Difference between revisions of "Random/Notes"

From CDOT Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Created page with '{{BTH740 Index | 20113}} = Project Title Here = *[mailto:dlau10@learn.senecac.on.ca?subject=bth740_research Dixon Lau] *[mailto:esin@learn.senecac.on.ca?subject=bth740_research …')
 
(→‎Notes for new Thesis)
 
Line 30: Line 30:
  
 
= Notes for new Thesis =
 
= Notes for new Thesis =
 +
 +
==Edward==
 +
http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1620000/1613895/a28-heikkinen.pdf?ip=142.204.142.226&acc=ACTIVE%20SERVICE&CFID=69407799&CFTOKEN=91210177&__acm__=1321739716_85a9590a5c08071512edc37022cbc1ce
 +
http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1190000/1180555/p297-balaniuk.pdf?ip=142.204.142.226&acc=ACTIVE%20SERVICE&CFID=69407799&CFTOKEN=91210177&__acm__=1321740075_09a298b673b6fdd6844afeff8d7ac9ce
 +
 
===
 
===
  

Latest revision as of 17:00, 19 November 2011


BTH740 | Weekly Schedule | Research Projects | Research Essay | Student Resources

Project Title Here

Web Sites Reviewed

Thesis

How can haptics improve touch interfaces?

Argument

  • Deficiencies of current touch screens
    • Visual feedback only
    • Non-localized/inappropriate haptic feedback (full device vibration, "rumble packs")
  • Technologies to improve localized screen feedback
    • "Screen pokes back"
    • Moulding screen through smart materials
  • Advantages to users
    • Features
      • Software can change action based on strength of click
    • Muscle memory
    • Older users

Notes for new Thesis

Edward

http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1620000/1613895/a28-heikkinen.pdf?ip=142.204.142.226&acc=ACTIVE%20SERVICE&CFID=69407799&CFTOKEN=91210177&__acm__=1321739716_85a9590a5c08071512edc37022cbc1ce http://delivery.acm.org/10.1145/1190000/1180555/p297-balaniuk.pdf?ip=142.204.142.226&acc=ACTIVE%20SERVICE&CFID=69407799&CFTOKEN=91210177&__acm__=1321740075_09a298b673b6fdd6844afeff8d7ac9ce

=

Towards developing assistive haptic feedback for visually impaired internet users 

===* http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1240624.1240854&coll=DL&dl=ACM&CFID=54430418&CFTOKEN=53398250 ===
    • Haptic technologies have been shown to aid navigation througha virtual environment, this would include blind users as well as near cited users. GUIs nowadays have been haptically-augmented for sighted and blind users. The iPhone and other devices are exceptions of this.

Old Topic

Thesis

How can visual interfaces be improved to better suit older users?

Keywords

  • older adults, interactivity, adaptability, presbyopia

Bibliography

Primary

Secondary

Old Research Notes from Sources

Primary

Unseen and Unaware: Implications of Recent Research on Failures of Visual Awareness (2004)

  • IB: Inatteninal Blindness, the phonomenon where the visual cue is completely not seen because the user is currently focusing on something else. (See Gorilla/Basketball Example)
  • CB: Change Blindness, the phonomonen where the visual cue is not noticed because the attention is not on said cue. Being blind to a change in the background, for example. (See Room change example)
  • Link to older adults: Older adults are even more prone to missing visual cues because of the 1/3 chance of the average senior having a visual impairment. If the change just so happens to occur in the visual impairment blur it will be missed regardless. As stated in this source, the impact might be minor or disastrous.
  • It's a mistaken assumption that viewers young and old will be able to see all the details of a scene at once.
  • Another mistaken assumption is the belief that users will attend to a higher proportion of regions in a display than they do. The assumption of two monitors for example, one cannot look at both monitors and process memory from it at the same time, this is simply not possible. To quote Ian Matthews, a professor in college, "You cannot multi-task, it's another word for ADD".

An investigation of handheld device use by older adults with age-related macular degeneration

  • Participants ranging from perfect to impaired eyesight demonstrated high levels of task accuracy (97% of trials). However, the effiency of completeing the task was reduced. We can conclude from this that impaired vision causes problems when tasks need to be done effenciently. The relationship is a positive correlation, the higher degree of impairment, the less effienent tasks are completed.
  • Several theories are presented here which are not addressed with this study.
    • Increasing text size and image size can be more problematic than assistive, especially considering the nature of the visual impairment.
    • The emphasis of direct manipulation tasks on visual interaction paradigms places users with visual impairments at a quantifiable disadvantage when attempting to use graphical user interfaces (GUIs).
    • IT solutions for individuals who are blind are typically inappropriate for individuals maintaining useful residual vision possessed by the user.
    • The efficacy of design interventions depends on the nature and amount of a user’s residual vision.

Secondary

Is a big button interface enough for elderly users?

  • Mobile devices may actually be too heavy for an older adult to carry around with one hand and use in the other. If the visual attention span is shifted from actually being attentivie to the visual cues, it will also cause a decrease in efficency of use as well as all the other factors.
  • This paper is actually a little countering to one of our primary sources, which suggests that larger text may actually be bad for visual impaired users. This one suggests that bigger icons are good, but at the same time the visually impaired people actually get clouded eyesight around the edges. (The clouded eyesight needs to be proved without research article)

Research Notes Pertaining to Thesis

Possible Research Topics

  • Touch interfacing
    • May be related to Projected Interfaces, since Touch is usually Projected on a flat screen.
  • AI in Gaming
  • Virtual Reality
  • Projected interfaces (eg. project road lines on windshield, HUD without specialized display)
    • Proposed Thesis: Projected Interfaces can be useful, however in most cases is considered impractical due to the flaws in touch design.
    • Alternative Thesis: Projected Interfaces for disabled people due to loss of limbs is benefitial, but impractical due to the many flaws in design.
    • Sixth Sense (2009) [1]
    • SPARSH (2011) [2]
    • One-eyed Cursor Interaction (2010) [3]
  • Augmented Reality
    • May work with Projected interfaces as well, very interesting topic
  • Random Topic: Interfaces are distracting
  • Adapting to touch interfaces in older generations, why older generations prefer Blackberries.
    • Older Generations = Large Companies, who appear to prefer click instead of touch.
    • Comparison of Online Interaction between Older and Young Generations [4]
  • Thesis I came up with: What are the similarities and differences between young and old users in adapting to touch interfaces?
  • Thesis with a Claim: Older adults have an easier time adapting to point and click interfaces.
  • Overreliance on visual feedback impairs usability for older users.
  • The usability of current interfaces is inadequate for older adults.
  • Proposed from the presentation: Are projected interfaces adequate for senior adults?

ADAPTING TO NEW INTERFACES.. old generation vs new

PROJECTED INTERFACES

INTERFACES FOR DISABILITIES

OTHER

KMDI

TAGLab

Direction of argument

  • What physio- and psychological factors affect older users?
  • How do these factors affect the use of visual interfaces by older users?
  • What strategies do older users use to compensate for these limitations?
  • How can interface design be improved to accommodate older users?
Retrieved from "https://wiki.cdot.senecapolytechnic.ca/w/index.php?title=Random/Notes&oldid=74453"