The relationship of physicality and its underlying mapping

We understand how physical things work from our experience interacting with them. The cause-effect mapping instills our knowledge of interaction. We extend our knowledge of physical interactions when interacting with computing devices, especially when we do not have prior experience with those devices. But, the mapping of interaction in the digital world is not as straightforward as in the physical world. It is unclear how far the rules of physicality hold in the computing realm when the level and kind of feedback is not necessarily the same with physical effort? How do we cope when the underlying mapping is incoherent in relation to the physical control? In this paper, we report a study on Cruel Design. Its objectives are: i) to investigate the role of physicality in the physical-logical interaction, and ii) to observe the behaviors of users as incoherent mappings occur. Four conditions to illustrate the different design of mappings were presented to users. From the findings, the physical condition plays a more dominant role than having to remember the correct mapping of the logical states, and, inverting an action on the same controller (regardless the type of mapping) is the natural reaction to overshoot.

[1]  Masitah Ghazali,et al.  Analysis of Physicality Aspects in Physical User Interfaces of Embedded Systems , 2013 .

[2]  Paul Dourish,et al.  Where the action is , 2001 .

[3]  Peta Wyeth,et al.  Videogame control device impact on the play experience , 2012, IE '12.

[4]  Abigail Sellen,et al.  Two-handed input in a compound task , 1994, CHI 1994.

[5]  W. Buxton Human-Computer Interaction , 1988, Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

[6]  Woohun Lee,et al.  The previewable switch: a light switch with feedforward , 2014, Conference on Designing Interactive Systems.

[7]  W. Buxton,et al.  A study in two-handed input , 1986, CHI '86.

[8]  Paul Skalski,et al.  Mapping the road to fun: Natural video game controllers, presence, and game enjoyment , 2011, New Media Soc..

[9]  Masitah Ghazali Discovering physical visceral qualities for natural interaction , 2007 .

[10]  Alethea L. Blackler,et al.  Intuitive Interaction with Complex Artefacts: Empirically-Based Research , 2008 .

[11]  Stuart K. Card,et al.  Evaluation of mouse, rate-controlled isometric joystick, step keys, and text keys, for text selection on a CRT , 1987 .

[12]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Direct Manipulation: A Step Beyond Programming Languages , 1983, Computer.

[13]  Shumin Zhai,et al.  Manual and cognitive benefits of two-handed input: an experimental study , 1998, TCHI.

[14]  Masitah Ghazali,et al.  Visceral Interaction , 2005 .

[15]  Masitah Ghazali,et al.  AUGMENTING INTUITIVENESS WITH WHEELCHAIR INTERFACE USING NINTENDO WIIMOTE , 2011 .

[16]  Gregory D. Abowd,et al.  Human-Computer Interaction, third edition , 2004 .

[17]  D. Norman,et al.  User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction , 1988 .

[18]  Daniel M. Johnson,et al.  More naturalness, less control: The effect of natural mapping on the co-located player experience , 2013, FDG.

[19]  Colin Potts,et al.  Design of Everyday Things , 1988 .

[20]  H. Garfinkel Studies in Ethnomethodology , 1968 .

[21]  Peta Wyeth,et al.  Natural mapping and intuitive interaction in videogames , 2014, CHI PLAY.

[22]  Stephan Wensveen,et al.  There is more in a single touch: mapping the continuous to the discrete , 2011, CHItaly.