Michael Brock
Aaron Quigley
Per Ola Kristensson
ABSTRACT
Interface designs on both small and large displays can encourage people to alter their physical distance to the display. Mobile devices support this form of interaction naturally, as the user can move the device closer or further away as needed. The current generation of mobile devices can employ computer vision, depth sensing and other inference methods to determine the distance between the user and the display. Once this distance is known, a system can adapt the rendering of display content accordingly and enable proximity-aware mobile interfaces. The dominant method of exploiting proximity-aware interfaces is to remove or superimpose visual information. In this paper, we investigate change blindness in such interfaces. We present the results of two experiments. In our first experiment we show that a proximity-aware mobile interface results in significantly more change blindness errors than a non-moving interface. The absolute difference in error rates was 13.7%. In our second experiment we show that within a proximity-aware mobile interface, gradual changes induce significantly more change blindness errors than instant changes---confirming expected change blindness behavior. Based on our results we discuss the implications of either exploiting change blindness effects or mitigating them when designing mobile proximity-aware interfaces.
Supplemental Material
- Matthias Böhmer, Christian Lander, Sven Gehring, Duncan P. Brumby, and Antonio Krüger. 2014. Interrupted by a Phone Call: Exploring Designs for Lowering the Impact of Call Notifications for Smartphone Users. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3045--3054. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Thomas Davies and Ashweeni Beeharee. 2012. The Case of the Missed Icon: Change Blindness on Mobile Devices. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '12). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1451--1460. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Jakub Dostal, Per Ola Kristensson, and Aaron Quigley. 2014. Estimating and Using Absolute and Relative Viewing Distance in Interactive Systems. Pervasive and Mobile Computing 10, Part B, (Feb. 2014), 173--186. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Saul Greenberg, Nicolai Marquardt, Till Ballendat, Rob Diaz-Marino, and Miaosen Wang. 2011. Proxemic Interactions: The New Ubicomp? Interactions 18, 1 (Jan. 2011), 42--50. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Chris Harrison and Anind K. Dey. 2008. Lean and Zoom: Proximity-aware User Interface and Content Magnification. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '08). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 507--510. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Raymond Klein, Alan Kingstone, and Amanda Pontefract. 1992. Orienting of Visual Attention. In Eye Movements and Visual Cognition, Keith Rayner (Ed.). Springer New York, 46--65.Google Scholar
- Deepti Pappusetty and Hari Kalva. 2014. Effect of Subliminal Cueing on In-attentional Blindness. In Proceedings of the 1st International Workshop on Perception Inspired Video Processing (PIVP '14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 39--40. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Thorsten Prante, Carsten Röcker, Norbert Streitz, Richard Stenzel, Carsten Magerkurth, Daniel van Alphen, and Daniela Plewe. 2003. Hello.Wall - Beyond Ambient Displays. In Video and Adjunct Proceedings of Ubicomp'03. Springer, Seattle, WA, USA, 277--278.Google Scholar
- Ronald A. Rensink. 2002. Change Detection. Annual Review of Psychology 53, 1 (2002), 245--277.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Ronald A. Rensink. 2009. Attention: Change Blindness and Inattentional Blindness. In Encyclopedia of Consciousness. Number v. 1. Elsevier Science, 47--59.Google Scholar
- Ronald A. Rensink, J. Kevin O'Regan, and James J. Clark. 1997. To See or Not to See: The Need for Attention to Perceive Changes in Scenes. Psychological Science 8 (1997), 368--373.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Daniel J Simons and Christopher F Chabris. 1999. Gorillas in our midst: Sustained inattentional blindness for dynamic events. Perception 28 (1999), 1059--1074.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. J. Simons, S. L. Franconeri, and R. L. Reimer. 2000. Change blindness in the absence of a visual disruption. Perception 29, 10 (2000), 1143--1154.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Daniel J. Simons and Daniel T. Levin. 1998. Failure to Detect Changes to People During a Real-World Interaction. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review 5 (1998), 644.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Brian Cantwell Smith. 1996. On the origin of objects. MIT Press. I--XII, 1--420 pages.Google Scholar
- Daniel Vogel and Ravin Balakrishnan. 2004. Interactive Public Ambient Displays: Transitioning from Implicit to Explicit, Public to Personal, Interaction with Multiple Users. In Proceedings of the 17th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST '04). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 137--146. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Change Blindness in Proximity-Aware Mobile Interfaces
Recommendations
The case of the missed icon: change blindness on mobile devices
CHI '12: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsInsights into human visual attention have benefited many areas of computing, but perhaps most significantly visualisation and UI design [3]. With the proliferation of mobile devices capable of supporting significantly complex applications on small ...
Multimedia Interfaces: Don't Move My Cheese!
The author notes ways to be more consistent and practical when designing an interface.He also provides a concrete example of a less-than-perfect user interface on a phone/fax/answering machine.
Proxemic Cursor Interactions for Touchless Widget Control
SUI '23: Proceedings of the 2023 ACM Symposium on Spatial User InteractionTouchless gesture interfaces often use cursor-based interactions, where widgets are targeted by a movable cursor and activated with a mid-air gesture (e.g., push or Pinch). Continuous interactions like slider manipulation can be challenging in mid-air ...
Comments