Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Study on generic tangible objects used to collaborate remotely on RFID tabletops

  • Original Paper
  • Published:
Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Having the tools to work remotely with other people is one of the ambitions of people who work in a group context. In fact they have to move and to link their team-work in order to collaborate on one or several tasks. This paper describes a study on an innovative system designed to support remote collaborative applications on tabletops with tangible interaction. We propose a set of generic tangible objects. They model a set of collaborative styles which are possible between tabletop users. Our goal is to study the usability of and satisfaction with such objects that provide remote collaboration among users of interactive tabletops for tangible interaction. An application adapted to remote collaboration was tested in the laboratory with adult participants. Twelve test groups, each composed of three participants, tested a distributed application for the learning and recognition of colors. Our analysis, supported by observations, log file analysis and questionnaires, focuses on whether the use of generic objects to collaborate remotely is easy and understandable for users. It also considers user satisfaction when using the distributed tabletop with tangible objects.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11
Fig. 12

Similar content being viewed by others

Notes

  1. These tabletops were designed by the RFIdées company (see www.rfidees.com). The basic technologies are described in [32].

References

  1. Kubicki S, Lepreux S, Kolski C (2012) RFID-driven situation awareness on TangiSense, a table interacting with tangible objects. Pers Ubiquit Comput 16(8):1079–1094

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Kubicki S, Lepreux S, Kolski C (2011) Evaluation of an interactive table with tangible objects: application with children in a classroom. In: Proceedings 2nd workshop child computer interaction. UI Technol. Educ. Pedagogy. At CHI 201, Vancouver

  3. Chen R, Chen P-J, Feng R et al (2014) SciSketch: a tabletop collaborative sketching system. In: Proceedings of the 8th international conference on tangible, embedded and embodied interaction. ACM, New York, pp 247–250

  4. Morris MR, Lombardo J, Wigdor D (2010) WeSearch: supporting collaborative search and sensemaking on a tabletop display. In: Proceedings of the 2010 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work (CSCW’10). ACM, New York, pp 401–410

  5. Qin Y, Liu J, Wu C, Shi Y (2012) uEmergency: a collaborative system for emergency management on very large tabletop. In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces. ACM, New York, pp 399–402

  6. Rittenbruch M (2015) Supporting collaboration on very large-scale interactive wall surfaces. Comput Support Coop Work CSCW 24(2–3):121–147

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Smeaton AF, Lee H, Foley C, McGivney S (2007) Collaborative video searching on a tabletop. Multimedia Syst 12(4–5):375–391

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Bellotti V, Bly S (1996) Walking away from the desktop computer: distributed collaboration and mobility in a product design team. In: Proceedings of the 1996 ACM conference on computer supported cooperative work. ACM, New York, pp 209–218

  9. Minatani S, Kitahara I, Kameda Y, Ohta Y (2007) Face-to-face tabletop remote collaboration in mixed reality. In: Proceedings of the 2007 6th IEEE and ACM international symposium on mixed and augmented reality (ISMAR’07). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, pp 1–4

  10. Martinez-Maldonado R, Clayphan A, Kay J (2015) Deploying and visualising teacher’s scripts of small group activities in a multi-surface classroom ecology: a study in-the-wild. Comput Support Coop Work CSCW 24(2–3):177–221

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Zillner J, Rhemann C, Izadi S, Haller M (2014) 3D-board: a whole-body remote collaborative whiteboard. In: Proceedings of the 27th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology. ACM, New York, pp 471–479

  12. Bouabid A, Lepreux S, Kolski C, Havrez C (2014) Context-sensitive and collaborative application for distributed user interfaces on tabletops. In: Proceedings of the 2014 workshop on distributed user interfaces and multimodal interaction. ACM, New York, pp 23–26

  13. Kharrufa A, Balaam M, Heslop P et al (2013) Tables in the wild: lessons learned from a large-scale multi-tabletop deployment. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 1021–1030

  14. Ishii H, Ullmer B (1997) Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems (CHI’97). ACM, New York, pp 234–241

  15. Isenberg P, Fisher D, Morris MR et al (2010) An exploratory study of co-located collaborative visual analytics around a tabletop display. https://doi.org/10.1109/VAST.2010.5652880

  16. Lepreux S, Kubicki S, Kolski C, Caelen J (2012) From centralized interactive tabletops to distributed surfaces: the tangiget concept. Int J Hum Comput Interact 28:709–721

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Olson GM, Olson JS (2000) Distance matters. Hum Comput Interact 15, 2(September 2000):139–178

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Idan A, Wallach HS, Almagor M et al (2015) Mediated telemedicine vs. face-to-face medicine: efficiency in distress reduction. J Multimodal User Interfaces 9:333–339

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Esenther A, Ryall K, Esenther A, Ryall K (2006) RemoteDT: support for multi-site table collaboration. In: Proceedings of the international conference on collaboration and technology

  20. Yamashita N, Kaji K, Kuzuoka H, Hirata K (2011) Improving visibility of remote gestures in distributed tabletop collaboration. In: Proceedings of the ACM 2011 conference on computer supported cooperative work. ACM, New York, pp 95–104

  21. Cuendet S, Dehler-Zufferey J, Ortoleva G, Dillenbourg P (2015) An integrated way of using a tangible user interface in a classroom. Int J Comput Support Collab Learn 10(2):183–208

    Google Scholar 

  22. Melchior J (2011) Distributed user interfaces in space and time. In: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGCHI symposium on engineering interactive computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 311–314

  23. Sluis RJW, Weevers I, van Schijndel CHGJ et al (2004) Read-it: five-to-seven-year-old children learn to read in a tabletop environment. In: Proceedings of the 2004 conference on interaction design and children: building a community. ACM, New York, pp 73–80

  24. Tuddenham P, Robinson P (2009) Territorial coordination and workspace awareness in remote tabletop collaboration. In: Proceedings of the 27th international conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI 2009, Boston, April 4–9, 2009. ACM 2009, pp 2139–2148

  25. Tang A, Tory M, Po B et al (2006) Collaborative coupling over tabletop displays. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, New York, pp 1181–1190

  26. Caelen J, Becker M, Pellegrin A (2011) Tangibility and human–computer interaction: an alternative approach to affordance. In: Blashki K (ed) Proceedings of the IADIS international conference on interfaces and human computer interaction, Rome, 20–26 July 2011

  27. Fishkin KP (2004) A taxonomy for and analysis of tangible interfaces. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 8:347–358. https://doi.org/10.1007/s00779-004-0297-4

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Kubicki S, Lepreux S, Kolski C (2013) Distributed UI on interactive tabletops: issues and context model. Distributed user interfaces: usability and collaboration. Springer, London, pp 27–38

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  29. Lebrun Y, Lepreux S, Haudegond S et al (2014) Management of distributed RFID surfaces: a cooking assistant for ambient computing in kitchen. Proc Comput Sci 32:21–28. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.procs.2014.05.393

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Havrez C, Lepreux S, Lebrun Y et al (2016) A design model for tangible interaction: case study in waste sorting. IFAC-Pap 49:373–378. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ifacol.2016.10.594

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Kubicki S, Wolff M, Lepreux S, Kolski C (2015) RFID interactive tabletop application with tangible objects: exploratory study to observe young children’behaviors. Pers Ubiquitous Comput 19:1259–1274

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. Kubicki S, Lepreux S, Lebrun Y, Dos santos P, Kolski C, Caelen J (2009) New human–computer interactions using tangible objects: application on a digital tabletop with RFID technology. In: Human–computer interaction, 13th international conference, HCI international 2009 (San Diego, CA, USA, July 19–24, 2009), Proceedings, Part III, LNCS 5612. Springer, Berlin, pp 446–455

  33. Bouabid A, Lepreux S, Kolski C (2016) Distributed tabletops: study involving two RFID tabletops with generic tangible objects. In: Casteleyn S, Dolog P, Pautasso C (eds) Current trends in web engineering - ICWE 2016 international workshops, DUI, TELERISE, SoWeMine, and Liquid Web, Lugano, Switzerland, June 6–9, 2016, Revised selected papers, Lecture notes in computer science 9881, Springer, pp 167–173

  34. Vidal GM, Geerts M, Feki MA (2013) The role of affordances and interaction bits in the design of a new tangible programming interface: a preliminary result. Bell Labs Tech J 17:157–174. https://doi.org/10.1002/bltj.21581

  35. Regenbrecht H, Haller M, Hauber J, Billinghurst M (2006) Carpeno: interfacing remote collaborative virtual environments with table-top interaction. Virtual Real 10:95–107. https://doi.org/10.1007/s10055-006-0045-3

    Article  Google Scholar 

  36. Moreno A, Poppe R (2016) Automatic behavior analysis in tag games: from traditional spaces to interactive playgrounds. J Multimodal User Interfaces 10:63–75. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12193-016-0211-1

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors warmly thank the 36 participants in the study. They also thank Steve Gabet for his efficient help in the programming of the distributed application and the study, and Bako Rajanoah for her help during the definition of the experimental protocol. The authors thank the anonymous reviewers for their numerous constructive remarks.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. LAMIH-UMR CNRS 8201, University of Valenciennes, Le Mont Houy, 59313, Valenciennes Cedex 9, France

    Amira Bouabid, Sophie Lepreux & Christophe Kolski

  2. SETIT, University of Sfax, Sfax, Tunisia

    Amira Bouabid

Authors
  1. Amira Bouabid
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sophie Lepreux
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Christophe Kolski
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Christophe Kolski.

Annex: Questionnaire 2

Annex: Questionnaire 2

figure i

Evaluation of the usefulness of tangigets used to collaborate remotely via tangible interactive tabletops

  • I. Evaluation of the usefulness of tangigets used to collaborate remotely via tangible interactive tabletops (To be completed by users on adult tabletop)

    1. 1.

      Does it seem relevant to work remotely with others on the distributed space offered by the connected interactive tabletops to achieve color learning or for other applications?

    2. 2.

      Does the “Category” object seem significant to you in relation to its roles in the application?

    3. 3.

      Can you handle the object “category” easily?

    4. 4.

      Does the “Start” object seem significant to you in relation to its roles in the application?

    5. 5.

      Can you handle the object “Start” easily?

    6. 6.

      Does the “Magician” object seem significant to you in relation to its roles in the application?

    7. 7.

      Can you handle the object “Magician” easily?

    8. 8.

      Does the “Eraser” object seem significant to you in relation to its roles in the application?

    9. 9.

      Can you handle the object “Rubber” easily?

    10. 10.

      Does the “Focus” object seem significant to you in relation to its roles in the application?

    11. 11.

      Can you handle the object “Focus” easily?

    12. 12.

      Does the “Collaboration Area” object seem significant to you in relation to its roles in the application?

    13. 13.

      Can you handle the object “Collaboration Area” easily?

    14. 14.

      Are you able to understand the identification of remote table users?

    15. 15.

      Was the request for help clear?

    16. 16.

      Were the objects subjects of a request for help clear?

    17. 17.

      Was the declaration of the end of the exercise clear?

  • II. Evaluation of the usefulness of tangigets used to collaborate remotely via tangible interactive tabletops (To be completed by users on child tabletop)

    1. 1.

      Does it seem relevant to work remotely with others on the distributed space offered by the connected interactive tabletops to achieve color learning or for other applications?

    2. 2.

      Does the “Identification” object seem significant to you in relation to its roles in the application?

    3. 3.

      Can you handle the object “Identification” easily?

    4. 4.

      Does the “End exercise” object seem significant to you in relation to its roles in the application?

    5. 5.

      Can you handle the object “End exercise” easily?

    6. 6.

      Does the “Collaboration Area” object seem significant to you in relation to its roles in the application?

    7. 7.

      Can you handle the object “Collaboration Area” easily?

    8. 8.

      Was the request for help easy?

    9. 9.

      Was the help provided by the remote user of the other table clear enough to help you find the right zone for the object in question?

    10. 10.

      Was the correction of the exercise clear enough to correct the errors?

    11. 11.

      Was the assignment step of the category clear?

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Bouabid, A., Lepreux, S. & Kolski, C. Study on generic tangible objects used to collaborate remotely on RFID tabletops. J Multimodal User Interfaces 12, 161–180 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12193-018-0262-6

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12193-018-0262-6

Keywords

Search

Navigation