Paper Reading - Charting Subtle Interaction in the HCI Literature
Charting Subtle Interaction in the HCI Literature
Author:
Henning Pohl, Andreea Muresan, Kasper Hornbæk, CHI 2019
Keywords
Subtle interaction, subtle, interaction, quality, review, survey
WHAT
Assumption about the interaction and its goals
Technology and Style of the interatction
voice
touch
gesture
Characteristic Quality of the interaction
fluid
intuitive
playful
Style is easily defined, but Quality depends on the interplay of user interface elements and mechanics as well as on personal preferences.
Definition of “Subtle”
- “Providing input to, or receiving output from, systems without being observed. The primary goal is the development of a suite of technologies that enable users to leverage always-available computing without compromising privacy or social interaction.” - by Anderson et al.
WHY
frequently used
conbines several qualities
Fraser Anderson: Supporting Subtlety with Deceptive Devices and Illusory Interactions.
- subtle interaction as providing input to, or receiving output from, systems without being observed
HOW
characterising the notion of subtle is to collect a large sample of papers using structured search techniques
against using the synonym for subtle
1347 papers in total, 311 papers in SIGCHI, SIGMOBILE, and SIGMM, 55 papers includes in the final dataset
CHI papers and posters are the largest contributors to this dataset.
filtering standard
use subtle to describe an interaction (e.g., an input users do, a feedback they receive, the way things are displayed or worded, or the overall flavor of the interaction/ experience).
only refer to subtle in passing or as a filler word
only use subtle to describe how the environment changed outside of an interaction
only use subtle to describe how people acted outside of an interaction
only use subtle for human-human interaction
2 authors for evaluating (33 papers in), 1 author for an independent third opinion (22 papers in)
Result
2 “subtle” definition
hiding from others
noticeable to oneself
2 further variations
nudging
- to influence user behavior in a less overt way
to do less
- input techniques, where interactive devices and applications are presented
Non-intrusive
Center: user’s own perception, particularly their attention
- feedback modalities or notification approaches
Benefit
does not demand a large amount of attention from users
preventing overload or obtrusiveness, closely related to distraction
not disturbing other people
additional aesthetic benefits
- Hansson and Ljungstrand : blending with clothes
Empirical Approach
- measuring reaction time (including failure to react)
Hiding and Deception
Center: something hidden from observers or, when not hidden, designed in a way that deceives them
Benefit
main driver: the low social acceptability of technology use
users can continue to use a device where this otherwise might not be appropriate
- The Glance Mug: designed to allow hidden searches for information while in a meeting
keeping things private
Empirical Approach
to observe an action or feedback and then inquiring whether they noticed it
to evaluate the usability of systems that engage in hiding and deception
Ethics issues
private
support “interactions that are more secretive”
- increases “the probability that the interactions go unnoticed and observers remain unoffended.”
off-setting subtleness and negotiating permission
Way to do less
Center: input
Benefit
Non-intrusive
space-saving
convenience
Empirical Approach
the technical performance of the presented input devices
- the gesture recognition accuracy
Nudging
Center: the act of influencing in a gentle way
Benefit
have minimal impact on the viewing experience
calmness
lower demands on effort and attention
Empirical Approach
the success of directing users
subjective measurements ofexperiences
- asking participants to rate distraction after using EmotionCheck
Orthogonal Uses of Subtlety
- Center: boundaries of subtleness
Discussion
Synthesizing Subtle Interaction
Purpose
allow users to remain focused elsewhere, yet also does not disturb others around them
the main difference: whether they focus on the user or on others
reduced intrusion
done on the side without severely impacting a primary task
nudging remains in the background
Benefit
increase social acceptability
increase calmness in single-user scenario
Method
Methods to reduce intrusion
(1) reduced intensity
- detect small movements
(2) reduced fidelity
- work with coarse actions
(3) reduced frequency
- only require infrequent user input
Methods to evaluation
(1) measuring the time it takes participants to react to a stimuli
(2) asking participants about their experience
(3) analyzing user behavior
Potential ethics issues
the question of how much control users have and how much systems respectively act without being explicitly instructed to
Being intrusive
- main goal
Hiding
- extending to others
Deception
- an added user intent to further conceal an interaction
Nudging
- the user is influenced in a non-intrusive way
Doing less
- a consequence of designing input methods
Open Questions Around Subtle Interaction
Technical Challenges
- the threshold that targets non-intrusiveness needs to be more precisely defined
Empirical Approaches
empirical approaches for subtlety of one’s own interactions are lacking
no commonly agreed-on threshold to denote what reaction times are considered subtle
Quantifying Subtleness
lacking quantitative measures that make those degrees concrete and measurable
lacking a way to put subtleness in relation to other measures
Ethics
- negotiating permission: howto handle consent
Social Acceptability
such systems potentially have a strong impact on social acceptability if uncovered
deliberate effort to deceive others
Relationship to Other Qualities
- increasing interest in different kinds of interaction