Tangible Interfaces
From CS 160 Fall 2008
Lecture on 9/15/2008
Tangible Interfaces Guest lecture by Prof. Kimiko Ryokai, Information School
Readings
- Abstracting Craft: The Practiced Digital Hand by Malcolm McCullough (Chapter 1)
- Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms, by Ishii, H. and Ullmer, B. 1997. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Discussion Questions
1. McCullough argues for a "digital craft" based on fluid, direction interaction with a computer. Compare the input styles of computer games with most other applications. Can we learn something from game interaction for other kinds of application?
2. Ishi's paper on tangible bits provides several examples of tangible interfaces that are useful for particular (adult) tasks. Discuss potential advantages of tangible interface for children using digital games.
Discussions
Please post your critiques/commments on the required readings below. To do that, first login by using your user name and password, then click the "edit" tab on the top part of this page (between the "discussion" page and the "history" page), New to wikis? Read the Wiki editing guide. . Hint - Please put a whole line == ~~~~ == (literally) at the beginning of your submitted critique, so the wiki system will index, sign and date your submission automatically.
Vedran Pogacnik 03:37, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
McCullough says that “craft is the application of application of personal knowledge to the giving of form.” Applying that to the input styles of computer games can be very difficult, because the term “computer game” encompasses all the games that have to deal with computers. As seen in the first lecture in this class, a computer game can be as much as a digital preview of brushed teeth, or it can be the more accepted notion of a game such as shooters or strategy games. For the latter type, it is very simple to apply one’s personal knowledge of say keyboard or mouse to “the form” in its widest meaning. That is the point where humans input something into the computer, where being comfortable and accustomed to the plastic of keys comes in light. Anything beyond that, like the specifics of the game, I think wouldn’t fall under the “application of personal knowledge”, but rather under the brain of the game. The former type or input, like the girl brushing the teeth, is very hard to categorize with respect to McCullough’s notion of crafts, because such “games” have too wide and sometimes too thin of an application to the human realm.
Hence we can learn something from game interaction for other types of application: If we can abstract the input type, for example into a keyboard and mouse, we can rely on the user to get familiar with that abstraction, and utilize it for a wide range of applications, like various computer programs or games. That follows from human dexterity with hands. Hands can be applied to a pallet of tasks, as is seen on the picture on page one of McCullough’s text.
Probably the biggest advantage of a “tangible interface” is the freedom from the 2D realm. For instance, the game “Cubis 2” involves a tetris-like game logic in 3D. The two-dimensional representation of the game has some major limitations. The point of the game itself is to figure out the ripple effects of placing one cube next to the other. However, that goal is obscured in light of the three-dimensional illusion, which is hard to get over. On top of that, the positioning of the mouse, although a seemingly insignificant and motoric action, steers away some brain power. A tangible interface would be better suited for such a game.
Frank Yang 23:40, 14 September 2008 (UTC)
McCullough mentions at one point that computer work may feel like "chiseling away at a piece of stone" and "mainly just tests your patience." However, looking at computer games, the moment that the player feels that it is cumbersome to do the desired action, the game is considered to be poorly designed or is considered to have a steep learning curve. But sometimes, these games just take time to get "used to the controls" which gamer are usually very willing to do. Now if we compare these games to some applications such as Photoshop, we can see that, given the proper time to familiarize yourself with the program, amazing things can be developed. The computer allows tasks to be represented in an abstract manner on a computer screen, and as long as the user is familiar with it, the goal of the application is usually fulfilled. We can learn a lot from game interactions in computer games: from the same mouse and keyboard, one can shoot guns, jump across platforms, or solve falling block puzzles. While perhaps computer games will not help in the learning of a physical activity, such as dance, they can still help in the thinking process. Without some sort of tangible interface, your skills of playing a violin will not improve if you play one on the computer.
However, the idea of tangible interfaces takes the keyboard and mouse abstraction away and replaces it with something that is probably similar to the object itself. Using tangible interfaces for digital games for children would help children develop their dexterity in a way that the mouse cannot. If the child has the opportunity to manipulate an object and receive direct feedback from interacting with the object, the child will receive the benefit of the mental stimulation of the digital game, as well as the physical aspect of playing with the actual interface. Mouse and keyboard interaction do not provide any insight of the physical activity that the mouse and keyboard are trying to represent on screen. With a tangible interface, the connection is made instantly with proper feedback.
Jimmy Nguyen 00:01, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I found the emphasis of McCullough's article to be very powerful in the sense that such useful tools (that is our hands) are also amongst the most overlooked. I thought it was an interesting point to bring up musical instruments as a basis for the role of the eyes and hands in user interfaces. I agree with the importance of the role of the hands because they are essential in communication, but at the same time, people do not really realize the significance.
In general, depending on the computer game, it can be either much harder or easier than other kinds of games (i.e. console games). The intricate games, like first person shooters, take advantage of the computer's mouse and keyboard. The mouse is convenient for games that require a point and click action. However, a computer game can have quite complicated controls when they use too many buttons on the keyboard (spacebars are OK, but when you have press something like R for "reload"). This makes it difficult for people to find that button exactly, and more often than not, will have to readjust by looking at the keyboard. The good thing about console games is that users get easily acquainted to the controllers and they will always know where all the buttons are. The disadvantage at times are the range of capabilities. The new trend of controllers now are the ways things are uniquely interactive (i.e. Wii, Music games).
Reading the tangible interface reminded me of the toothbrushing game, and how that connects the cyber world to the physical world. That is an example in which Tangible Interfaces could be extremely effective. The "physical environment" is the child's mouth and teeth. The advantages of tangible interfaces is obviously the connection to the real world, which brings more interest when there are games that people can physically relate to. Also, the information that connects to the physical world seems most beneficial to the area of serious games.
Perry Lee 01:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I certainly believe that we can learn something from game interaction for other kinds of applications. Compared to most applications, games seem to go the extra mile to make users' experience more engaging via their interface (e.g., Rock Band). As Frank mentioned, "the moment that the player feels that it is cumbersome to do the desired action, the game is considered to be poorly designed or is considered to have a steep learning curve." A good game places emphasis on creating an easy-to-use interface that feels natural to players and requires little thought to use. A good application should be no different; users should not be bogged down by the interface.
Potential advantages of tangible interfaces for children using digital games are a more natural way to interact with games and a more engaging experience. For example, if we limit ourselves to the realm of console games, I don't believe the controller is often the most intuitive way to interact with a game. Look at games such as DDR and Rock Band -- although both are rhythm games which test a player's ability to press specific buttons in time with the game's music, I don't believe many would argue that the traditional controller comes more natural than a dance pad or Rock Band drums. Tangible interfaces make games more engaging. Using the example of Rock Band again, the experience feels more alive when you are hitting fake drums and playing a fake guitar than to one in which you are pressing buttons on a controller. It is easier to immerse yourself in the virtual worlds created by these games.
Jonathan Fong 01:14, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
There is a big disparity between state of input/interaction styles of computer games compared to most other applications. The disparity might not be obvious, since much of computer interaction probably looks the same physically: a person sitting at a desk with a keyboard and a mouse. Despite similar ergonomics, games have better interaction. My argument -- and Malcolm McCullough's would be as well -- is that computer games have achieved "digital craft" levels of interaction, while word processors, internet browsers, and most other applications have not.
Because a primary goal of computer games is to immerse the user into some sort of alternative reality, the user interface is designed to draw the user in and make all aspects of the interaction seamless. The input options are the keyboard and mouse -- the same as with any other computer application -- but the designers are very conscious and creative about how to best utilize/customize these devices for the experience. The literal usage of the keyboard, with each key representing a letter, is sometimes taken very lightly; instead, the keys are simply a medium for the user to tell the game what he/she wants.
For example, character movement in games isn't limited to arrow keys, but instead the computer games have developed many other cursor movement conventions. This is no light feat, because now the game has helped the user/gamer to break through the literal design/limitation of the keyboard to "connect" to the gaming experience. i.e. The game tells the user that "you have left the world in which "W", "A", "S", and "D" are letters, and entered a world where you can do what you want." The alternative "cursor movement conventions" are practical for better gameplay, of course, but better gameplay subjectively is a function of both the physical and psychological accommodations of the interface to create an intuitive experience for the user. In other words, the gamers are able to easily and effectively execute complex chains of keyboard commands because the shortcut keys are well-chosen, and because the game has given them empowerment to believe they are in control.
Other innovative computer game interfaces also use the mouse in more immersive/intuitive ways. The motion of the scroll wheel lends itself to imitate forward and backwards momentum of an avatar/character, or at least zooming in/out. In most non-game applications, however, the forward-backward (relative to the user's frame of reference) flick of the finger on the scroll wheel corresponds to up-down scrolling on the screen. Instead of clicking on a link in the web browser, wouldn't it just feel "right" to flick the scroll wheel forward when the cursor is on a link? Well, for some, no; because they are trapped/trained in the confined interaction of the scroll wheel as a means to scroll. Kinestheically, however, activating a link should "feel" like moving through a door, not pressing a button. In this regard, the internet browsing experience has done a great disservice to creating a "digital craft" experience. Some positive hope is that mouse gestures are becoming more popular.
Outside the realm of computer games, Emacs is the only application that facilitates a "digital craft" experience. Most other text-editing applications rely on a combination of keyboard and mouse usage for many operations. In Emacs, however, the breadth and depth of the keyboard shortcuts allows the user to keep his/her hands on the keyboard, thus never wasting time and energy to move his/her hand from the keyboard to use the mouse, and vice versa. Beyond just efficiency, Emacs has built an interface where the users can feel as if they truly have their hands "in" the text, molding and shaping it like a potter with clay. Thus, it is not surprising that Emacs is extremely popular as the text editor of choice for many computer power-users and programmers. This is proof of its success in the realm of "digital craft."
In response to Jimmy's comment about games with "complicated controls" or ones that "use too many buttons," and in agreement with Frank's discussion on the learning curve of computer games, I think McCullough's entire concept of a "digital craft" wouldn't question or fault complexity as a problem in an application/interface. The tools in any skilled craft tend to be a bit foreign or awkward to someone outside the craft. From McCullough's analogies, there is the trend that at least some training and practice is required for entering into a craft. For "digital craft," the complexity of keyboard controls, instead of being a hindrance, is what allows the interaction experience to be rich and fluid. (That is not to say there is no such thing as a bad implementation of keyboard shortcuts, however!)
Paul Im 02:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Computer games implement this “digital craft” in that there is constant visibility of an object of interest as well as rapid, incremental actions on the object. The input styles for a computer game are a mouse, keyboard, and perhaps a headset or another game device input. Other applications depend mostly upon the keyboard. Thus, the computer game makes use of both hands and involves the player visually and verbally. In other words, it appeals to more senses than the average computer application. Perhaps other applications can integrate more input styles into their functionality. The more input styles there are, the more engaged and involved the user’s interaction with the computer will be.
Using tangible interfaces, children can become more accustomed to certain items/aspects of the real world. Using a transBOARD, children can learn to use wide open spaces of whiteboard to jot down their thoughts and ideas. They would learn that writing things down is advantageous not only in their current computational task, but also in the real world. Another advantage would that children are not simply burning out their retinas and gaining weight by looking at a computer screen for hours at a time. Tangible interfaces would require them to sharpen all of their senses and to be active while playing their games.
Juanpadilla 02:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I guess the most obvious comparison between game input devices and those of other applications is that of the joystick vs. the mouse. However, more advanced gaming input devices such as the wii-mote, have taken consumer input devices to the next level. Furthermore, advanced game simulation systems like those used by the military that combine a series of sensory devices such as realistic hepatic and temperature feedback could lend a multitude of advantage to other applications; for example, an artist being able to feel the pressure of her paintbrush on the screen as she lays a stroke across the virtual canvas. The push for more realistic gaming experiences has, and will continue for a very long time, push new technologies into other applications.
The use of tangible interfaces by children has huge advantages. First and foremost, children learn by doing. As such, having something they can grasp with both hands and interact with just as they would, say a toy car would improve both their motor skills and promote creativity. Furthermore, something like transBOARD could be invaluable in a classroom setting if say the students had a link to their desk in which the students could anonymously, to the rest of the class, ask a question. It is often the case that students are afraid to ask a question in front of their peers so this would promote question asking, especially if other students respond to that question as if they were unsure also, and provide a better understanding of the topic for those children with the answer to that question.
Jordan Berk 02:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Like Paul said above, computer games generally involve both hands, often working together to accomplish a goal. There aren't many examples of non-game applications in which the keyboard and mouse are used synchronously (one could argue something like pressing Ctrl-C while highlighting, but really that's highlighting first, then using the keyboard, or the other way around) In a word processor for example, almost everyone removes their right hand from their mouse to type. I'm not proposing a system, and I have doubts if it could work, but imagine some kind of one-handed keyboard in which buttons on the mouse is used to select between "pages" of letters. Assuming it could work and would be practical (which is quite an assumption, but I'm just using this as an example), it could be a lot more efficient for those who are constantly moving between mouse and keyboard.
Tangible interfaces for children seem like a great way of getting them interested and involved in a game. Playing with physical toys and the like is a great learning device, and a tangible interface would bridge the gap between traditional toys and digital games. Likewise, because it's much more interactive than just maybe moving a few fingers or hands, it helps with physical development as well as mental. Plus, true tangible interactivity is just more fun.
Gary Wu 03:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Computer games use the delicate balance between the keyboard and the mouse. These tools are used by both hands in an engaging and manual process. Compared to other input devices, computer game peripherals are generally geared towards the ease of access of a small subset of controls, while other input devices are either specialized to one specific task (a gun remote) or a universal device (a keyboard and mouse). What we can learn from game interaction that is applicable to other applications is the idea of performing a generally mundane or normal, everyday task or activity, in such a way with a hand-driven device that makes it entertaining and fun.
A digital game that has a tangible interface will help children perform duties and activities that are otherwise neglected. An example of an application that does this is the toothbrush cleaning game that made sure children were spending enough time brushing and cleaning their teeth. By using the digital game as a mask, standing in front of the mirror for 5 minutes, meticulously cleaning your teeth doesn't seem like such a chore any more.
Witton Chou 04:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
McCullough compares computer interaction and 'skill' to the craft of an artisan and their use of hands. "The computer or communications device is inherently a tool for the 'mind'--not the hands. Its products are not mechanical artifacts but abstract information." He also mentions how the development of computer technologies is progressing very quickly and how streamlining the interaction between the human and technology has become a craft.
Computer games, compared with most other applications, are more time sensitive and really require the player to interact with the hardware and software interface readily and efficiently. Therefore design flaws in the interface are magnified through the player's confusion and frustration. The combination of the player's desire to do what they want quickly coupled with the frustrations of inoperability show how well an interface is designed to fulfill its purpose. As such, it is very beneficial to examine human interaction with game interfaces in understanding the users' intuitions in how the interface should be designed to work.
The tangible interfaces as described in Ishi's piece can be designed as a practical training interface. As with Jimmy, this piece reminded me of the toothbrush game for children. Interaction in three dimensions is definitely a more intuitive interface than using a 2D interface to project onto a 2D screen or 3D perspective model on the basis that we interact with a 3D world in real life. For children, these is the ideal way to teach them -- with instruments they already see and know. Teaching how to write the alphabet is just another way tangible interfaces can be used.
Shyam Vijayakumar 04:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Computer game interactions can help with understanding how to make other applications better. For example, good game controls are very intuitive. To move a character to the right, the user needs to press the right arrow. Other applications might have controls that are more complex than simply moving a character to the right, but it is always good to keep in mind that the way in which the user interacts with the interface must be as intuitive as possible. In fact, the reason that tangible interfaces are so effective is because they are extremely intuitive. As humans, we are more used to dealing with physical objects than controls on a computer (something that is becoming less and less true). So applying the intuitive knowledge we have of physical objects to controls of a game or application is very useful.
Like many others said above, tangible interfaces allow the child to develop physically as well as mentally. Children could also develop socially as a result of digital games involving tangible interfaces. Digital games today do not allow children to interact with others. (Teenagers play shooting games and such which involve talking to teammates in different physical locations, but they are not children) This is mostly because the machine that they use to play with does not easily allow for interaction with others. For example, with the computer, more than one person cannot use the mouse or the keyboard. But with tangible interfaces, the designer of a game can perhaps choose a convenient physical object that allows for easy interaction between two users. The ClearBoard is one such example of a physical object (a wall) that could be easily be used to interact with others. One can imagine children all on the same wall interacting with each other as part of a game.
It's interesting to note that the research paper on tangible bits was written in 1997. The authors were accurate in saying that tangible interfaces are the future. It was evident when the iPod with the tangible interface of the click wheel and revolutionized the mp3 player market. More recently, the enhanced multi-touch technology as applied to the iPhone and the iPod touch have become popular as well.
Stuart Bottom 05:09, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The quotation from E.F. Schumaker on pg. 17 says it all for me: a human “enjoys nothing more than to be creatively, usefully, productively engaged with both his hands and his brains.” This is really the essence of ‘serious games:’ manual, tactile input to some form of control device, in a creative (game) setting, engaging in a useful and productive activity. It is essential that hardware designers especially keep this principle in mind as they address the problems faced by users – part of the issues may lie in the tactile interface itself. It is telling that this book (written in the 90’s) laments the stagnation of PC interfaces: we are still stuck with keyboards and mice in 2008.
As Shyam just mentioned, we can ask ‘why are the iPod Touch and the iPhone so compelling?’ It is because the user directly manipulates these devices with his/her hands. This is even more “direct manipulation” than the “pointing at our work with a mouse” described on page 23. Actually being able to ‘push’ and ‘pull’ objects around on the screen is what makes Apple’s touch interface so intuitive. I can’t wait until we see that sort of thing in 3D.
To me, the most immediately apparent benefit of using a more natural tactile input system is that the learning curve for game interaction can be drastically reduced. If a child can mimic motions they would use in the real world to manipulate the action of the game, the “jump” between the real and game worlds is reduced and the player can feel even more a part of the game. Less time can be spent learning the interface and more time spent playing the game. In particular, the applications for very young children (toddlers) are especially intriguing – they could learn things on their own much earlier, without requiring a parent or preschool teacher to help them much, if at all.
Buda Chiou 05:12, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I don't think we can learn something for using applications from games user interfaces because the interfaces of games and other applications are so different. However, the interfaces of games do actually give designer some ideas about the design of other application. Most games interfaces are composed by graphical icon, but most application's interfaces are composed by text. The reason is that the target user groups of games are often to be children, who are considered as not well educated people. Therefore, the graphical user interfaces are easier for them to access. Besides, the graphical interfaces are more entertaining than the usual text interfaces. However, we can see that now more and more applications are designed in graphical interfaces instead of text interfaces. The reason might be to make the applications more accessible for people that are not familiar with the languages that the applications use. I'm sure that the designers of these applications must get this idea from computer games. Therefore, playing computer games may help the designer to design applications that are more accesible for people.
Haosi Chen 05:20, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
looking at computer games, when the player start playing it and feels that the game is cumbersome to do the desired action, this game is most likely considered not success. But Sometimes, these games just need player to spend more time to get used to the controls and adapt it which true gamers are usually very willing to do. If we compare these games to some applications, we will realize that if the user spend some time to familiarize with the program, user will be able to develop some excited things with the applications. By reading the tangible interface reminded me of the toothbrushing game we saw in the first week of lecture. the toothbrushing game showed us how does it connect the cyber world to the physical world. That is an example in which Tangible Interfaces could be extremely effective. The child's teeth is the physical environment. The advantages of tangible interfaces is obviously the connection to the real world, which brings more interest when there are games that people can physically relate to.
Wenda Zhao 05:42, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
There are definetly things we can learn from game interaction for other kinds of application. Game interaction provides some important and useful feedback on how to make application easy to iteract with users. For example, some game requires other input devices to improve the user expriences. So the other application could try to build a new input device to improve the userbility.
It is a huge advantage by using tangible interfaces for children. Children can have the simulation of what they will do in reality. That makes them learn much faster than just by starring at the screen and follow some written instructions.
Alan McCreary 06:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Interfaces like the ones that Ishii and Ullmer introduce are very useful in the way they allow the user to perceive an idea or computer object with multiple senses. They remind me of "The Perfect Brainstorm," where the author suggests warming up participants' minds with physical objects and using the entire space of a room. Much as these brainstorming methods help people produce ideas, I think a tangible interface will greatly help in conveying ideas to the user. Such interfaces seem particularly useful for children. One reason, which some users above have stated, is that a game incorporating physical movement would likely be more captivating to a child - I think children would prefer physical activity combined with mental exercise rather than pure mental exercise. (We don't want to encourage too much sedentary activity during the early stages of a person's life, do we?) On a related note, I think a tangible interface is simply more in line with the way human minds learn and remember ideas - the use of 2D diagrams and things like Java applets are more effective than simple text for learning, so it should follow that physical movement through a tangible interface is even better.
Cynthia T. Hsu 07:21, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm often under the impression that I don't spend enough time gaming to be qualified to take this course, but I shall try my best to answer the questions with my limited gaming experience.
The interesting thing about McCullough's article in the context of the question that we are asked to answer is that he advocates that "As a verb, 'to craft' seemingly means to participate skillfully in some small-scale process. First, it affirms that the results of involved work still surpass the results of detached work." While I agree with this whole-heartedly, I don't exactly agree that user interfaces should be elevated to the point at which it requires some sense of "craft" or skill to be able to use them. Yes, direct manipulation through pointing with a mouse instead of a keyboard is much more intuitive and fun (although the nostalgia of hunting with the keyboard in Apple IIe Oregon Trail is very apealing to some). However, it seems that with increasing development of a craft, there is also a steeper learning curve that makes utilizing and executing the craft much more frustrating: compare Adobe Illustrator to Microsoft Paint, or MATLAB to Microsoft Excel (or Jonathan's example of Emacs vs. Word). Certainly, both Illustrator and MATLAB require an increased skillset and exhibit more functionality, but the majority of people will prefer to use Excel over MATLAB simply because it is easier. Of course, there will always be people willing to learn MATLAB and Illustrator because of the increased functionality, but most people will resort to the familiar and basic - this is why it is useful to not change familiar features of an interface such as menus.
I feel that it is similar with games - yes, they have been elevated to the point of a digital craft, but in some ways this alienates people. One game that I have substantial experience in is Bejeweled - the user simply has to drag and drop jewels into a particular region of the grid. Since I already know how to use a mouse, it's a fairly easy game to learn. However, Bejeweled gets fairly boring fairly fast (unless you're really tring to procrastinate), because there is such a limit to what you can do with a mouse - most games based exclusively on mouse manipulations are fairly similar because you are restricted to two clicks, a scroll bar, and a two-dimensional plane. McCullough describes the loss of craft through Marx's perpsective of industrialization, "The problem as identified by Marx was twofold: serial manufacturing based on semiskilled processes denied this new form of laborers any control over quality, and specialized production still based on highly skilled processes denied artisans their previous range of other activities." In a sense, casual gaming does not provide you any diversity of experience or increase in abilities. However, for someone like me who has never owned a game console, something that might seem really intuitive to other people (Legend of Zelda or MarioKart) would feel very unintuitive - it would take too long to figure out the game controls that makes it not worth my while to buy a console and learn how to play. I feel that this may be why the majority of people who play console games are male. In designing a game that incorporates a level of "craft", you heighten the learning curve and neglect a potential niche to market to.
Thus, with computer games, there is actually very little you can learn about inputs - much of the flexibility that can be achieved with a mouse and a keyboard has been utilized and there is little room left for creative development (thus, much of our interface designs must be based on familiar methods of using mice and keyboards). However, this does not exclude what can you learn from other types of games - one reason for the success of the Wii-mote is that it creatively brings in another fluid movement, that makes it very easy to develop game playing skills that are akin to those skills which we already utilize in our daily life. In contrast to Adobe Illustrator to Matlab, which require the development of new skills that we don't use in daily life (such as dragging lines by way of anchor points), the Wii-mote allows for the development of skills that are already intuitive to most humans. The success of the iPhone and the iTouch is also based on this idea of a new form of input that is more intuitive, and more based on physical interaction. Any potential developments with the mouse, however, seem exhausted.
As indicated in the above paragraph, I do believe that the development of tangible interfaces does make games more intuitive and less frustrating to learn, and makes the learning curve much easier such that skills can be acquired rapidly. I liked Shyam's post about how a tangible interface is much more interactive. It's hard to gather around a screen, but when the interface is much more direct and physical, there is a higher level of socialization involved. Tangible interfaces work because they utilize our hands; they work in the same way that brainstorms are improved by gestures, mobilization, and interaction, because of how well human beings express themselves through physical interaction.
This is an aside, as we were asked to talk about the advantages, not the disadvantages, but the paper by Ichii worries me in a way because it seems sharply reminiscent of Ray Bradbury's "The Veldt". Developing an entertaining interface that is easy to learn and easy to immerse onself in runs the risk of reducing interaction as well - parents might not seem as valuable because they aren't as involved with the entertainment of their children as a machine is, and there might not be any motivation to go into the outside world because it wasn't as nice as their ambient room. But I might just be reading too much science fiction.
Karen Tran 07:49, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
In my opinion, computer games has certainly reached the sophistication level of “digital craft” while other computer applications have not. The purpose of computer games is to totally immerse the players into the alternate realities that the games offer. Therefore, to accomplish this goal, the game designers have to “craft” the games into that sophistication level. The games have to be designed in such a way that they could offer the players the utmost ease of user interfaces – using the mouse and the keyboard as the only available inputs. But these simple inputs have to generate a fascinating ‘wow’ resulting interaction on the computer games. For example, with a simple click of a mouse, a battleship could be exploded and win the player tons of points and possibly win the game. The games interact with the players, responding to their actions. The other computer applications, such as firefox, Microsoft Word, do not yet reach that level of sophistication because their purpose is not to immerse the users into them, but merely to fulfill the users’ needs to complete a task.
Tangible interfaces provide children with many advantages. First of all, it has the desired effect of engaging the children into the games. Nowadays, children are more likely to play computer games than picking up a physical toy. Tangible interfaces would provide a great learning experience to children in such a way that the physical toys do. Physical toys let students learn by touch, by physical responses from the toys. And tangible interfaces are ‘crafted’ to respond to children’s inputs in such a way that they could provide the same learning experience. The more interactive the tangible interfaces are, the more the children could learn from playing them. These learning could include hand-eye coordination, good hygienic habits (such as developing a good habit of brushing teeth regularly, encouraged by the “Brushing Teeth” game that we have seen from the earlier lectures of the class).
Jeffrey Rosen 07:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
There are many types of video games and many types of applications, so this question is hard to answer. A first person shooter maps the movement of the mouse to 3d space coordinates which is a very unusual UI. I remember when I first made the jump from the keyboard to the mouse in Quake 1. It was really hard to get used to, but once you figured it out, you were totally unstoppable compared to people who used the keyboard. A word processor, for example, is not three dimensional at all, it's not real time, and the interaction tends to be either in the form of direct keyboard input, like I am doing right now in this textarea in the browser, or you use the mouse to click buttons and select text. However, there are many 2d games that are very point and click centered, which behave more like traditional applications. You click buttons to perform actions, and drag and drop various objects on the screen, with everything behaving according to standard OS expectations. There are also applications like Photoshop which can be used with a Wacom tablet, for example.
An advantage of using tangible interfaces is the intuitiveness. As a kid, I remember having to ask my parents how to open and close applications, and they would have to help me get started in the game. As I mentioned in the previous paragraph, it took a long time to get used to moving around in a virtual 3d environment. A tangible interface would have very little barrier to entry and children could begin playing at very early ages. Anyone can use a toy, and with a tangible interface, you can design interactive video games that are just as easy to use.
Billy Grissom 08:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I think that there is a lot that you can learn from game interfaces and use in “real world” applications. 3D model viewer programs such as Maya seem to use very similar mouse gestures and control schemes that are commonly used in games. I recall working with some interfaces where the keys to position the camera mimicked the WASD keys that are often used to move a character about in a game.
I guess the thing is that games are a great way to make a certain interface more common for a user. Players spend a lot of time learning a game’s specific interface and in time spend a lot of time with that interface. The hand becomes use to that interface and the process becomes more fluid. Thus, the user feels as if that interface is almost an extension of itself.
I think this is what real world apps can really learn for games. A games purpose is to immerse a player in a world where they really feel like they are the character they’re playing as. Applications can build upon this as well. Although it may seem a little out of the box, just imagine how great someone could work in something like Word if the whole interface just seemed to “make sense” to them. Games do a good job of this. They can build a system where something as complex as controlling an empire is easily achieved by intuitive interface.
As for tangible interfaces I think that this is something an be extremely useful for children and learning. I think this is one reason why companies such as LeapFrog have been so successful. A lot of the games involve extensions of the hands which help drill the lesson in the child’s brain. My sister, for example, had a Leapfrog toy that would help you learn how to spell words by you rearranging letters. However, rather than this all being done via a computer screen…instead it was al physical. My sister would have to pick up word blocks and stick them in a physical device. The fact that she would have to physically extend her hands to move the words help reinforce what she’s learning in her head.
I remember in 61a they showed a similar video where a little girl was able to navigate a MAC with ease because she learned how to use the mouse at an early age. She had become comfortable with the mouse and was able to basically make it an extension of her arm as well.
I guess the point is the more hands on you make something the easier it will be for the user. Like they often told us when we were children, you can really only learn by doing.
Hao Luo 09:00, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
In many computer games, you control either a character, such as in games like Sims, or groups of characters, such as in many popular strategy games. The interface is mostly a point-and-click control supplemented with keyboard commands as shortcuts for various input commands. This is similar to the original idea of direct manipulation for computers; the user controls a character and tells it what to do through a mouse or something a combination of keyboard and mouse, and then the user observes the character's actions immediately. This requires a fluid interaction with the computer. In many online games, lag can often mean death for the player because immediate feedback and response is so important to winning a game. With most other applications, the interaction does not need to be as fluid. If you are typing a word document and the letters appear on-screen about a second after you type, it would only cause a minor annoyance. If you are pasting a picture into a PowerPoint slide, such a lag would be even less inconsequential. In fact, for many people in this country who still use 56k internet, the time it takes from entering a web address to having the page load could take minutes. The distinction between computer games, and most other applications is, the computer games usually is more engaging and immersive (its primary function is to entertain), and it needs immediate response to inputs and very fluid interactions between the computer and the player.
We can learn from game interaction, how computer games engage the player through the fluidity of their input-output relationship, and how effective a mouse-oriented interface supplemented with keyboard strokes can be for various inputs and instructions by the user. Many applications are bogged down by interfaces that are hard to use because either there is requirement for too much keyboard input (such as in UNIX or DOS).
There are many potential advantages of tangible interfaces for children using digital games. For children who are too young to read, tangible interfaces are the obvious solution if for no other reason than the other interface is not viable. Even for children who can read, many children learn better through tactile means. It allows for greater exploration and also provides more immediate feedback. Tangible interfaces can also teach children practical skills and allow for practice, something children can't learn by simply reading.
Trinhvo 09:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the input styles of computer games will help players develop their eye-hand coordination. However, most computer games require players to know a few key combinations while other applications require the users to know a lot key of combinations. Can game interaction help us learn for other applications? well, I think it depends on applications the we are using. If the application (e.g. virtual tour, or something like google earth)that we're using is like a FPS game, then it would do. Another example is, typing games will help us get used to the keyboard and to type faster, so we can use applications more effectively such as word processors, or programming.
I think tangible interfaces would be very helpful for children in learning. Instead of dealing with virtual or abstract objects on the screen, children can physically interact with objects, so they can learn by touching with their hands. According to McCullough, hands "have a life of their own that leads them into exploration" and "Learning through the hands shapes creativity itself".
KevinFriedheim 09:06, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
With most applications (outside of artistic applications that make use of tools such as a stylus), the only input devices used are keyboard and mouse, and, by far, the most common output device is the monitor. With devices such as these, the only true skill involved is gained only through repetition and has little to do with hand-eye coordination.
Gaming devices, on the other hand, offer more to the user in the way of input/output. First, there are multiple types of "keyboards" or input devices used, not just one generic type. Also, feed back is not limited just to a display on the monitor but there are other things such as l.e.d.'s and vibration feedback.
If there were something to be gained/learned from gaming, it would be that there needs to be a better adaptability to the computer than though the keyboard/mouse. Perhaps something that would allow a user to control an application more efficiently by use of other feedback signaling; like the vibration feedback offers to a gamer when a particular even has occurred.
Ishii and Ullmer talk about tangible objects as a better means of connecting the virtual world of computing with that of reality. This has many avenues of applicability, in my opinion, with digital games geared towards children. Immediately, the first example that pops into my head is the toothbrush "movie clip" that was shown in class -- the little girl is interacting with a computer and gaining something from the digital aspect of it (and that is, how to brush effectively).
Kumar Garapaty 10:35, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The traditional input styles for computer games include mouse, keyboard, and perhaps a microphone if you are interacting by talking to someone within a computer game. McCullough's idea for a "digital craft" illustrates that creativity can be expressed through more innovative types of input styles that may represent old applications. They would be technological extensions of the human being to produce more efficient and creative products. The tools that we use in daily life are extremely diverse from the forks, knives and spoons we use everyday to pencils and pens. The variety of tools that we use for various activities compared to the limited number of tools we use for computes illustrates that computational inputs can be greatly expanded on to fuel the creative and humane development of all types of crafts.
In terms of traditional digital games, tangible interfaces would provide much greater drama and entertainment than traditional games. The choice of input and output systems easily determines the entertainment value of a particular system. For example, a car racing game in which you use a steering wheel would clearly be much more interesting than one with which you use a keyboard. In terms of serious games for children, tangible interfaces can allow for greater interaction and therefore greater participation within the game. This greater participation implies that tangible interfaces could be used for enhancing learning.
Jacekmw 11:53, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
McCullough praises hands as our primary interaction method, and discusses different input methods and their implementations, such as multiple versions of a keyboard and mouse. He discusses the use of touch in interactive tools, also known as haptic computing. He argues that using our hands is second nature and that hand-eye coordination innately develops, turning what may have been a mental skill with a different input device into a physical routine, something he compares to a pianist. Personally I believe that haptic computing is something that will become big in the future, since as an input method it carries a lot of promise as an extremely intuitive and easy-to-learn technology, useful not only for games (serious and otherwise) but also in tools such as AutoCad or Google Earth, in which manipulation of objects in three dimensions is key. Games now traditionally use mouse and one of several keyboard type inputs, something that can be very nicely replaced with a more realistic simulated input device, such as a mock gun for a first person shooter, with a haptic floor pad usable for movement. Games require input to be as precise as possible in every moment in order for the player to have as much of an advantage as possible. By changing the input, however, the WYSIWYG idea McCullough describes as originating from the keyboard-mouse origin era can be taken to the next level, creating a what you do is what you get utilizing haptic manipulation of onscreen objects.
Ishii and Ullmer in their paper on Tangible Bits likewise expand on haptics, but also have ideas of using sound and other ambient room properties. Their main ideas seem to center on taking traditional desktop qualities and translating them into three dimensions, something I don't believe is entirely useful. Haptic technology has better possibilities than translating slider bars into physical instruments - this seems like a waste of space when the technology could be used for purposes like I mentioned before, Google Earth or AutoCad, and the like, but also for childrens' learning games. An abacus is one item that clearly comes to mind, an idea that would be made possible. The intuitive interface of touch resonates well with children, which would allow more complex mathematical learning tools to be more easily accessible to children.
Antony Setiawan 14:37, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I found McCullogh's argument about accomlishing digital craft using direct manipulation device which is demonstrated by mouse. Although today mouse is limited only to 2-D motion, it provides interactions that emphasized output and foreground task. Input styles of a computer games has evolved from using a keyboard alone, mouse alone, to complex combination between mouse and keyboard that we can found from nowaday's games. Compared to other application, most other application doesn't require as much interaction as computer games do. We wouldn't care at all for few milisecond delay when typing on a word document but a few milisecond of lagging would be fatal in some time sensitive games.
Ishi's tangible bits concept includes interaction between physical and virtual worlds from architectural spaces, "reproducing" real objects into real objects in bits, and the use of of ambient media . Basically, turn everything physical into digital interactive matters. The advantages of tangible interfaces that Ishi introduces are obviously tangible since children requires less details and perception. A simple learing games for children, as shown in the brushing tooth videos, doesn't requires the whole elemets of tangible interaction that Ishi covers. However, it the game follows tangible interface, imagine how much more the game accomplishes! Instead of having a partially clean teeth, more tangible interfaces would results in totally clean teeth altough it will requires more gameplay time. Points to be taken: more tangible = better results.
Mohammed Ali 14:59, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I think the discussion on digital craft was quite interesting. We are so used to using our hands in our multi-demensional world that we expect no less of these continuous, interactive experience from our machines. One cannot get intimate with a machine that only allow for monotonous discrete selections. The goal is to create user interfaces that allow fluid continous actions resembling our actions of real daily life. Video computer games are on the forefront of this sort of action. Becuase of the more fluid interaction between the interface, computer games are often more engaging then other applications. Video games capitilize on the finest of actions and input and rendering output accordingly. Our goal for other application design can be similar where continous subtle input could render meaningful results.
Children play. And quite often, they learn by playing. The modern graphical user interface limits and inhibits that play. Tangible interfaces can yield an unlimited array of experiences for a child. The advantage really of tangible interfaces is that they bring the digital world to reality. Countless interactive games and learning systems can be designed for children allowing for rich, active learning experiences. Children can enhance there motor skills moving objects to and from and get the benefit digitally computed results at the same time. Not only can they learn subjects in math and language but can learn everyday physical activities like exercising.
Bing Wang 15:36, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
McCullough's artcile about hand and its coordiationa with the eyes is interesting and intriguing. In the current age, almost all the computers have mouse and keyboard as inputs while displaying the output on the monitor. There are some hand-eye coordiation there, but it is very minimal. In most of the tasks that are 2D based such as word processing, instant messaging, users often do not experience the real life coordination between the hands and the eyes. In gaming however, such coordination is absolutely necessary as often a slow reaction might cause you to lose the game. 3-D also provides with a much more real life experience than what 2D has to offer. The 3D interface also gives a better hand-eye coordination as our eyes are designed to see things in 3D.
I believe that Tangible interfaces will be the next big evolution among the hardwares in computing. The new generation of users are very pick about user interfaces. Simple and natural interfaces often surpasses the ones that are difficult to interpret and hard to use. Tangible interfaces incorporates a fluid-like process which would create a more natural process for the users.
Anthony Kilman 15:52, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
By far, my favorite quote, "at times you may think that computer work mainly just tests your patience."
The McCullough reading brings up some very interesting ideas. Minus the lengthy historical background, the notion that current technological craftsmanship is diminishing the use of our hands. I wholeheartedly agree with this idea, and a large part of the reason I posted the quote as well is because I too believe that frustration with projects and whatnot is a manifestation of not being able to see a project/implementation progress in real life. Although there are similarities between jobs accomplished by using your hands versus using a computer, in some sense human satisfaction is learned with the later rather than felt automatically.
In the "Tangigle Bits" paper, the 'marble phone' was not discussed in great detail. I failed to see the utility or novelty in such a contraption.
Again though, some great ideas here. But some are contradicting with the previous reading. In some sense, the notion of 'phicons' mimic normal human interaction with hands, but the water-ripple visual display of web page hits is a bit more abstract. It seems that this is an unnatural representation, similar to the canonical HCI interaction with GUIs providing a means of internalizing information which must be learned. It's not that I think its a bad idea, but it departs from the ideas that we should expand on ideas that exploit the familiar. For example, perhaps many page-hits could correspond to the sounds of a busy airport, whereas few hits would correspond to a slight murmur of voices nearby. The water thing seems a bit more "new-age" than familiar.
Mike Kendall 15:54, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Wow.. Could there be any technology article that I disagree with more? Anyway...
Video game input is intuitive... Four directions, an "ok" button and a "cancel" button make up the mainstay of pretty much the entire RPG genre. First person shooter use a mouse for looking, arrows for moving, and a couple of other buttons just for flare.. But sit a non-gamer down in the driver's seat and I assure you, they will be downright confused.
Applications, which I'm going to interpret as programs for a purpose other than entertainment, usually follow a schema closer to a paper form. Filling out fields and although the input doesn't seem to make much sense (mouse and keyboard) when compared to the real action, the visual output follows a paper form quite closely. There are fields that need to be filled and also cursory information given to you. Filling out forms is something we have all done since kindergarten.
I really want to say that games do have an understanding of input and output, but that's only to game players. There are paradigms that the games follow and if you hadn't already played first person shooters since Doom, would you know to check the bottom of the screen for your current health status? If anything, I think that input methods for formal applications are pushing their way into the gaming world. As an owner of a DS, I have to say that the touchscreen adds a level of depth to the things that you can do in a game. When it first came out, I was one of the naysayers because I believed it was a gimmick to pull a tool that was previously only used by drafters into the gaming world.
Tangible interfaces... Although I see alternate input methods as important for getting small children to use computers (mice are particularly hard, though touchpads seem to make sense), I don't see the point of tangible interfaces at all. The first half of the article argued that computing is wrongly bound to the idea of a screen, but the metaDESK has no way to give feedback to the user other than a screen. So here we have nothing more than the eye toy for PS2, which did sell well, but doesn't push the boundaries of human computer interaction.
Next, we have the ambientROOM, which seems to be a little more interesting. If I'm sitting at work and the computer behind me crashes, I'm going to know it because of similar ambient cues. I can hear the computer as on and functioning right now, and a change would definitely grab my attention. Then again, the ambientROOM is only useful if the information given to you is useful. If it were something like the Live Wire, then you might notice that the internet is down on your computer... did you notice that from the Wire or because you lost your ssh session? The internet gets slow, you look up and see that the Wire is moving faster than normal - you already knew that someone was hogging all the bandwidth, so what new information is the Live Wire giving you? Also, why is it the ambientROOM? This could easily be a piece of software running in the background and the sound of raindrops could come through your speakers.
Buzzwords.
Shaharyar Muzaffar 15:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I do not believe that there is much to learn from the input style of games to be applied to real-world applications. The input style of games tend to be a series of key stroke or button presses to generate an onscreen action. In contrast, real-world applications could range from turning a key, holding a book, to waving at someone. Furthermore, games tend to require quick and eye coordination, so the user's hand movements tend to be instinctive without much thought. This can occur, because the button/key layout remains the same through out all games. Therefore, one thing that could be learned from games is using a GUI (Global User Interface) for real-world applications.
Tangible interfaces for children have many advantages. First of all, children's first toys tend to be something tangible like a ball or stuffed animal. Therefore, they would already used to the interface, and will not need that much time to adjust. Another advantage is that children would not find a keyboard or game controller as exciting as something with a more tangible interface.
Greg Nagel 16:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The missing link between these two articles is programmed force on real-world objects. The technology today can sense position, movement and acceleration, but it does not provide feedback at the same time in those domains. For example, when the cursor reaches the edge of the screen, the mouse in your hand doesn't stop moving; it doesn't indicate that it can go no further.
Games seek interactivity above all else, thus it is not surprising that games first utilized coordinated vibration feedback. Tactile response is quicker than vision or hearing. To be able to get an immersive response from a computer, we need opposed motion: sword slashes that glance off their targets, tennis rackets that respond when they hit the ball, and fishing rods that pull in different directions as the fish tries to escape.
nathanyan 16:04, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
I think McCullough brings up a valid point that appealing to more of a user's senses serves to enhance the user's attachment and immersion. I don't know if I necessarily agree that the hands and touch are all-important - I think each new degree of freedom or option for user interaction serves to enhance realism and immersion, until a program or object affords the user complete freedom and engages all the user's senses, at which point it mimics real life.
One might think that being able to interact with programs via touch would be a revolutionary step that would bring immersion and realism to a whole new level, which it would. At the same time, we would probably regard the loss of sight and sound in our programs as significant, but not quite as devastating - images and audio have been around in electronics and software for so long that interacting via our eyes and ears is rather mundane. I can imagine that the very first time audio was introduced alongside motion pictures, or even when video turned still images into moving ones, that the additional sound and sight interactions were just as revolutionary to movie users back then as we dream that touch can be revolutionary to programs today.
That all said, I think we can clearly see McCullough's idea at work in some of the most successful games today - among the most popular (at least in terms of brand consciousness among the general population) are the Guitar Hero/Rock Band franchise and the plethora of motion-controlled games for the Nintendo Wii system. While games of previous generations often involved visuals, audio, and no more than menial and repetitive clicking of buttons, both the Wii and the Guitar/Band games engage the hands/touch-sense of users far more, in the case of the Wii allowing far more freedom (virtually unlimited in the ways one can swing around a Wii remote, and in the case of Guitar Hero/Rock Band allowing users to hold an imitation guitar and "rock out" in many ways similar to a real guitar (ex. jump around the room, strum with real strumming motions, hit a drumset like a real drummer, etc).
Tangible interfaces are obviously extremely helpful for children and younger people because they simplify or even remove the computer interface from the user interface. If a child were trying to build a structure in a digital environment with an assortment of shaped blocks, it'd be easiest if they could simply proceed as they would in real life - physically touching and moving the blocks. Without a tangible interface, the program must place a computer interface as an obstacle between the user and their actually intended task - before the child can even begin manipulating blocks, they must first learn how to manipulate a keyboard and mouse, and THEN learn how to use the keyboard and mouse to manipulate the different controls in the program. This is especially important for children - not only are they likely to be unfamiliar with computer interfaces in general (making the learning curve for the program even steeper), but their short attention spans and limited multitasking abilities would make it difficult to learn and keep track of so many things at once (how to handle the physical human-to-computer interface (keyboard/mouse), the digital computer-to-program interface, and then finally the program-to-task interface that the child is really after learning or trying to achieve.
Yuta Morimoto 16:39, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
One of the most important differences between the input styles of computer games and other application is attitude toward mis-input. It is natural that we make a mistake when we are inputting for some operations. If we did something wrong operation in a kind of application for computer, we have to carry out operations to return the previous state before we did the wrong operation. However, in typical computer games, we can not or need not correct the mistake. We automatically will be back to the previous state without doing operations and sometimes we may be imposed a penalty for mistake. In the game interaction context, a mistake has different mean, because gaming devices just give users simple input ways. On the other hand, computer devices have multiple types of input devices. In short, input devices of game do not give us rich input ways. So we use applications in different way especially operation of correction.
JoshuaKwan 16:51, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Generally speaking, many modern computer games use the mouse and keyboard in different ways than simply to point a cursor and make letters appear on the screen. First person shooters require both to be used in tandem, to control your character as you would a tank - you move around with the keyboard, and then look around at things with your mouse. Some games treat the motion of the mouse as a way to directly manipulate objects in the game world, like being to shake up a virtual bottle of champagne.
If you look beyond the world of the PC, we now have various specialized input schemes for consoles - especially those developed by Nintendo. DS has its touch screen that has been put to much creative use in user interface design, and Wii has its remote that has almost infinite options: sword swinging, cooking, tennis, drawing, wand pointing... These innovations represent a change in the way we approach HCI - a more natural approach that is more obvious to people who have never played video games. If you need to break a glass window, there's no abstract pointer to move around the screen and no key to equip your hammer and then no mouse click to use it; you use your stylus and tap the window until it shatters!
Yes, there was a time when everything was very abstract and detached from real life. Early golf games for computers, for example, involved a bouncing 'force meter' that would dictate how powerful your shot would be. Thus the delicate matter of a putt, an action involving coordination and strength, was reduced to a matter of simple timing. This was only necessary due to a dearth of better input schemes. But at first, when the technology came around that permitted better input devices to be viable, we stuck with keeping things abstract for quite a while.
In fact, it took me quite a while to realize that the Tangible Bits article was more than 11 years old - it bears much resemblance to similar work that is still being research today. Back then we were still having trouble making computers appeal to everyday people. Could we have been more successful, more quickly, if people had been introduced to computers via innovations like the ambientROOM?
someone else's response?
I think there are many useful advantages of tangible interface for children using digital game. In the before lecture, an example of applications that were the toothbrush cleaning game made sure children were spending time brushing their teeth. With visualized instructional way, Children already see and know how they should do. For educational goal, we can use tangible interface to teach children how to do something .
Xuexin Zhang 16:57, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
The input style of computer applications is limited to a small amount of actions with mice and keyboard. The main function of keyboard is an input device of text; which mice is mainly used for selection. In addition, the input style of computer games is usually requires both hands on keyboard and mice, while there are now input methods available besides those; such as gamepad, joystick, and specialized joystick in different shape for more engaging gaming experience. I believe that we could adopt some input method from game interaction for other applications. Take graphic editing application for example, we could apply a method using a combination of keyboard and mice to control the graphic view more effectively.
There are many potential advantages of tangible interface for children using digital games. First of all, a real object could interest children more than the boring keyboard/mice input method. Secondly, children could learn more skills with the tangible interface than the traditional method by using an object to simulate the experience. Also, the learning curve of the tangible interface is not as steep as the traditional method, so the children could get adopt to it more easily.
Kai Lin Huang 17:03, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Game interactions usually involve graphic control interfaces instead of the traditional toolbar and right click control options. Graphic control interfaces can be more user-friendly if the targeted user groups are youth and children, but they can be confusing for others because of their uncommon design of controlling. For example, today’s popular MMORPG control design involves a list of customized actions and/or items, current status of the character, and only few buttons for machine environment related settings. The customized list of actions and/or items is usually associated with shortcuts that users could easily remember such as a single stroke of functional keys or numerical keys. On the other side, today’s popular serious applications often involve a tool bar and a list of menu leading to detail functions on the side. The customized menu settings in serious applications are often very hidden and uneasy to use, at least not as easy as those in games. As McCullough suggests, the digital realm must be a place for passions for practice and moral values; thus, serious applications eventually will go through the evolution of user interface improvement. In less than a decade, when the youth grow up and step into the workforce, these interfaces can be superior because of their natural advantages and the working professional have learned to use them in childhood.
Tangible interface sounds appealing to educate children for many aspects of the world that they have not had a chance to see yet. Because children are still under the process of developing all their senses, tangible interfaced games could potentially speed up their learning of senses such as seeing, listening, touching and physical dexterity. For example, the scaling and rotation device can be made into the shapes of planets and the sun. Elementary school students could learn the structure and movement of the solar system from the simulation, and thus increase their interest in learning astronomy.
MuQing Jing 17:10, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
We can definitely learn something from direct game interaction with a computer and apply it to other applications. Inherently, a well designed direct interaction system is much more intuitive and is able to flatten the learning curve significantly. As demonstrated by the Wii, games can suddenly be marketed toward a very broad audience because of how much the learning curve has changed. On the downside, if the interface is more trouble for the user than it's worth (i.e. if the user actually has to actively think about performing certain movements or actions), then the design has failed. Its ultimate goal is to essentially be in the background; the user's movements and actions should feel natural, not tacky or require tons of thinking.
By incorporating tangible interfaces for children games, you can broaden the target audience by increasing the age range. By utilizing direct interaction, the gap between knowing how to do something and knowing how to translate doing something into a series of buttons is bridged. This allows a younger audience to be able to be reached because the game is no longer limited to the somewhat advanced thought process of associating certain sequences of buttons with a particular action. Children, who are easily discouraged by a steep learning curve, will no longer have to contend with that hurdle because the learning curve will be understanding the game rather than learning a new set of muscle memory motions. Likewise, their attention can be grabbed for longer periods of time because less active thinking can be devoted towards the movements and motions (assuming it is well designed).
Kevin Lam 17:24, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
If we were to look at traditional computer applications that made use of keyboards and mouses, only computer games attempted to abstract real world experiences to these input devices. For instance, the movement of a mouse in many first person shooters mimics the head motion of a person meanwhile in MMORPG's keystrokes and mouse clicks control a character's actions. The link between keystrokes/mouse movements and object manipulations makes games more realistic and draws players more deeply into a game. This type of linkage still isn't common in most applications, like word processors, but with the development of infrared technology and sensory devices I would argue that we will see more interactivity in future applications. New input devices like the touchscreen displays on HP notebooks and the head/finger tracking equipment being developed by Johnny Lee (MIT) are making it possible for users to interact more fluidly with computers. The writing utensil on the HP tx2500z allows users to write on the laptop screen as though it were a sheet of paper. This simulation of a real world activity gives the user a fuller, more engaging experience.
As McCullough states in his article, "Much life of the hands is a form of knowledge: not linguistic or symbolic knowledge such as you might use to read this book or write a computer program, but something based more on concrete action, such as sculpting plaster or clay. The knowledge is not only physical, but also experiential." The standard keyboard/mouse combination doesn't cater to the user's experiential need, not when the task is to write a paper or to flip through images in a photo album. Thus, having more interactivity in applications would benefit users. By taking the same approach we have towards developing games (linking interfaces with object movements) and applying it to other applications, we can create more realistic experiences for users.
On the topic of children and tangible interfaces, I would agree entirely with Nathan Yan. Tangible interfaces help remove the computer interface for children and therefore allow children to focus on the game rather than learning to use a keyboard and mouse first. I recall playing Reader Rabbit as a kid and having to spend a significant amount of my time and attention on learning where the keys were on the keyboard. The end result was that I learned how to use a keyboard in addition to spelling words, but the learning curve was definitely much higher. Additionally, learning how to use a keyboard while playing the game took away from the game's experience. In the case of Reader Rabbit there aren't any good workarounds to removing the computer interface. But with other games, such as math games and games that require hand-eye coordination, removing the computer interface gives children a deeper learning experience because they don't have to split their attention between playing the game and learning how to use the input devices.
Volodymyr Kalish 17:29, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
All of the computer applications that I used to write this response have the same input style: a mouse and a keyboard. From one point of view, it is a good thing that the input styles to a lot of various applications can be abstracted and emulated via the same set of input devices. Since now, if one learns basics of how a mouse and a keyboard work for one application it will be effortless to master new applications, and all it would take is some interest and willingness to play the game by the rules enforced by input devices. Games on the other hand could a huge variety of input devices spanning from the same old keyboard and mouse to joysticks with feedback (notice, even the name of this input device speaks for itself “joy” + “stick”) and pedals. The purpose of all these input devices is to narrow the gap between the application (the game) and the real world experiences in doing similar things. This makes games more enjoyable, since a wider and more interesting variety of controls is offered. But, as a midpoint, the inputs styles to the games are the bleeding edge of technology, since something that is used for a game controller today, if proven successful, can be used for a non-game application tomorrow. So, games interactions is a pioneer of input styles for all computer interactions.
The next reading, Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms, by Ishii, H. and Ullmer, B., is a sort of filling for the Abstracting Craft: The Practiced Digital Hand by Malcolm McCullough. Since, even though the hands are “underemployed”, they cannot be given all the credit, because in order for hands to perform as was described by Malcolm McCullough, the hand-eye coordination is crucial and the help of other body parts can be beneficial. As for tangible interfaces for children, it is well known that children learn through experiences. So, when adults can live with only a mouse and a keyboard, kids need tangible interfaces to experience the world around in a safe manner. The example of tangible interface for kids using digital games could be the tooth-brushing-game shown in class lecture.
Geoffrey Lee 17:32, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Ishi's paper discusses many advantages to using a tangible user interface. In the scope of childrens' games vs adult activities, I think the major difference is that children are less capable of following complicated directions or figuring out how an object works. The great advantage of tangible user interfaces is that unlike a mouse or keyboard, the usage of everyday objects is intuitive. When we look at an object such as a magnifying lens or a bottle, we form natural mental models of how that object works and how we should interact with it. By using such everyday physical objects as video game controllers, we provide a natural "affordance" to a child who may not otherwise understand how abstract controllers such as mice/keyboards work.
James Yeh 18:11, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
Computer games certainly implement the concept of “digital craft” as described in the first reading quite well. For example, when a skilled player of a first-person shooter is in the middle of a battle, what appears to the uninformed outsider as sudden jerks of the mouse and rapid keystrokes are actually precisely coordinated and well timed movements that have been perfected through experience and almost instinctive to the owner. Another type of game that incites such engaged input is the real-time strategy game; in this genre, players are in charge of an entire army, and thus must carefully manage each unit through an orchestrated multitude of mouse clicks in order to defeat the enemy. In fact, professional real-time strategy game players execute as many as four to give mouseclicks and/or keystrokes per second. Even an average person witnessing such physical prowess would probably agree that such a player is demonstrating “digital craft”.
The difference between these computer games and much of the software applications used for work today is that most applications are designed for simplicity and practicality rather than the vividness of human-computer interactions. This isn’t necessarily such a bad thing, because using one keystroke to complete three tasks is certainly more efficient and less time-consuming that using three keystrokes to complete the same three tasks. As a result, there is a tradeoff between efficiency and ease-of-use in applications and how deeply they engage human interaction.
There is definitely an advantage to children using digital games with tangle interfaces. A little over a decade ago, digital games were not very available and children’s toys were nearly all physical objects, but with the advent of improved technology, many children have the luxury of experiencing digital toys in addition to their physical counterparts. Since children mainly learn through actions and activities that stimulate hand-eye coordination, a digital game with a tangible interface would probably heighten the brain activity of a child as he is able to interact and play the game with his hands and respond to the game’s multiple sensory outputs.
Mikeboulos 02:47, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I agree that comparing the input styles of computer games with most other applications is very important, it is like going to a person in his work place and learning about the work that is being done. The hands don't remember the steps they perform when it comes to handling an object or shaping a clay pot, but it can perform it better and better with more practice. Also, noting that the success of these games tells us something about the input style of the computer game. As far as I know Wii is famous not only for the animation but because of the controllers. It uses natural movement to engage you in the game. So whenever we go back to our primitive way of using our hands, I think there will be more success, and that is why the article started by discussing a hand craft, and by definition a craft was defined as "..... a certain number of mechanical operations to produce the same piece of work". So if it is more easier for the hand to manipulate, it will definitely be easier to play the game.
As for the second question, I am going to relate this a little bit as for the master/apprentice reading from last week, we have seen before that master/apprentice was the best way to learn something, this is almost the same, it is all about show and tell that will involve all the senses. That is why we can register more details when we write them down on a piece of paper. So using tangible interface for children using games, will give them far more interaction than just a joy stick, or a controller. The Tangible Bits will help simulate the senses and hence it will feel more real and not just a game any more. They won't be playing the game, but will be IN the game. This will help the children in many ways, like physical activity (ie: less obesity) and with multi players in the same setting will make it more fun for the kids, but will also help them with social issues. Also the physical toys will not be replaced but will be enhanced by technology. This can stimulate their mental abilities and make less fun chores be a game and hence a little bit more fun than it used to be. There is a broad spectrum of innovations that can be discussed here, but definitely the use of tangible interface for children using digital games has many advantages.
