Talking Faces in Lab and Field Trials

A View on Evaluation Settings and User Involvement Results of Avatar Based User Interaction Techniques in Three Ambient Assisted Living Projects
  • Miroslav SiliEmail author
  • Jan Bobeth
  • Emanuel Sandner
  • Sten Hanke
  • Stephanie Schwarz
  • Christopher Mayer
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9193)


In recent years, there has been an increasing interest in Ambient Assisted Living technology to support older adults. Research and industry are working jointly on reliable and suitable solutions to help older adults to remain healthy and safe while living independently. Appropriate interaction methods play an important role for the acceptance of such supporting systems. Today, solutions mainly rely on common and well-evaluated interaction techniques such as TV remotes or touch screens to enhance the usability. Projects presented in this work are based on the same interaction techniques, but additionally enrich the interaction experience with a real-time, empathic virtual assistance avatar. In this paper, we present evaluation settings and user involvement results acquired from three different Ambient Assisted Living projects focusing on avatar-based user interaction. Our results show that avatar-based interaction in the Ambient Assisted Living context is very well applicable, especially when combined with speech recognition.


Avatar User interaction Ambient assisted living Multimodality 



The project AALuis was co-funded by the AAL Joint Programme (REF. AAL-2010-3-070) and the following National Authorities and R&D programs in Austria, Germany and The Netherlands: BMVIT, program benefit, FFG (AT), BMBF (DE) and ZonMw (NL).

The ibi project was co-funded by the benefit programme of the Federal Ministry for Transport, Innovation and Technology (BMVIT) of Austria.

The Miraculous-Life project is co-funded by the European Commission under the 7th Framework Programme (Grant Agreement No 611421).


  1. 1.
    Mayer, C., Morandell, M., Gira, M., Sili, M., Petzold, M., Fagel, S., Schüler, C., Bobeth, J., Schmehl, S.: User interfaces for older adults. In: Stephanidis, C., Antona, M. (eds.) UAHCI 2013, Part II. LNCS, vol. 8010, pp. 142–150. Springer, Heidelberg (2013)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Sili, M., Mayer, C., Morandell, M., Gira, M., Petzold, M.: A practical solution for the automatic generation of user interfaces – what are the benefits of a practical solution for the automatic generation of user interfaces? In: Kurosu, M. (ed.) HCI 2014, Part I. LNCS, vol. 8510, pp. 445–456. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Mayer, C., Zimmermann, G., Grguric, A., Alexandersson, J., Sili, M., Strobbe, C.: A comparative study of systems for the design of flexible user interfaces. J. Ambient Intell. Smart Environ. (2014, in press)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Mayer, C., Morandell, M., Gira, M., Hackbarth, K., Petzold, M., Fagel, S.: AALuis, a user interface layer that brings device independence to users of AAL systems. In: Miesenberger, K., Karshmer, A., Penaz, P., Zagler, W. (eds.) ICCHP 2012, Part I. LNCS, vol. 7382, pp. 650–657. Springer, Heidelberg (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Hanke, S., Sandner, E., Sili, M., Hochgatterer, A., Ben Moussa, M., Christodoulou, E., Trindadem, P., Samara, G., Andreou, P., Wingskölgen, C., Van Der Aa, N., Stockloew, C.: Virtual support partner: a real-time, emphatic elder care system that attends to the daily activity and safety needs of the elder at home, during his normal daily life. In: Broader, Bigger, Better – AAL solutions for Europe - Proceedings of the AAL Forum 2014 Bucharest (in press)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H.: Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. Wiley, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Nielsen, J, Clemmensen, T, Yssing, C.: Getting access to what goes on in people’s heads? - reflections on the think-aloud technique. In: NordiCHI 2002 (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lewis, C., Rieman, J.: Task-Centered User Interface Design: A Practical Introduction. University of Colorado, Boulder (1993)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Brooke, J.: SUS: a quick and dirty usability scale. In: Jordan, P.W., Weerdmeester, B., Thomas, A., Mclelland, I.L. (eds.) Usability Evaluation in Industry. Taylor & Francis, London (1996)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wharton, C., Rieman, J., Lewis, C., Polson, P.: The cognitive walkthrough method: a practitioner’s guide. In: Nielsen, J., Mack, R.L. (eds.) Usability Inspection Methods, pp. 105–140. Wiley, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nielsen, J., Molich, R.: Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Empowering people. ACM (1990)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • Miroslav Sili
    • 1
    Email author
  • Jan Bobeth
    • 2
  • Emanuel Sandner
    • 1
  • Sten Hanke
    • 1
  • Stephanie Schwarz
    • 2
  • Christopher Mayer
    • 1
  1. 1.Health and Environment Department, Biomedical SystemsAIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbHViennaAustria
  2. 2.Innovation Systems, Technology ExperienceAIT Austrian Institute of Technology GmbHViennaAustria

Personalised recommendations