FitAware

Esakia, Andrey; McCrickard, D. Scott; Harden, Samantha M.; Horning, Michael A.

doi:10.1145/3148330.3148343

Cited by 7 publications

(2 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…41 Moreover, with their embedded placement on people's bodies, smartwatches are a convenient nondisruptive way to present personal information like one's current health. 41 Particularly for activity trackers, Gouveia et al have studied how glanceable behavioral feedback can enhance user engagement. 6,[10][11][12] In these studies, authors integrated small representations of activities as part of the smartwatch face, so feedback was available while checking the time.…”

Section: Glanceable Visualizationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Between smartwatches and smartphones, the formers have been more studied for glanceable visualizations. 41 Moreover, with their embedded placement on people’s bodies, smartwatches are a convenient non-disruptive way to present personal information like one’s current health. 41 Particularly for activity trackers, Gouveia et al have studied how glanceable behavioral feedback can enhance user engagement.…”

Section: Related Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Incidental graphical perception: How marks and display time influence accuracy

Moreira,

Mendes,

Gonçalves

2023

Information Visualization

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Incidental visualizations are meant to be perceived at-a-glance, on-the-go, and during short exposure times, but are not seen on demand. Instead, they appear in people’s fields of view during an ongoing primary task. They differ from glanceable visualizations because the information is not received on demand, and they differ from ambient visualizations because the information is not continuously embedded in the environment. However, current graphical perception guidelines do not consider situations where information is presented at specific moments during brief exposure times without being the user’s primary focus. Therefore, we conducted a crowdsourced user study with 99 participants to understand how accurate people’s incidental graphical perception is. Each participant was tested on one of the three conditions: position of dots, length of lines, and angle of lines. We varied the number of elements for each combination and the display time. During the study, participants were asked to perform reproduction tasks, where they had to recreate a previously shown stimulus in each. Our results indicate that incidental graphical perception can be accurate when using position, length, and angles. Furthermore, we argue that incidental visualizations should be designed for low exposure times (between 300 and 1000 ms).

show abstract