BaseLase: An Interactive Focus+Context Laser Floor

CHI, pp. 3869-3878, 2015.

Cited by: 14|Bibtex|Views32|Links
EI
Keywords:
laser projectionmiscellaneousomnidirectional displayspublic displays
Weibo:
We believe that focus + context laser projectors provide an interesting alternative to conventional projectors, especially on floors but potentially on other surfaces where very large display areas from a small projector distance are important

Abstract:

We present BaseLase, an interactive laser projected focus + context floor display. In order to provide a transportable system that works in areas where there are no ceilings, we provide an integrated unit (1.3m height) that stands on the floor. One unsolved challenge for laser projectors is to cover large projection areas while providing ...More

Code:

Data:

0
Introduction
  • Public displays are rapidly appearing in many public places, for uses such as social gaming [19] or political participation [9]
  • Most of these displays are installed vertically, so that.
  • Floor displays can potentially be very large [3] and enable users to walk through the content.
  • Such displays offer the advantage that the floor is often not used for other information.
  • In cases where the displayed content covers a small fraction of the entire surface, laser projectors are able to achieve higher brightness in larger areas by concentrating the provided light on the actual content
Highlights
  • Public displays are rapidly appearing in many public places, for uses such as social gaming [19] or political participation [9]
  • Area filling raster graphics can be projected in high resolution on the floor
  • A Friedman test revealed a significant effect of condition on both questions (χ2(5) = 14.03, p < 0.05 and χ2(5) = 15.35, p < 0.05)
  • In this paper, we have presented an interactive laser projected focus + context floor display
  • We introduced interaction with hands and full body on floors through cursors and silhouettes as an alternative to direct foot based interaction
  • We believe that focus + context laser projectors provide an interesting alternative to conventional projectors, especially on floors but potentially on other surfaces where very large display areas from a small projector distance are important
Results
  • No users needed explanation, followed by frontal (1), foot dwell (1), orthogonal (2), and tap (5).
  • Silhouette was rated as easiest to understand (μ = 5.67), followed by foot dwell (μ = 5.33), frontal (μ = 4.67), tap (μ = 4.67) and orthogonal (μ = 4.33).
  • Foot dwell was rated as easiest to select items (μ = 6), followed by silhouette (μ = 5.75), tap (μ = 5.58), orthogonal (μ = 5.42) and frontal (μ = 5.33).
  • Post-hoc tests using Wilcoxon tests with Bonferroni correction revealed no pairwise differences for either question.
Conclusion
  • As shown in [3], tapping is a very intuitive and efficient way to select items on floors.
  • Designers should choose freely between these three interaction paradigms, weighing their benefits and drawbacks in light of their particular applications’ requirements.In this paper, the authors have presented an interactive laser projected focus + context floor display.
  • It covers a large display area in low resolution through a convex mirror design that approximately equalizes the point size for the entire display area.
  • The authors believe that focus + context laser projectors provide an interesting alternative to conventional projectors, especially on floors but potentially on other surfaces where very large display areas from a small projector distance are important
Summary
  • Introduction:

    Public displays are rapidly appearing in many public places, for uses such as social gaming [19] or political participation [9]
  • Most of these displays are installed vertically, so that.
  • Floor displays can potentially be very large [3] and enable users to walk through the content.
  • Such displays offer the advantage that the floor is often not used for other information.
  • In cases where the displayed content covers a small fraction of the entire surface, laser projectors are able to achieve higher brightness in larger areas by concentrating the provided light on the actual content
  • Results:

    No users needed explanation, followed by frontal (1), foot dwell (1), orthogonal (2), and tap (5).
  • Silhouette was rated as easiest to understand (μ = 5.67), followed by foot dwell (μ = 5.33), frontal (μ = 4.67), tap (μ = 4.67) and orthogonal (μ = 4.33).
  • Foot dwell was rated as easiest to select items (μ = 6), followed by silhouette (μ = 5.75), tap (μ = 5.58), orthogonal (μ = 5.42) and frontal (μ = 5.33).
  • Post-hoc tests using Wilcoxon tests with Bonferroni correction revealed no pairwise differences for either question.
  • Conclusion:

    As shown in [3], tapping is a very intuitive and efficient way to select items on floors.
  • Designers should choose freely between these three interaction paradigms, weighing their benefits and drawbacks in light of their particular applications’ requirements.In this paper, the authors have presented an interactive laser projected focus + context floor display.
  • It covers a large display area in low resolution through a convex mirror design that approximately equalizes the point size for the entire display area.
  • The authors believe that focus + context laser projectors provide an interesting alternative to conventional projectors, especially on floors but potentially on other surfaces where very large display areas from a small projector distance are important
Related work
  • Interactive Public Displays Interactive Public Displays are often installed outdoors [23, 19] or in large indoor spaces. In such areas, vertical displays are often integrated in an ecosystem of other content, and may be overlooked or ignored [13, 20]. Because pedestrians look at the floor regularly [26], it may be an interesting alternative placement for displays.

    Interactive Floors Top projection systems like iFloor [16] usually use a video projector and cameras mounted on the ceiling. iFloor for example was installed in a library, and users could move a cursor by walking around. One benefit of top projection systems is that sensitive equipment is out of reach, and occlusions between users are minimized. The main limitation is that they are only applicable when ceiling mount is feasible, and that there may be self-occlusion issues for both projection and tracking. Commercial deployments have used short throw projection to remove the need for ceiling mount1. The resulting interactive floor is however still relatively small.
Funding
  • This project has been supported by the European Institute of Innovation and Technology
Reference
  • Accot, J., and Zhai, S. More than dotting the i’s — foundations for crossing-based interfaces. In Proc. of CHI’02, ACM (2002), 73–80.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Ashdown, M., and Robinson, P. Escritoire: A personal projected display. MultiMedia, IEEE 12, 1 (2005), 34–42.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Augsten, T., Kaefer, K., Meusel, R., Fetzer, C., Kanitz, D., Stoff, T., Becker, T., Holz, C., and Baudisch, P. Multitoe: high-precision interaction with back-projected floors based on high-resolution multi-touch input. In Proc. of UIST’10, ACM (2010), 209–218.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Baudisch, P., Good, N., and Stewart, P. Focus plus context screens: combining display technology with visualization techniques. In Proc. of UIST’01, ACM (2001), 31–40.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Benko, H., and Wilson, A. D. Pinch-the-sky dome: freehand multi-point interactions with immersive omni-directional data. In CHI EA ’10, ACM (2010), 3045–3050.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Bier, E. A., Stone, M. C., Pier, K., Buxton, W., and DeRose, T. D. Toolglass and magic lenses: the see-through interface. In Proc. of SIGGRAPH’93, ACM (1993), 73–80.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Branzel, A., Holz, C., Hoffmann, D., Schmidt, D., Knaust, M., Luhne, P., Meusel, R., Richter, S., and Baudisch, P. Gravityspace: tracking users and their poses in a smart room using a pressure-sensing floor. In Proc. of CHI’13, ACM (2013), 725–734.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Cassinelli, A., Zerroug, A., Watanabe, Y., Ishikawa, M., and Angesleva, J. Camera-less smart laser projector. In SIGGRAPH Emerging Technologies (2010).
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Dalsgaard, P., and Halskov, K. Designing urban media facades: cases and challenges. In Proc. of CHI’10, ACM (2010), 2277–2286.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Dalton, N. S. Taptiles: LED-based floor interaction. In Proc. of ITS’13, ACM (2013), 165–174.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Delbruck, T., Whatley, A. M., Douglas, R., Eng, K., Hepp, K., and Verschure, P. F. A tactile luminous floor for an interactive autonomous space. Robotics and Autonomous Systems 55, 6 (2007), 433 – 443.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Grønbæk, K., Iversen, O. S., Kortbek, K. J., Nielsen, K. R., and Aagaard, L. Igamefloor: a platform for co-located collaborative games. In Proc. of ACE’07, ACM (2007), 64–71.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Huang, E. M., Koster, A., and Borchers, J. Overcoming assumptions and uncovering practices: When does the public really look at public displays? In Pervasive Computing. Springer, 2008, 228–243.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Jones, B., Sodhi, R., Murdock, M., Mehra, R., Benko, H., Wilson, A., Ofek, E., MacIntyre, B., Raghuvanshi, N., and Shapira, L. Roomalive: Magical experiences enabled by scalable, adaptive projector-camera units. In Proc. of UIST’14, ACM (2014), 637–644.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Jones, B. R., Benko, H., Ofek, E., and Wilson, A. D. Illumiroom: peripheral projected illusions for interactive experiences. In Proc. of CHI’13, ACM (2013), 869–878.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Krogh, P., Ludvigsen, M., and Lykke-Olesen, A. ” help me pull that cursor” a collaborative interactive floor enhancing community interaction. Australasian Journal of Information Systems 11, 2 (2007).
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Lamping, J., Rao, R., and Pirolli, P. A focus+ context technique based on hyperbolic geometry for visualizing large hierarchies. In Proc. of CHI’95, ACM (1995), 401–408.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Lee, J. C., Hudson, S. E., Summet, J. W., and Dietz, P. H. Moveable interactive projected displays using projector based tracking. In Proc. of UIST’05, ACM (2005), 63–72.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Muller, J., Walter, R., Bailly, G., Nischt, M., and Alt, F. Looking glass: a field study on noticing interactivity of a shop window. In Proc. of CHI’12, ACM (2012), 297–306.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Muller, J., Wilmsmann, D., Exeler, J., Buzeck, M., Schmidt, A., Jay, T., and Kruger, A. Display blindness: The effect of expectations on attention towards digital signage. In Pervasive Computing. Springer, 2009, 1–8.
    Google ScholarFindings
  • Orr, R. J., and Abowd, G. D. The smart floor: A mechanism for natural user identification and tracking. In CHI EA ’00, ACM (2000), 275–276.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Paradiso, J., Abler, C., Hsiao, K.-y., and Reynolds, M. The magic carpet: physical sensing for immersive environments. In CHI EA ’97, ACM (1997), 277–278.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Peltonen, P., Kurvinen, E., Salovaara, A., Jacucci, G., Ilmonen, T., Evans, J., Oulasvirta, A., and Saarikko, P. It’s mine, don’t touch!: Interactions at a large multi-touch display in a city centre. In Proc. of CHI’08, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2008), 1285–1294.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Pinhanez, C. The everywhere displays projector: A device to create ubiquitous graphical interfaces. In Proc. of Ubicomp’01, Springer (2001), 315–331.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Rogers, Y., Hazlewood, W. R., Marshall, P., Dalton, N., and Hertrich, S. Ambient influence: Can twinkly lights lure and abstract representations trigger behavioral change? In Proc. of Ubicomp’10, ACM (2010), 261–270.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Schrammel, J., Mattheiss, E., Dobelt, S., Paletta, L., Almer, A., and Tscheligi, M. Attentional behavior of users on the move towards pervasive advertising media. In Pervasive Advertising, J. Muller, F. Alt, and D. Michelis, Eds., Human-Computer Interaction Series. Springer London, 2011, 287–307.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Wilson, A. D. PlayAnywhere: a compact interactive tabletop projection-vision system. In Proc. of UIST’05, ACM (2005), 83–92.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
  • Xiao, R., Nacenta, M. A., Mandryk, R. L., Cockburn, A., and Gutwin, C. Ubiquitous cursor: A comparison of direct and indirect pointing feedback in multi-display environments. In Proc. of GI’11 (2011), 135–142.
    Google ScholarLocate open access versionFindings
Your rating :
0

 

Best Paper
Best Paper of CHI, 2015
Tags
Comments