Advertisement

Gesturing on the Handlebar: A User-Elicitation Study for On-Bike Gestural Interaction

  • Maurizio Caon
  • Rico Süsse
  • Benoit Grelier
  • Omar Abou Khaled
  • Elena Mugellini
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 824)

Abstract

There are growing numbers of apps and smartphone-mounts for professional cyclists, since they are crucial to track performances during training. However, these solutions require the athlete to take her hand off the handlebar to interact with it. This represents a major safety issue for the cyclists since it requires leaving the brake control, shifting the attention and, possibly, compromising posture. This paper reports the findings of a user elicitation study conducted with seven professional and semi-professional cyclists in order to design gestures that can be performed while maintaining the hands in the correct position on the handlebar. Results report the frequency of fingers used for these gestures, with the index being the favorite. Furthermore, it provides a classification of gestures in three categories: press, extension and swipe. The most convenient gestures were the thumb and index press, followed by the extension of different combinations of fingers.

Keywords

Gesture Bike Mobile interaction Sports 

Notes

Acknowledgement

The authors want to thank Floris Ciprian Dinu for his valuable contribution to this work.

References

  1. 1.
    Angelini L, Baumgartner J, Carrino F, Carrino S, Caon M, Khaled OA, Sauer J, Lalanne D, Mugellini E, Sonderegger A (2016) A comparison of three interaction modalities in the car: gestures, voice and touch. In: Actes de la 28ième conférence francophone sur l’Interaction Homme-Machine, October 2016. ACM, pp 188–196Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Wolf K, Naumann A, Rohs M, Müller J (2011) A taxonomy of microinteractions: Defining microgestures based on ergonomic and scenario-dependent requirements. In: IFIP conference on human-computer interaction, September 2011. Springer, Heidelberg, pp 559–575Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Marshall J, Tennent P (2013) Mobile interaction does not exist. In: CHI 2013 extended abstracts on human factors in computing systems, April 2013. ACM, pp 2069–2078Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    de Waard D, Westerhuis F, Lewis-Evans B (2015) More screen operation than calling: the results of observing cyclists’ behaviour while using mobile phones. Accid Anal Prev 76:42–48CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Marshall J, Dancu A, Mueller FF (2016) Interaction in motion: designing truly mobile interaction. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM conference on designing interactive systems, June 2016. ACM, pp 215–228Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Rowland D, Flintham M, Oppermann L, Marshall J, Chamberlain A, Koleva B, Benford S, Perez C (2009) Ubikequitous computing: designing interactive experiences for cyclists. In: Proceedings of the 11th international conference on human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services, September 2009. ACM, p 21Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dancu A, Vechev V, Ünlüer AA, Nilson S, Nygren O, Eliasson S, Barjonet JE, Marshall J, Fjeld M (2015) Gesture bike: examining projection surfaces and turn signal systems for urban cycling. In: Proceedings of the 2015 international conference on interactive tabletops & surfaces, November 2015. ACM, pp 151–159Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Matassa A, Rapp A, Simeoni R (2013) Wearable accessories for cycling: tracking memories in urban spaces. In: Proceedings of the 2013 ACM conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing adjunct publication, September 2013. ACM, pp 415–424Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kräuter N, Lösing S, Bauer, G, Schwering L, Seuter M (2016) Supporting safety in cycling groups using LED-augmented gestures. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM international joint conference on pervasive and ubiquitous computing: adjunct, September 2016. ACM, 889–892Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Morris MR, Wobbrock JO, Wilson AD (2010) Understanding users’ preferences for surface gestures. In: Proceedings of graphics interface 2010, May 2010. Canadian Information Processing Society, pp 261–268Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ruiz J, Li Y, Lank E (2011) User-defined motion gestures for mobile interaction. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, May 2011. ACM, pp 197–206Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Angelini L, Carrino F, Carrino S, Caon M, Khaled OA, Baumgartner J, Sonderegger A, Lalanne D, Mugellini E (2014) Gesturing on the steering wheel: a user-elicited taxonomy. In: Proceedings of the 6th international conference on automotive user interfaces and interactive vehicular applications, September 2014. ACM, pp 1–8Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hochleitner W, Sellitsch D, Rammer D, Aschauer A, Mattheiss E, Regal G, Tscheligi M (2017) No need to stop: exploring smartphone interaction paradigms while cycling. In: Proceedings of the 16th international conference on mobile and ubiquitous multimedia, November 2017. ACM, pp 177–187Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Tan Y, Yoon SH, Ramani K (2017) BikeGesture: user elicitation and performance of micro hand gesture as input for cycling. In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI conference extended abstracts, May 2017. ACM, pp 2147–2154Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Vechev V, Dancu A, Perrault ST, Roy Q, Fjeld M, Zhao S (2018) MoveSpace: on-body athletic interaction for running and cycling. In: Proceedings of the 2018 international conference on advanced visual interfaces, May 2018. ACM, p 28Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Morris MR, Danielescu A, Drucker S, Fisher D, Lee B, Wobbrock JO (2014) Reducing legacy bias in gesture elicitation studies. Interactions 21(3):40–45CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of Applied Sciences and Arts Western SwitzerlandFribourgSwitzerland
  2. 2.Scott Sports SAGivisiezSwitzerland

Personalised recommendations