Dynamically Reconfigurable Vision-Based User Interfaces

Kjeldsen, Rick; Levas, Anthony; Pinhanez, Cláudio

doi:10.1007/3-540-36592-3_31

Cited by 19 publications

(12 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…When an object is within arm's reach, it may be natural for the user to physically touch it in order to manipulate it. Such interactions are easy to detect and intuitive to use [11]. However, it is not always reasonable to expect a user to walk up to an object before they manipulate it, especially since objects can be displayed in unreachable locations.…”

Section: Distance To the Objectmentioning

confidence: 99%

A study on the manipulation of 2D objects in a projector/camera-based augmented reality environment

Voida

Podlaseck

Kjeldsen

et al. 2005

Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Are the object manipulation techniques traditionally used in head-mounted displays (HMDs) applicable to augmented reality based projection systems? This paper examines the differences between HMD-and projector/camerabased AR interfaces in the light of a manipulation task involving documents and applications projected on common office surfaces such as tables, walls, cabinets, and floor. We report a Wizard of Oz study where subjects were first asked to create gesture/voice commands to move 2D objects on those surfaces and then exposed to gestures created by the authors. Among the options, subjects could select the object to be manipulated using voice command; touching, pointing, and grabbing gesture; or a virtual mouse. The results show a strong preference for a manipulation interface based on pointing gestures using small hand movements and involving minimal body movement. Direct touching of the object was also common when the object being manipulated was within the subjects' arm reach. Based on these results, we expect that the preferred interface resembles, in many ways, the egocentric model traditionally used in AR.

show abstract

Section: Distance To the Objectmentioning

confidence: 99%

A study on the manipulation of 2D objects in a projector/camera-based augmented reality environment

Voida

Podlaseck

Kjeldsen

et al. 2005

Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Research such as [13,15,16] provide visions of future work offices that use projectors to transform large surfaces in our environment to dynamically suit the needs of our task. [9,11,14] describe specific techniques for using projection to augment the appearance of objects for aesthetic customization or for information display. These techniques bring popular visions of future ubiquitous computing environments closer to becoming a practical reality.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Moveable interactive projected displays using projector based tracking

Lee

Hudson

Summet

et al. 2005

Proceedings of the 18th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Video projectors have typically been used to display images on surfaces whose geometric relationship to the projector remains constant, wuch as walls or pre-calibrated surfaces. In this paper, we present a technique for projecting content onto moveable surfaces that adapts to the motion and location of the surface to simulate an active display. This is accomplished using a projector based location tracking technique. We use light sensors embedded into the moveable surface and project low-perceptibility Gray-coded patterns to first discover the sensor locations, and then imcrementally track them at interactive rates. We describe how to reduce the perceptibility of tracking patterns, achieve interactive tracking rates, use motion modeling to improve tracaking performance, and respond to sensor occlusions. A group of tracked sensors can define quadrangles for simulating moveable displays while single sensors can be used as control inputs. By unifying the tracking and display technology into a single mechanism, we can substantially reduce the cost and complexity of implementing applications that combine motion tracking and projected imagery. ACM Symposium on User Interface Software & Technology (UIST)This work may not be copied or reproduced in whole or in part for any commercial purpose. Permission to copy in whole or in part without payment of fee is granted for nonprofit educational and research purposes provided that all such whole or partial copies include the following: a notice that such copying is by permission of Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories, Inc.; an acknowledgment of the authors and individual contributions to the work; and all applicable portions of the copyright notice. Copying, reproduction, or republishing for any other purpose shall require a license with payment of fee to Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratories, Inc. All rights reserved. Video projectors have typically been used to display images on surfaces whose geometric relationship to the projector remains constant, such as walls or pre-calibrated surfaces.In this paper, we present a technique for projecting content onto moveable surfaces that adapts to the motion and location of the surface to simulate an active display. This is accomplished using a projector based location tracking techinque. We use light sensors embedded into the moveable surface and project low-perceptibility Graycoded patterns to first discover the sensor locations, and then incrementally track them at interactive rates. We describe how to reduce the perceptibility of tracking patterns, achieve interactive tracking rates, use motion modeling to improve tracking performance, and respond to sensor occlusions. A group of tracked sensors can define quadrangles for simulating moveable displays while single sensors can be used as control inputs. By unifying the tracking and display technology into a single mechanism, we can substantially reduce the cost and complexity of implementing applications that combine motion tracking and projected imagery.

show abstract

“…Inspired by [5], we decompose the vision-based applications to isolated processes of vision components and functional core of the application. The implementation of the vision-components draws on the VICs framework presented by Ye et.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Kjeldsen et al [5] present an architecture for dynamically reconfigurable vision-based user interfaces (VB-UIs). They propose to separate the application from the vision engine.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%