Download
bridging the physical and virtual worlds by local connectivity based physical selection n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Bridging the Physical and Virtual Worlds by Local Connectivity-Based Physical Selection PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Bridging the Physical and Virtual Worlds by Local Connectivity-Based Physical Selection

Bridging the Physical and Virtual Worlds by Local Connectivity-Based Physical Selection

457 Vues Download Presentation
Télécharger la présentation

Bridging the Physical and Virtual Worlds by Local Connectivity-Based Physical Selection

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. Bridging the Physical and Virtual Worlds by Local Connectivity-Based Physical Selection By Surendra Mathe Jia Zheng

  2. Introduction • Limitations of Mapping Physical and Virtual Worlds: • Lack of support for natural user interaction with physical objects and virtual counterparts ex: Manual copy and paste of URLS, Mapping problems ex Printers,

  3. Intelligence Implementation • Limitations are mainly because the Intelligence Implementation is Mobile Centric • Solution Environment Centric Intelligence

  4. Mobile Centric

  5. Environment Centric

  6. Mobile Devices • Functionality has Increased • services and devices accessibility trough mobile devices are offer greater possibility to have seamless - interaction with the virtual world

  7. Pros and Cons Of Mobile Devices • Cons • full desktop features cannot be implemented • Texting, maneuvering and display are hindrances while using a mobile devices • Pros • Mobility, Direction, Approach, Gestures • Scan surrounding objects and this data can be used for seamless integration

  8. Problem Statement • Is it possible to implement and use the physical selection method with mobile devices efficiently and with positive user experience when compared to conventional methods ?

  9. Research • Standard Mobile phone • IR communication

  10. Physical Selection Phases • Object discovery by human senses • Object discovery by device • Object verification • Menu Selection • Action

  11. Storage Tagging • Information is stored in these tags • Active and Passive Tags • Seamless Integration

  12. Communication with Objects • PointMe • ScanMe • TouchMe • NotifyMe

  13. Options for Physical Selection Visual Codes • Bar Codes, Matrix Codes, OCR • Main difference between these Codes is information density and processing power • Barcode 20 digits, Matrix Codes have few hundred Digits and OCR depends on camera • Long Life-Time as there are no processing capabilities

  14. Electromagnetic technologies • RFID & WPAN • TouchMe and ScanMe rather than PointMe • Power from the reader eliminating separate Power source • operating frequencies at 125k and 13.56Mhz • low price small size power constraint

  15. Infrared Technology • IrDA Standard • IR Tags • Line of sight

  16. Experiments Experiments were done for finding out if it is possible touse the physical selection method with mobile devicesefficiently and with positive user experience compared to more conventional methods.  (1) physical selection of a website and (2) a phone call by physical selection

  17. Physical selection of a website The scenario involved 1. pointing the mobile device at the physical icon of the website of interest, 2. thus opening a wireless connection to the site and retrieving relevant information.

  18. Study measurement (1) the measurement of efficiency and (2) study on the users’ experience physical pointing method was compared to a standard method based on using the keys of the mobile phone for accessing the website.

  19. The efficiency was measured by time; that is, wemeasured the time it took a test person to access thewebsite. The user’s experience is more of a subjectivenature and it was studied by presenting the users with aquestionnaire including the following questions: – Which of the methods was easier to use?– Why do you think physical pointing was easier/harderthan the conventional method?– Would you use pointing method if it were available inmobile phones?– For what kind of applications it can be used?

  20. Evoking a phone call by pointing In this experimental scenario the user would evoke aphone call to a person by pressing one key and thenpointing the mobile phone at the tagged picture of thatother person.

  21. Benefit -the difficulty or inability to remember phone numbers (in some cases phonebooks would be also difficult to use due to weakened ability to read), -difficulty to dial with small keys and decreased mobility of fingers, -and the perceived complexity of the UIs of the mobile phones, especially the digital phonebook.

  22. experimental set-up The experimental set-up was very similar to that of the physical selection of a website. -A Nokia 7650 mobile phone with IrDA capability and Symbian Series 60 operating system was used. -On detection of an other IrDA transmitter, i.e. the tag, it asks the tag to pass an identification sequence. -If the first word of the sequence is a reserved word for ‘evoke a call’, the program interprets the following data as a phone number and tries to place a call.

  23. Tentative results for physical selection of a website Efficiency in terms of execution time

  24. Efficiency The experiment showed that for some of the testsubjects manually browsing through a set of menusproved a difficult task resulting in very long completiontimes. On the other hand, completion times with thepointing method were roughly same for all test subjects.

  25. User experience and ideas of use When asked which of the methods was easier to use allof the test subjects stated that pointing was easier. Mostof the subjects wrote, that pointing was easier becauseone had fewer menus to browse through and one did nothave to write the URL address. One characteristic answerto the question why do you think physical pointingwas easier/harder than conventional method? Was… “you didn’t have to write anything”. I think it was much simpler.To the question whether the test subjects woulduse pointing if it were available in mobile phones 11 outof 12 answered yes, while one was unsure.

  26. Results for evoking a phone call by pointing

  27. User experience and ideas of use In the interviews they stated that the method itself evoking the phone call by pointing was seen easy and understandable. They also said, that it is easier to identify whom they are callingfrom a tagged picture than just a written name.certain cases.

  28. Critiques • How to dynamically update the predefined information associated with the tag • Multiple requests from different users • How are the limitations of the mobile phone handled in the Experiment

  29. Thank you