[POSTER] AR as a User Interface for The Internet of Things—Comparing Three Interaction Models

It is estimated that the number of devices connected to the Internet will be 50 billion by 2020. How should a not-so-tech-savvy end-user be able to discover, configure, and directly interact with a myriad of connected things in an intuitive and comfortable manner? Even if smartphones and wearables have shown potential for managing IoT environments, we cannot rely on that they can be used for all future IoT interaction. Many observers believe that augmented reality (AR) technology may constitute a suitable solution for IoT interaction. The purpose of this paper was to compare three basic AR interaction models, with a focus on the aspects of discovering and selecting devices, implemented for Microsoft HoloLens. An experimental study with 20 participants was conducted. They were split into two groups; one with low device density and one with high device density. Each group had to solve the same task using each of the three interaction models. The results showed that with few devices to handle, the participants' interactions did not differ significantly. However, with many devices to engage with, the so-called world in miniature model stood out as especially demanding and time-consuming. There was also high variability in which model that was preferred by the participants, possibly implying that a combination of the three proposed models is desired in a fully developed AR system for managing IoT devices.

[1]  Holger Regenbrecht,et al.  Towards Pervasive Augmented Reality: Context-Awareness in Augmented Reality , 2017, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[2]  Mattias Wallergård,et al.  WozARd: A Wizard of Oz Method for Wearable Augmented Reality Interaction - A Pilot Study , 2015, Adv. Hum. Comput. Interact..

[3]  Dave Evans,et al.  How the Next Evolution of the Internet Is Changing Everything , 2011 .

[4]  Martina Ziefle,et al.  Device-free interaction in smart domestic environments , 2013, AH.

[5]  Qi Hao,et al.  A Multi-Agent-Based Intelligent Sensor and Actuator Network Design for Smart House and Home Automation , 2013, J. Sens. Actuator Networks.

[6]  Jan Rüth,et al.  Opportunistic interaction in the challenged internet of things , 2014, CHANTS '14.

[7]  Ronald Azuma,et al.  Recent Advances in Augmented Reality , 2001, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[8]  Edward A. Lee,et al.  A Context Menu for the Real World: Controlling Physical Appliances Through Head-Worn Infrared Targeting , 2013 .

[9]  Yvonne Rogers,et al.  Moving on from Weiser's Vision of Calm Computing: Engaging UbiComp Experiences , 2006, UbiComp.

[10]  Mattias Wallergård,et al.  A Prototyping Method to Simulate Wearable Augmented Reality Interaction in a Virtual Environment - A Pilot Study , 2015 .

[11]  Donggang Yu,et al.  A Useful Visualization Technique: A Literature Review for Augmented Reality and its Application, limitation & future direction , 2009, VINCI.

[12]  W. Keith Edwards,et al.  At Home with Ubiquitous Computing: Seven Challenges , 2001, UbiComp.

[13]  J. Antonio García-Macías,et al.  Browsing the Internet of Things with Sentient Visors , 2011, Computer.

[14]  Pattie Maes,et al.  SixthSense: a wearable gestural interface , 2009, SIGGRAPH ASIA Art Gallery & Emerging Technologies.

[15]  Antonio Iera,et al.  The Internet of Things: A survey , 2010, Comput. Networks.

[16]  J. Tukey Comparing individual means in the analysis of variance. , 1949, Biometrics.

[17]  Steven K. Feiner,et al.  An annotated situation-awareness aid for augmented reality , 2002, UIST '02.

[18]  Sebastian Boring,et al.  Proxemic-Aware Controls: Designing Remote Controls for Ubiquitous Computing Ecologies , 2015, MobileHCI.