Abstract:The Internet of Things holds huge promise in enhancing collaboration in multiple application domains. Bringing internet connectivity to everyday objects and environments promotes ubiquitous access to information and integration with third-party systems. Further, connected "things" can be used as physical interfaces to enable users to cooperate, leveraging multiple devices via parallel and distributed actions. Yet creating prototypes of IoT systems is a complex task for developers non-expert in IoT, as it requi… Show more
“…Results of the meta-analysis. Type T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 TangiSense (Traffic) [50] System, no user evaluation X X X Active Forms [52] Theoretical X X X X AwareKit [53] System, user evaluation X X X X X CapNFC [45] System, no user evaluation X X X X Cognitive Objects [54] Theoretical X X X X Smart-home environment [55] System, user evaluation X X X TANGerINE [56] System, no user evaluation X X X X Expressing Intent [57] System, no user evaluation X X X X X VoxBox [43] System, user evaluation X X X X Invisible connections [44] Theoretical, user interviews X X X X IoT Owl [58] System, no user evaluation X X X Iyagi [59] System, no user evaluation X X TangiSense (Kitchen) [60] System, user evaluation X X Projected interfaces [61] System, no user evaluation X X X X RapIoT [62] Toolkit X X T4Tags [63] Toolkit, end-user insights X X X X X Technology Individuation [42] Theoretical, analysis of user-evaluated systems X X X X X X X Tiles [64] Toolkit X X X X X Total: 18 papers 4 theoretical, 3 toolkits, 11 systems. 7 papers include user insights 13 10 1 12 11 11 7 4 From the table, it is possible to notice that the most cited property is T1, with 13 occurrences out of 18 articles, while T3, i.e., exploring persistency of tangible interfaces, is the less mentioned (in only one paper and marginally).…”
Section: Results Of the Meta-analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While Bellucci et al [63] present a toolkit for end-user programming of physical smart-tags (T4Tags) that can be attached to everyday objects; Mora et al present two toolkits (RapIoT [62] and Tiles [64]) for facilitating the implementation of physical IoT objects (as well as the supporting cloud and embedded software) based on customizable hardware.…”
Section: Papermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Spatial interactions are supported also by all the reviewed toolkits [62][63][64]. Indeed, RapIoT [62] supports the interaction with several devices placed in the same environment and therefore users can collaborate with different devices towards a common goal.…”
Section: T4: Spatial Interaction and Collaborationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Indeed, RapIoT [62] supports the interaction with several devices placed in the same environment and therefore users can collaborate with different devices towards a common goal. TILES [64], instead, allows using square modules as physical pixels that can be scattered in space or moved side by side.…”
Section: T4: Spatial Interaction and Collaborationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The creators of RapIoT [62] argued that IoT enables seamless interconnection of people and everyday objects, bringing collaboration off the screen into our everyday routines and environments. As an example, their toolkit can also support visual warnings with green-red LEDs.…”
Abstract:In the Internet of Things era, an increasing number of everyday objects are able to offer innovative services to the user. However, most of these devices provide only smartphone or web user interfaces. As a result, the interaction is disconnected from the physical world, decreasing the user experience and increasing the risk of user alienation from the physical world. We argue that tangible interaction can counteract this trend and this article discusses the potential benefits and the still open challenges of tangible interaction applied to the Internet of Things. After an analysis of open challenges for Human-Computer Interaction in IoT, we summarize current trends in tangible interaction and extrapolate eight tangible interaction properties that could be exploited for designing novel interactions with IoT objects. Through a systematic review of tangible interaction applied to IoT, we show what has been already explored in the systems that pioneered the field and the future explorations that still have to be conducted. In order to guide future work in this field, we propose a design card set for supporting the generation of tangible interfaces for IoT objects. The card set has been evaluated during a workshop with 21 people and the results are discussed.
“…Results of the meta-analysis. Type T1 T2 T3 T4 T5 T6 T7 T8 TangiSense (Traffic) [50] System, no user evaluation X X X Active Forms [52] Theoretical X X X X AwareKit [53] System, user evaluation X X X X X CapNFC [45] System, no user evaluation X X X X Cognitive Objects [54] Theoretical X X X X Smart-home environment [55] System, user evaluation X X X TANGerINE [56] System, no user evaluation X X X X Expressing Intent [57] System, no user evaluation X X X X X VoxBox [43] System, user evaluation X X X X Invisible connections [44] Theoretical, user interviews X X X X IoT Owl [58] System, no user evaluation X X X Iyagi [59] System, no user evaluation X X TangiSense (Kitchen) [60] System, user evaluation X X Projected interfaces [61] System, no user evaluation X X X X RapIoT [62] Toolkit X X T4Tags [63] Toolkit, end-user insights X X X X X Technology Individuation [42] Theoretical, analysis of user-evaluated systems X X X X X X X Tiles [64] Toolkit X X X X X Total: 18 papers 4 theoretical, 3 toolkits, 11 systems. 7 papers include user insights 13 10 1 12 11 11 7 4 From the table, it is possible to notice that the most cited property is T1, with 13 occurrences out of 18 articles, while T3, i.e., exploring persistency of tangible interfaces, is the less mentioned (in only one paper and marginally).…”
Section: Results Of the Meta-analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…While Bellucci et al [63] present a toolkit for end-user programming of physical smart-tags (T4Tags) that can be attached to everyday objects; Mora et al present two toolkits (RapIoT [62] and Tiles [64]) for facilitating the implementation of physical IoT objects (as well as the supporting cloud and embedded software) based on customizable hardware.…”
Section: Papermentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Spatial interactions are supported also by all the reviewed toolkits [62][63][64]. Indeed, RapIoT [62] supports the interaction with several devices placed in the same environment and therefore users can collaborate with different devices towards a common goal.…”
Section: T4: Spatial Interaction and Collaborationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Indeed, RapIoT [62] supports the interaction with several devices placed in the same environment and therefore users can collaborate with different devices towards a common goal. TILES [64], instead, allows using square modules as physical pixels that can be scattered in space or moved side by side.…”
Section: T4: Spatial Interaction and Collaborationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The creators of RapIoT [62] argued that IoT enables seamless interconnection of people and everyday objects, bringing collaboration off the screen into our everyday routines and environments. As an example, their toolkit can also support visual warnings with green-red LEDs.…”
Abstract:In the Internet of Things era, an increasing number of everyday objects are able to offer innovative services to the user. However, most of these devices provide only smartphone or web user interfaces. As a result, the interaction is disconnected from the physical world, decreasing the user experience and increasing the risk of user alienation from the physical world. We argue that tangible interaction can counteract this trend and this article discusses the potential benefits and the still open challenges of tangible interaction applied to the Internet of Things. After an analysis of open challenges for Human-Computer Interaction in IoT, we summarize current trends in tangible interaction and extrapolate eight tangible interaction properties that could be exploited for designing novel interactions with IoT objects. Through a systematic review of tangible interaction applied to IoT, we show what has been already explored in the systems that pioneered the field and the future explorations that still have to be conducted. In order to guide future work in this field, we propose a design card set for supporting the generation of tangible interfaces for IoT objects. The card set has been evaluated during a workshop with 21 people and the results are discussed.
Prototyping has become a widely embraced technique in different design fields to facilitate early user involvement to ensure that the end-product meets the users' needs. Each design field has its tools and traditions for working with prototypes. This paper documents experiences with smartphone app prototyping from a product design student's perspective. Three prototyping tools with different fidelity levels were explored. Based on these experiences we reflect upon the prototyping tool characteristics and their suitability for non-computer scientist. We envisage that our experiences may be useful for other product designers who want to develop smartphone apps.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.