Abstract
When computers entered our workplaces and other areas of our everyday life, many of the opportunities to use our physical abilities diminished. The macromonotony of large movements in, e.g., line production has become the micromonotony of small movements in computer-based office work. At the same time, looking at our everyday activities that do not involve technology, we naturally make use of our perception and motor abilities and continually interact with our surroundings. Our research has thus focused on achieving similar fluidness in our interactions with the digital world. While traditional desktop work usually involves controlling computers by pressing buttons, dropping menus, and sliding bars, we invite users to act with their physical surroundings, i.e., furniture embodied as handles to actions in the digital world. Based on our research on peripheral embodied interaction through smart furniture and insights from related research, we provide a conceptual overview of the seemingly minor, yet accumulatively powerful, benefits that this interaction style can provide as additional input dimension in desktop settings.
Keywords
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution.
Buying options
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Learn about institutional subscriptionsNotes
- 1.
As metaphor is largely dependent on culture, their underlying meaning may largely vary across cultures (e.g., progress is right and future is ahead are primarily true for Western countries).
References
Bakker, S., Antle, A., & van den Hoven, E. (2011). Embodied metaphors in tangible interaction design. Personal Ubiquitous Computer, 16, 433–449.
Bardram, J. (2009). Activity-based computing for medical work in hospitals. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 16, 10.
Barr, P., Biddle, R., & Noble, J. (2002). A taxonomy of user-interface metaphors. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI-NZ Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction (SIGCHI-NZ ’02) (pp. 25–30). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
Buxton, W., & Myers, B. (1986). A study in two-handed input. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’86) (pp. 321–326). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
Cheng, K. Y., Liang, R. H., Chen, B. Y., et al. (2010). iCon: Utilizing everyday objects as additional, auxiliary and instant tabletop controllers. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’10) (pp. 1155–1164). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
Chewar, C. M., McCrickard, D. S., Ndiwalana, A., et al. (2002). Secondary task display attributes—Optimizing visualizations for cognitive task suitability and interference avoidance. In Symposium on Data Visualization (VISSYM ’02) (pp. 165–171). Aire-la-Ville, Switzerland: Eurographics Association.
Czerwinski, M., Horvitz, E., & Wilhite, S. (2004). A diary study of task switching and interruptions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’04) (pp. 175–182). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
Djajadiningrat, T., Matthews, B., & Stienstra, M. (2007). Easy doesn’t do it: Skill and expression in tangible aesthetics. Personal Ubiquitous Computer, 11, 657–676.
Dourish, P. (2001). Where the action is: The foundations of embodied interaction. Cambridge: MIT Press.
Edge, D. (2008). Tangible user interfaces for peripheral interaction. Cambridge: University of Cambridge.
Edge, D., & Blackwell, A. (2009). Peripheral tangible interaction by analytic design. In Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction (TEI ’09) (pp. 69–76). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
Finstad, K., Bink, M., McDaniel, M., & Einstein, G. (2006). Breaks and task switches in prospective memory. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 20, 705–712.
Fishkin, K. (2004). A taxonomy for and analysis of tangible interfaces. Personal Ubiquitous Computer, 8, 347–358.
González, V., & Mark, G. (2004). Constant, constant, multi-tasking craziness: Managing multiple working spheres. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’04) (pp. 113–120). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
Hausen, D., Boring, S., & Greenberg, S. (2013a). The unadorned desk: Exploiting the physical space around a display as an input canvas. In Proceedings of the 14th IFIP TC13 Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT ’13) (pp. 140–158). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Hausen, D., Boring, S., Lueling, C., et al. (2012). StaTube: Facilitating state management in instant messaging systems. In TEI 2012 (pp. 283–290).
Hausen, D., & Butz, A. (2011). Extending interaction to the periphery. In Embodied Interaction: Theory and Practice in HCI, Workshop at CHI 2011.
Hausen, D., Richter, H., Hemme, A., & Butz, A. (2013b). Comparing input modalities for peripheral interaction: A case study on peripheral music control. In Proceedings of the 14th IFIP TC13 Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT ’13) (pp. 162–179).
Hausen, D., Tabard, A., Von Thermann, A. et al. (2014). Evaluating peripheral interaction. In Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction (TEI ’14) (pp. 21–28). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
Hausen, D., Wagner, C., Boring, S., & Butz, A. (2013c). Comparing modalities and feedback for peripheral interaction. In Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’13) (pp. 1263–1268).
Huynh, K., Stepp, C. E., White, L. W. et al. (2010). Finding a feature on a 3D object through single-digit haptic exploration. In: IEEE Haptics Symposium. IEEE, pp. 83–89.
Iqbal, S., & Horvitz, E. (2007). Disruption and recovery of computing tasks: Field study, analysis, and directions. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’07) (pp. 677–686). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
Jin, J., & Dabbish, L. (2009). Self-interruption on the computer: A typology of discretionary task interleaving. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’09) (pp. 1799–1808). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
Karam, M., Schraefel, M. C. (2005a). A study on the use of semaphoric gestures to support secondary task interactions. In Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’05) (pp. 1961–1964). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
Karam, M., & Schraefel, M. C. (2005b). A taxonomy of gestures in human computer interaction.
Klemmer, S. R., Hartmann, B., & Takayama, L. (2006). How bodies matter: Five themes for interaction design. In Proceedings of the 6th Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS ’06) (pp. 140–149). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
Lakoff, G., & Johnson, M. (1980). Metaphors we live by. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Lederman, S. (1987). Hand movements: A window into haptic object recognition. Cognitive Psychology, 19, 342–368.
Lee, J. (2010). In search of a natural gesture. XRDS Crossroads, 16, 9.
Levine, J. (2002). Non-exercise activity thermogenesis (NEAT). Best Practice & Research Clinical Endocrinology & Metabolism, 16, 679–702.
MacIntyre, B., Mynatt, E., Voida, S., et al. (2001). Support for multitasking and background awareness using interactive peripheral displays. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST ’01) (pp. 41–50). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
McCrady, S., & Levine, J. (2009). Sedentariness at work: How much do we really sit? Obesity (Silver Spring), 17, 2103–2105.
Newell, A., & Rosenbloom, P. (1981). Mechanisms of skill acquisition and the law of practice. In Cognitive Skills and Their Acquisition. USA: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Norman, D. A. (2002). The design of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.
O’Sullivan, D., & Igoe, T. (2004). Physical computing: Sensing and controlling the physical world with computers. Thomson.
Olivera, F., García-Herranz, M., Haya, P., & Llinás, P. (2011). Do not disturb: Physical interfaces for parallel peripheral interactions. In Proceedings of the 13th IFIP TC 13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT ’11) pp. 479–486.
Owen, N., Bauman, A., & Brown, W. (2009). Too much sitting: A novel and important predictor of chronic disease risk? British Journal of Sports Medicine, 43, 80–81.
Probst, K., Lindlbauer, D., Greindl, P., et al. (2013). Rotating, tilting, bouncing: Using an interactive chair to promote activity in office environments. In Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’13) (pp. 79–84). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
Probst, K., Lindlbauer, D., Haller, M., et al. (2014a). A chair as ubiquitous input device: Exploring semaphoric chair gestures for focused and peripheral interaction. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’14) (pp. 4097–4106). New York, NY, USA: ACM.
Probst, K., Lindlbauer, D., Haller, M., et al. (2014b). Exploring the potential of peripheral interaction through smart furniture. In Peripheral Interaction: Shaping the Research and Design Space, Workshop at CHI 2014.
Scarr, J., Cockburn, A., & Gutwin, C. (2012). Supporting and exploiting spatial memory in user interfaces. In Foundations and Trends in Human–Computer Interaction (pp. 1–84).
Scott, S. (2004). Optimal feedback control and the neural basis of volitional motor control. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5, 532–546.
Shneiderman, B. (1998). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human-computer-interaction.
Silva, M., & Bowman, D. (2009). Body-based interaction for desktop games. In Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA ’09) (pp. 4249–4254).
Smith, D., Irby, C., Kimball, R., et al. (1982). Designing the star user interface. Byte, 7, 242–282.
Ullmer, B., & Ishii, H. (2000). Emerging frameworks for tangible user interfaces. IBM System Journal, 39, 915–931.
Weiser, M. (1996). Designing calm technology. Powergrid J.
Weiss, P., & Jeannerod, M. (1998). Getting a grasp on coordination. News in Physiological Sciences, 13, 70–75.
Wickens, C., & McCarley, J. (2007). Applied attention theory. Boca Raton: CRC Press.
Williams, L., Huang, J., & Bargh, J. (2009). The scaffolded mind: Higher mental processes are grounded in early experience of the physical world. European Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 1257–1267.
Wozny, L. (1989). The application of metaphor, analgoy, and conceptural models in computer systems. Interacting with Computers, 1, 273–283.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2016 Springer International Publishing Switzerland
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Probst, K. (2016). Peripheral Interaction in Desktop Computing: Why It’s Worth Stepping Beyond Traditional Mouse and Keyboard. In: Bakker, S., Hausen, D., Selker, T. (eds) Peripheral Interaction. Human–Computer Interaction Series. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29523-7_9
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-29523-7_9
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-319-29521-3
Online ISBN: 978-3-319-29523-7
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)