skip to main content
10.1145/3173574.3174184acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Modeling Perceived Screen Resolution Based on Position and Orientation of Wrist-Worn Devices

Published:21 April 2018Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper presents a model allowing inferences of perceivable screen content in relation to position and orientation of mobile or wearable devices with respect to their user. The model is based on findings from vision science and allows prediction of a value of effective resolution that can be perceived by a user. It considers distance and angle between the device and the eyes of the observer as well as the resulting retinal eccentricity when the device is not directly focused but observed in the periphery. To validate our model, we conducted a study with 12 participants. Based on our results, we outline implications for the design of mobile applications that are able to adapt themselves to facilitate information throughput and usability.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

pn4688-file5.mp4

mp4

1 MB

References

  1. Daniel L. Ashbrook, James R. Clawson, Kent Lyons, Thad E. Starner, and Nirmal Patel. 2008. Quickdraw: The Impact of Mobility and On-body Placement on Device Access Time. In Proc. CHI '08. 219--222. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Till Ballendat, Nicolai Marquardt, and Saul Greenberg. 2010. Proxemic Interaction: Designing for a Proximity and Orientation-Aware Environment. In Proc. ITS '10. ACM, 121--130. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Dirk Bartz, Douglas Cunningham, Jan Fischer, and Christian Wallraven. 2008. The Role of Perception for Computer Graphics. Section 2 (2008).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Stephen Butterworth. 1930. On the Theory of Filter Amplifiers. Wireless Engineer 7, 6 (1930), 536--541.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. CCS Insight. 2017. Forecast Reveals Steady Growth in Smartwatch Market. (16 Mar 2017). https://goo.gl/WDtoHF Last accessed 05/01/2018.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Enrico Costanza, Samuel A. Inverso, Elan Pavlov, Rebecca Allen, and Pattie Maes. 2006. eye-q: Eyeglass Peripheral Display for Subtle Intimate Notifications. In Proc. MobileHCI '06. ACM, 211--218. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Jakub Dostal, Uta Hinrichs, Per Ola Kristensson, and Aaron Quigley. 2014. SpiderEyes: Designing Attentionand Proximity-aware Collaborative Interfaces for Wall-sized Displays. In Proc. IUI '14. ACM, 143--152. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Andrew T. Duchowski, Nathan Cournia, and Hunter Murphy. 2004. Gaze-Contingent Displays: A Review. Cyberpsychology & Behavior: The Impact of the Internet, Multimedia and Virtual Reality on Behavior and Society 7, 6 (Dec. 2004), 621--34.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Farzin Farhadi-Niaki. 2010. A Review on Eye-Gaze Tracking, GCDs, and Implemented Foveated Imaging Systems Using Optimized Methods. Computers in Human Behavior (2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Edward T. Hall. 1969. The Hidden Dimension. Anchor Books New York.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Rebecca Hansson and Peter Ljungstrand. 2000. The Reminder Bracelet: Subtle Notification Cues for Mobile Devices. In Proc. CHI EA '00. ACM, 323--324. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Chris Harrison, Brian Y. Lim, Aubrey Shick, and Scott E. Hudson. 2009. Where to Locate Wearable Displays?: Reaction Time Performance of Visual Alerts from Tip to Toe. In Proc. CHI '09. ACM, 941--944. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Randall T. Jose. 1983. Understanding Low Vision. American Foundation for the Blind.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. Harris R. Lieberman and Alex P. Pentland. 1982. Microcomputer-Based Estimation of Psychophysical Thresholds: The Best PEST. Behavior Research Methods 14, 1 (1982), 21--25.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Kris Luyten, Donald Degraen, Gustavo Rovelo Ruiz, Sven Coppers, and Davy Vanacken. 2016. Hidden in Plain Sight: An Exploration of a Visual Language for Near-Eye Out-of-Focus Displays in the Peripheral View. In Proc. CHI '16. ACM, 487--497. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Kent Lyons, David Nguyen, Daniel Ashbrook, and Sean White. 2012. Facet: A Multi-segment Wrist Worn System. In Proc. UIST '12. ACM, 123--130. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Blair MacIntyre, Elizabeth D. Mynatt, Stephen Voida, Klaus M. Hansen, Joe Tullio, and Gregory M. Corso. 2001. Support for Multitasking and Background Awareness Using Interactive Peripheral Displays. In Proc. UIST '01. ACM, 41--50. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Jennifer Mankoff, Anind K. Dey, Gary Hsieh, Julie Kientz, Scott Lederer, and Morgan Ames. 2003. Heuristic Evaluation of Ambient Displays. In Proc. CHI '03. ACM, 169--176. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Tara Matthews, Anind K. Dey, Jennifer Mankoff, Scott Carter, and Tye Rattenbury. 2004. A Toolkit for Managing User Attention in Peripheral Displays. In Proc. UIST '04. ACM, 247--256. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. K. McLaren. 1976. The Development of the CIE 1976 (L*a*b*) Uniform Colour Space and Colour-Difference Formula. Journal of the Society of Dyers and Colourists 92, 9 (1976), 338--341.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  21. Miguel A. Nacenta, Satoshi Sakurai, Tokuo Yamaguchi, Yohei Miki, Yuichi Itoh, Yoshifumi Kitamura, Sriram Subramanian, and Carl Gutwin. 2007. E-conic: A Perspective-aware Interface for Multi-display Environments. In Proc. UIST '07. ACM, 279--288. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Toshikazu Ohshima, Hiroyuki Yamamoto, and Hideyuki Tamura. 1996. Gaze-Directed Adaptive Rendering for Interacting with Virtual Space. In Proc. VRAIS '96. IEEE Computer Society, 103--110. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Jerome Pasquero, Scott J. Stobbe, and Noel Stonehouse. 2011. A Haptic Wristwatch for Eyes-free Interactions. In Proc. CHI '11. ACM, 3257--3266. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Alex Pentland. 1980. Maximum Likelihood Estimation: The Best PEST. Attention, Perception, & Psychophysics 28, 4 (1980), 377--379.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  25. Henning Pohl and Roderick Murray-Smith. 2013. Focused and Casual Interactions: Allowing Users to Vary Their Level of Engagement. In Proc. CHI '13. ACM, 2223--2232. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Jonathan S. Pointer. 2008. Recognition versus Resolution: A Comparison of Visual Acuity Results Using Two Alternative Test Chart Optotype. Journal of Optometry 1, 2 (2008), 65--70.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Martin Reddy. 1997. Perceptually Modulated Level of Detail for Virtual Environments. (1997).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Martin Reddy. 2001. Perceptually Optimized 3D Graphics. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications 21, 5 (2001), 68--75. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Eyal M. Reingold, Lester C. Loschky, George W. McConkie, and Dave M. Stampe. 2003. Gaze-Contingent Multiresolutional Displays: An Integrative Review. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45, 2 (June 2003), 307--328.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Jyrki Rovamo and Veijo Virsu. 1979. An Estimation and Application of the Human Cortical Magnification Factor. Experimental Brain Research 37, 3 (1979), 495--510.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  31. Steven Schirra and Frank R. Bentley. 2015. "It's Kind of Like an Extra Screen for My Phone": Understanding Everyday Uses of Consumer Smart Watches. In Proc. CHI EA '15. ACM, 2151--2156. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Herman Snellen. 1862. Optotypi ad Visum Determinandum. Weyers (1862).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  33. Alexander Toet. 2006. Gaze Directed Displays as an Enabling Technology for Attention Aware Systems. Computers in Human Behavior 22, 4 (July 2006), 615--647.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  34. Melanie Tory and Torsten Möller. 2004. Human Factors in Visualization Research. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 10, 1 (Jan 2004), 72--84. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Daniel Vogel and Ravin Balakrishnan. 2004. Interactive Public Ambient Displays: Transitioning from Implicit to Explicit, Public to Personal, Interaction with Multiple Users. In Proc. UIST '04. ACM, 137--146. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Amanda Williams, Shelly Farnham, and Scott Counts. 2006. Exploring Wearable Ambient Displays for Social Awareness. In Proc. CHI EA '06. ACM, 1529--1534. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. David R. Williams, Geunyoung Yoon, Antonio Guirao, Heidi Hofer, Jason Porter, Scott M. Macrae, Ronald R. Krueger, and Raymond A. Applegate. 2001. How Far Can We Extend the Limits of Human Vision? Customized Corneal Ablation 1 (2001).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Modeling Perceived Screen Resolution Based on Position and Orientation of Wrist-Worn Devices

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2018
      8489 pages
      ISBN:9781450356206
      DOI:10.1145/3173574

      Copyright © 2018 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 21 April 2018

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '18 Paper Acceptance Rate666of2,590submissions,26%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

      Upcoming Conference

      CHI '24
      CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 11 - 16, 2024
      Honolulu , HI , USA
    • Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)6
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

      Other Metrics

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader