After building essential queries to be performed, I have now designed the final objects to be implemented on the interface. For ease of build, I decided to use basic cubes. I believe users will find easier to build cubes than more complex shapes.
All these query elements are tied to Europeana’s Data Model thus allowing users to indicate the particular set of metadata that they want to find. Compared to my previous report, I have now removed the type of object from the queries. The User Centred Design study showed that not many people were particularly focused on the particular type until they got some results, thus making it a secondary tool. Nevertheless, I have still provided a display window of the amount of results retrieved per object type and provider.
When the query is entered, the list autoscrolls showing the user the whole list of providers. When a new query is entered, the list is updated and presents the new list to the user.
Users can choose the amount of results that they want to select. I have provided a pre-designed set of choices. These are: 12, 24, 48 and 96 results. Users choose these variables by rotating the pyfo. If the pyfo is removed, the last chosen option stays active.
The what, where and who pyfos will still have the option to add the OR or NOT boolean option. This is performed by rotation the main pyfo +or- 45º as indicated in the design.
Testing The Table
I have also finished building a small version of the prototype table. At this stage I am just finalising final technical details to make the markers more stable. They are still flickering to some degree. This might affect the interaction when testing the interface.
I designed a search and delete fiducials on a single pyfo (cube) object that will be used to enter or delete the elements on the screen.
Here is a video of the current state of the interface:
I have finished implementing the animations required to trigger particular form fields where users can type to query data from Europeana. When the fiducial object is placed, it triggers the animations and focuses on that particular form. There is a wide range of combinations that users can perform that need to align to Europeana’s API console. While the physical objects can assist with the logic of the query, the affordances of the objects can assist the input of the data. At this stage I have designed all the data objects for the queries required to test my hypothesis and identify particular strengths and weaknesses of the interface and objects. These query objects are:
Start / End
image, text, audio, video, 3d
These data elements allow users to produce a wide range of complex questions by using the tangible tools.
Besides producing tools for users to perform the queries, some tools have been designed to perform navigation actions such as scrolling results, clear, and perform the query. This means that the only keyboard action will be used to input text on the fiducial objects. Here is an video of the interface.
The next stage will be to mount and adjust the interface in the interactive table and perform the final usability and UX tests.
Here is the code to join the URLs. Special thanks to @WillFyson
In order for users to identify when the active object (field) is active, I have decided to animate the placeholder background. For this I have used JQuery and CSS3 to animate them. Therefore, if the fiducial enters, it triggers the animation, if it’s updated, it focuses on the particular field so users do not have to click. Arguably, under this approach, users only have to worry about linking the things they are looking for and the name of the object that they are looking for. Once the query has been formed, it retrieves the data in JSON, and it is further visualised by using a JQuery UI list element. The video below shows how the animations work once the object is placed on the camera range and how objects are retrieved through Europeana’s API and visualised on the website.
Querying With Tangible User Interfaces. A User Centred Design Experiment.
I have been investigating how users ask question to navigate and explore content (data) of museums and other Cultural Heritage (CH) organisations. This might seem more straightforward when a specific museum collection has been set up. Nevertheless, when integrating data from the different CH organisations, the way people see the content and how it’s hosted might be different. Users will approach libraries in a different way they approach museums. Under Europeana, many of these organisations are integrated in the Europeana Data Model (EDM). This way we can describe people (creators), places, dates, date periods, objects and many other descriptors to produce more accurate answers. Despite all the effort and the sturdiness and accessibility of the data, it is still very complex not only to t to query it, but is also difficult to grasp the complexity and extent of the knowledge encompassed under it.
As mentioned above, Europeana as an organisation has integrated into a single space in the data model. Therefore the data and information is there. Despite this, it can be argued that there is not yet an optimal tool to produce knowledge from it. My research aims to find out most optimal ways to engage with such information so users can produce knowledge from it. In previous post and academic publications, I have discussed the different approaches that can be taken to develop such engagement tools thus arguing for the use of Tangible User Interfaces as a possible solution. Therefore, to understand user needs, I devised a User Centred Design experiment where I designed over 50 different tools (icons) that users potentially require to ask questions to a data repository such as Europeana’s.
I realised that this produces the same amount of complexity as if working with a common Graphical User Interface (GUI). For this reason the study aimed to identify particular personas based on their digital generation, digital skill, and cultural heritage background and web tools knowledge among others. It is important to keep in mind that these icons represented TUIO actions, query actions and logic operators as well, that is the reason of performing such experiment, to reduce such complexity.
Participants were asked to find particular artefacts such as: Picassos (things) that were not made by Picasso, or XVII Century objects from France. These questions might seem simple but arguably, there is a certain level of complexity that might hinder engagement with the content when querying for those results. These question can be asked in through Europeana’s API’s access or through the SPARQL Endpoint. But many users will find complicated to query through those particular approaches and even more complicated to learn all the particular query syntax to perform the query. Moreover, the brain has to figure out the logic complexity on top of the syntax and interaction processes. Tangible Interaction can help segmenting those thinking processes and facilitate querying with a particular syntax.
After performing the statistical analysis, the experiment showed most meaningful approaches that users followed ant their experiences when taking part in the experiment. This provided me with the information of what artefacts (tools), logic procedures and particular user requirements that needed to be implemented in the Tangible Interface to query cultural heritage data.
During the last weeks I have started developing what I would like to call DFPs short for dynamic-fiducial-pyfos. With the help of some friends I have now a basic skeleton to extend my interactive experiments. Here is a video of the result:
Tangible Interaction and Pyfos
After I submitted my upgrade draft, I realised that I was going to encounter some issues when working with pyfos when using them as part of the fiducials for the TUIO system. Since users have to combine different concepts (e.g. Roman + pottery or painter + 1800) this will result in a numerous amount of pyfos. The interface already has several objects that can not be removed since they are part of the basic interactions such as: map navigation, box dragging, etc… Therefore, I decided to explore a little bit further. I need to find a way to extend the capabilities of pyfos.
Pyfos have three main states: token, constraint and token+constraint. The TAC (Token and Constraints) paradigm in Tangible User Interfaces (TUIs) offers a set of constructs of how these objects react. Nevertheless, it can be argued that technology can offer pyfos that can self adapt or expand the constraints that bound them. This due to the fact that physical objects such as pyfos cannot morph or change according to user needs.
Other researchers are exploring how these TAC approaches can be expanded. It is this search that directed me to explore with mini-displays and sensors. Since I had worked with some Internet of Things and Arduino, I thought of designing some display that detected two different RFIDs to make the combinations and display a specific result. That result display presents the final combination in a form of fiducial so the TUIO interface can detect it. This way, users can pre-design a concept combination thus integrating it in a final dynamic-fiducial-pyfo (DFP) that encompasses that prior combination. Most importantly, DFPs can also produce other display results on the table-top without clustering tools or options.
There are some alternatives to produce DFPs out there. Many of them require to be built from scratch, but there are some products that can be adapted to our needs without having to fiddle or hack any of the electronics. Although there is a wide variety of tools out there, these are the most ‘approachable’ tools that I encountered.
Since I had worked with Arduino and Internet of Things before, I thought of building a mini-display with either RFID or any other type of sensor. I found the Educubesproject that presented a good opportunity to start developing for this idea. This might also prove to be beneficial since there are some TFT mini-displays that support touchscreen actions as well.
Although this presented a good opportunity to develop, I needed to start producing tools that could work straight away instead of focusing on the electronics. Moreover I thought that the size of the electronics is still quite big for them to be used on the prototype. But it was mainly the issue of working with a wide range of electronics and hacking them so they can do what I wanted.
After searching I encountered Sifteo Cubes. These cubes already provide a very nice presentation that encompasses a wide range of electronics and a mini-display. Moreover these cubes can be programmed through an SDK provided by the same company. I decided to jump ahead and ordered a second generation Sifteo Cubes.
My surprise was at the moment of using the SDK. I was not the first user to be put down by its complexity. The Sifteo SDK works with C++ with other command tools to run installations and device management. Moreover, through the forums I encountered that the released SDK contained some bugs, which made some of the tutorials not to work.
Nevertheless, I encountered some compiled SDK in GitHub such as Investio and Sifteo Blickets. They provided me with some hints into how to actually start using and managing the cubes. I still had to learn how to program what I needed. So I started first learning how to make interactions. There is a base of few interactions that are supported by the sensors in the cube that include: tilt, pair, shake and press.
Although it seems quite nice in pictures, the task was not so simple. Since I do not come from a programming background, working with C++ was a huge challenge. First I did a tutorial on neighbouring. Here is the video:
A few days after, I started working with other actions such as tilt and press. It is relevant to mention that I worked using the examples that came with the SDK so, the interactions were pretty much pre-designed and I was just learning a few basic commands that might be used. Here is a video of this stage.
The problem started when working with my specific requirements. I needed an array of options per cube that could be combined between them. This so the final combinations could be applied in the Europeana TUIO system. Using C++ this was not so straightforward. In a nutshell, this is what I needed to create:
It took me a lot of time and effort to find a way to program this interaction. I could program something like this with other languages but not with C++. Therefore I asked for some help to develop this. Kevin Lesur from One Life Remains gave me a hand with this. So this is was the basic skeleton built for the interactions:
Two cubes are required to make the combination through neighbouring. When they are combined a third cube presents its combination that will eventually show a fiducial making it a DFP. To navigate between the cubes options, users can tilt the cubes in either direction.
This way I am hoping to now carry on and go back to the TUIO experiments and see how these DFPs work on the tabletop system.
Three weeks ago I had a meeting where the original index was approved. I kept on working on it and I have what it the closest thing to a final draft version of it. This was built from previous reports and presentations in conferences and workshops that I have made. There is still a lot of work to do in my research but this encompass the theoretical foundations for my hypotheses.
The Content In My Thesis
There is mainly six chapters. Starting from the Introduction where I discuss the origin of the problem and the different theoretical (and practical) approaches to provide a solution. The second chapter discusses how different cultural heritage (CH) organisations work on the WEb and built what I call the Online Cultural Heritage (OCH). – Paper coming soon! – The third chapter discusses how interfaces work and its types followed by different testing methods such as Usability, UX and Engagement in Chapter 4.
The interface prototype is presented in Chapter 5. Then I discuss what is the future work that I need to do to build, test and implement the interface in Chapter 6. I also have a conclusion and references chapter but to get an idea of my research based on the index, it can be done solely on the first six.
1. Research Introduction
1.2. Cultural Heritage Institutions
1.2.2. Libraries and Archives
1.3. Museums, Libraries and Archives: Online Cultural Heritage (OCH)
2. Online Cultural Heritage
2.1. Reshaping the OCH Technology to Engage with Information
2.2. Producing Common Ground. Information in OCH
2.2.1. The Data Information Knowledge Wisdom (DIKW) Model: Knowledge Construction
2.2.2. Information and its users
184.108.40.206. Information Production
220.127.116.11. Information Sharing
18.104.22.168. Engagement with Information
2.3. Users First Approach to OCH 2.3.1. Information Engagement
2.4. Information Production, Sharing and Engagement. Information stages in OCH context
2.5. Current State of Engagement with Information
2.5.1. Content Management Systems
2.5.2. Data Querying Systems
3. User Interfaces
3.1. Introduction to User Interfaces
3.2. Tangible User Interfaces
3.2.1. Design Principles (HCI) in TUI Context
• Pyfos – Token and Constrains Paradigm
• Physical Objects (Embodiment)
3.3. TUIs in OCH Context
• TUIS and Data Exploration, a Constructivist Approach
4. Interaction Design Methodologies and Measurements
• SA&D and HCI Development Methodology
• Software Development Methodology
• Design and Graphic Design Methodology
4.1. Integrating Methodologies
4.2. Testing and Measurements
• Evaluation 4.2.2. Engagement
4.3. Evaluation Methodology and TUIs. Methodological Integration.
5.Case Study. Exploring OCH with TUIs.
• OCH TableTUI
• Google Maps Timeline
• Technology Specifications
6. Future Work
• Design and Prototype
• Technologic Specification
I had my last meeting with my supervisors yesterday. At this stage I have managed to develop enough tools in the interface to be able to present the idea of my research.
The Upgrade Process
So I have this month to:
Define my contribution
The thesis should include:
Problem / Question
I am currently doing a Web Science research. Web Science is an interdisciplinary research group. We are studying the Web from different perspectives. In the case of my research, I am trying to understand how can Cultural Heritage institutions can be enhance their engagement and pedagogic activities online. For this there is a wide range of disciplines that I have included in my research.
Human Computer Interaction
Through this approach I am intending to understand how people interact with the computer. Lets remember that on the Web, all interactions occur through an interface. For this reason it is important to study how these interactions might occur.
Human Information Interaction
Under this scope, I intend to produce a better understanding of how people/users relate, and process information. Usually when interfaces are developed designers focus merely on the interaction process without thinking beyond the tool itself. The HCI community has started adopting this process in their methodology but it has not yet been standardised as a design process in HCI.
Pedagogy / Psychology
Among many areas, I am focusing on Embodied Cognition. This thesis presents the idea that the mind is determined by the human body. This is to say that mental processes are not bounded to the mind itself. The body itself is a channel in which the human mind interacts and reasons about the world. This process is also highly linked to Constructivism, where people learn by experience. Constructivist learning experiences have commonly used cognitive processes as a pathway to empower learners. Even though constructivism is not limited to embodiment of activities, it might provide a positive pathway for pedagogic activities.
Enhancing Engagement with Online Museums
Museums as part of the Web are in need of producing meaningful pedagogic activities. The pedagogic element is essential to Cultural Heritage institutions. That is one of their main reasons of funding and even though organisations that are not in the education business can also benefit from such pedagogic activities. Nevertheless, this challenge is not easy to solve. For people to produce knowledge by themselves might not be as straightforward as one might think. There is a wide combination of how people might approach information spaces such as websites, databases, books, etc in order for them to extract knowledge.
By using the aforementioned disciplines in an interdisciplinary manner, I am attempting to produce an tangible user interface where people can be able to ask questions to a linked data system populated with cultural heritage data.