobile devi"e li%e a smartphone or a tablet "omputer allows the developers to create mobile 50 ap&li"ations of great variety D1Punster M Nowostawski, 2012]. !ith te"hnology advancing rapidly every year and giving users the op&ortunity to access their virtual information in ever more ways, users are )ooded with information on a daily basis. !ith the continued introduction of better devices, more services to use and a growing user-base, these !eb 2.0 servi"es created, with their own success, the &roblem of information overload. 'nformation overload is e*&erienced on the des%top or the mobile device by one or many applications bundled and comes with the additional "hallenges of todays information complexity. This resear"h investigates if it is &ossible to use these technology advan"ement and reduce the effects of information overload to the user. #raditionally information overload has been defined as ”Information presented at a rate too fast for a &erson to &rocess” by 6heridan M $errell D1974].