0 1 8

Y 2
U L
• J
Week 2 | Lecture session 2
IGN
Interaction paradigms in E S
N D
Interaction
A
Model C TIO
E R
IN T
L•
TE
A CSS-MOOCs supported by

N P National Programme on Technology Enhanced Learning (NPTEL)

Abhishek Shrivastava, PhD

Department of Design IIT Guwahati
 Quick recap • Interaction models
0 1 8
– Operational descriptions of how interaction
Y 2
U L
proceeds
• J
– Two main categories
I G N
E
• Based on activitiesS
N D
– (1) Instructing, (2) conversing, (3) manipulating and

T IOnavigating, (4) exploring and browsing

A C
ER • Based on objects

IN T – Use of interface metaphors

L• • Interaction models are not mutually

TE
N P exclusive
 Evaluating • Can be evaluated across three
0 1 8
interaction dimensions Y 2
U L
models – Descriptive power • J
I G
• Can it help describing
N
a significant range of
E S
D
existing interfaces?
N
IO
– Evaluative
T
power

A C• Can it help assess multiple design alternatives?

ER
IN T – Generative power

L• • Can it help designers create new designs?

TE
N P
Beaudouin, M. Designing interaction, not interfaces. AVI '04, May 25-28, 2004, Gallipoli (LE), Italy
 Interaction • A high level conceptual understanding of
0 1 8
paradigm interactions Y 2
U L
– A particular way of thinking about interactions • J
I
– Help designers orientG N
towards the nature of
interactions E
S
N D
– HelpO
T I imagine future interactions; to be

A C innovative and creative when thinking about

ER technology
IN T
L•
TE
N P
Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H. (2007). Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction.
 Ubiquitous • Proposed by Mark Weiser in 1991
0 1 8
computing • Computers which disappear into Y the
2
U L
(Ubicomp) environment • J
I G N
Interaction E S
• Invisibly enhance the world around the
paradigm N D
users recreate an artificial world around
T IO
A Cthe users
E R
IN T
L•
TE
N P
 Ubiquitous • A.k.a. the third paradigm
0 1 8
computing Y 2
– 1st where many users used a single mainframe
U L
(Ubicomp) computer
• J
G
– 2nd where each user used
I N a personal computer

Interaction – 3rd - Ubicomp:E

S
Where many users use many
paradigm N
computers
D
(in measures of hundreds) of different
T IO
A C sizes spread across their environment

ER
IN T
L•
TE
N P
 Ubiquitous • Users need not to be aware of these
0 1 8
computing ‘invisible computers’ Y 2
U L
(Ubicomp) • J
• Users use ‘invisible computers’ without

I
thinking about themG N
Interaction E S
paradigm N D
– Use enhances human capabilities
– T IO
Seamless integration with the physical
A C
ER world
IN T
L•
TE
N P
 Ubiquitous • Weiser’s “Tabs, Pads and Boards” setup
0 1 8
computing • Three classes of devices Y 2
U L
(Ubicomp) •
– Inch size devices - 6 inches Jand smaller
IG N
Interaction E S
– Foot size devices - 6 to 18 inches
paradigm N
– Yard size
D
devices - 18inch to 6ft
T IO
A C
ER
IN T
L•
TE
N P
Ebling, M.R., Baker, M. Pervasive tabs, pads and boards: Are we there yet. IEEE CS (2012).
 Ubiquitous • Weiser’s “Tabs, Pads and Boards” setup
0 1 8
computing Y
• Inch size devices - 6 inches and smaller2
U L
(Ubicomp) – Tab: Smallest components, • Jcomputing
G N
capabilities, can Iidentify the bearer and
Interaction E S
paradigm N D
connect with each other
T IO
A C Present day
smartphone

E R
IN T
L•
TE
N P
Photo courtesy of https://bit.ly/2LXoE11
 Ubiquitous • Weiser’s “Tabs, Pads and Boards” setup
0 1 8
computing • Foot size devices - 6 to 18 inches Y 2
U L
(Ubicomp) •
– Pad: hybrid between paper* J and laptop,
I
‘scrap’ computers G N
which can be used and
Interaction E S
then left D
anywhere, connected with each
paradigm
IO N
C T
other and with tabs
R A
TE
• IN Present day
tablets,

E L ebook

P T readers,
etc.
N
Photo courtesy of https://www.theregister.co.uk/2007/03/09/emanotec_medtab_pad/
 Ubiquitous • Weiser’s “Tabs, Pads and Boards” setup
0 1 8
computing • Yard size devices - 18inch to 6ft Y 2
U L
(Ubicomp) J
– Board: Bigger displays to• serve different
IG N
purposes- collaborative space, broadcast
Interaction E S
paradigm N D
messaging, screens to visualise
T IO
information as charts, video screens etc.
A C
E R
IN T Present day interactive

L• boards

TE
N P
Photo courtesy of https://bit.ly/2uYxhlH
 Ubiquitous • Weiser’s “Tabs, Pads and Boards” setup
0 1 8
computing 2
– Devices know where they are andYwith
U L
(Ubicomp) whom they are • J
IG
– Communication over
Nlocal computing
Interaction E S
power D
paradigm
IO N
•THelp users stay mobile and access
A C
ER information
IN T
L• • Size of the device
TE
N P
 Ubiquitous • Mark Weiser’s vision
0 1 8
computing – Devices stay Ubiquitous Y 2
U L
(Ubicomp) • J
– Devices fade into the background

I G N
– Devices become environmental then personal
Interaction E S
paradigm N D
• “… a user walks into the office, use the device

T IO
and then leave it behind for the next person.”

A
• CStrong influence on current day
ER
IN T interactive system design
L•
TE
N P
 Influences • Pervasive computing
0 1 8
Y 2
– Users accessing and interacting with information
Interaction any time any place through theJ U L
seamless
paradigms inspired integration of technologyN
•
by Ubiquitous
S IG
computing D E
– Technology products are referred as ‘smart
(Ubicomp)
IO N
devices’ or ‘information appliances’ e.g. smart

C T
phones, smart thermostats, smart cooking

R A appliances including ovens and refrigerators etc.

TE
• IN – Emphasis on ‘information’

E L
P T
N
Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H. (2007). Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction.
 Influences • Wearable computing
0 1 8
– Approach “embed technologies in the Y 2
U L
Interaction environment”
• J
paradigms inspired
by Ubiquitous
–
I G N
Clothes people wear, accessories they sport e.g.

computing glasses, belts,E S wrist watches and

jewellery,
(Ubicomp) bands, N
D
bangles, caps and hats, bags, shoes etc.
T I O
A C
E R
IN T
L•
TE
N P
 Influences • Tangible user interfaces or Tangible bits
0 1 8
(Ishii and Ullmer, 1997), augmented Y 2
U L
Interaction reality, and physical/virtual • J interaction
paradigms inspired
by Ubiquitous G N
– Approach: IntegrateIcomputational
computing E S
(Ubicomp) N D
augmentations into the physical world

IO
– Digital
T information gets combined with physical

A C objects and surfaces

E R
IN T – Virtual representations are mapped to physical

L• objects and surfaces

TE
N P
Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H. (2007). Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction.
 Attentive • Interactive device or environment
0 1 8
environments Y
(devices embedded in the environment) 2
and U L
• J
anticipates what their users want to do,
transparent
IG N
and accordingly present interactions
computing E S
• The control
N D over the interactions is
T IO
shared between the user and the
Interaction
A C
paradigm
E R interactive device or environment
IN T
L•
TE
N P
Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H. (2007). Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction.
 Attentive • Expression or gesture ‘sensing’ interfaces
0 1 8
environments – Use of ‘non-obtrusive’ sensor to detectY 2
users’
and U L
current state and needs
• J
transparent e.g. a camera can detectN
–
IG where the user is
S helping system to decide
computing looking on theE screen
what toN
D
display accordingly
IO
TEmotion detection
Interaction
A
–C
paradigm
E R
IN T
L•
TE
N P
 Attentive • Implicit interactions- interactive product
0 1 8
environments knows what does the user need Y 2
and U L
• J
• Drawn on analogies from human-human
transparent interactions IGN
computing E S
N D
TIO
Interaction
A C
paradigm
ER
IN T
L•
TE
N P
 Attentive • IBM’s blue eyes technology
0 1 8
environments – Hardware configuration involves Y
a 2
and U L
•
central system unit (CSU) J
and data
transparent
IG N
acquisition unit (DAU)
computing E S
N D
T IO
Interaction
A C
paradigm
ER
IN T
L•
TE
N P
 Attentive • CSU and DAU are connected via bluetooth
0 1 8
environments • DAU records and monitor users’ Y 2
and U L
physiological state • J
transparent
• CSU analyses inputs IG N
from DAU and initiates
computing E S
appropriateDsystem responses
IO N
Interaction C T
paradigm R A
TE
• IN
E L
P T
N
 Computer- • Tools extends human capabilities
0 1 8
as-tool Y
• Computers are sophisticated tools
2
U L
J
• e.g. Direct manipulation•and WIMP
Interaction
IG N
paradigm (Windows IconsSMenus Pointers) based
D E
IO N
interfaces

C T
R A
TE
• IN
E L
P T
N
Beaudouin, M. Designing interaction, not interfaces. AVI '04, May 25-28, 2004, Gallipoli (LE), Italy
 Computer- • Includes anthropomorphic means of
0 1 8
as-partner communication in the computer Y 2
U L
• J
– Communications based on human characteristics
Interaction
IG
• E.g. natural language
Nbased interactions,
paradigm
E S
agent based
N D interactions, speech based
T IO
interfaces
A C
E R
IN T
L•
TE
N P
 Computer- • As a medium of communication enabling
0 1 8
as-medium humans to talk to each other Y 2
U L
•
– At the same time (Synchronous) J
Interaction G N
• Audio or video (or Iboth) conferencing
paradigm
applications,E
S
N D avatar based interactions

T I O
involving multiple users as in games,

A C interactive classes etc.

E R – At different times (Asynchronous)

IN T
L• • E-mail, message boards and forums etc.

TE
N P
 Summary • A general understanding of interaction
0 1 8
paradigm Y 2
U L
Interaction
• J
– High level conceptual understanding of
paradigm
IG N
interactions; a way of thinking about the
E S
interactions; significance for designers
N D
T IO
• Ubiquitous computing (Ubicomp)
A C
– What is it?
ER
IN T – What is its’ genesis?

L• – What is its current stage? Did we reach close to

TE
N P Mark Weiser’s vision?
 Summary • Influences of Ubicomp
0 1 8
– Pervasive computing Y 2
U L
Interaction – Wearable computing
• J
paradigm
IG N
– Tangible bits, physical-virtual interactions,
E
augmented reality
S
N D
T IO
A C
ER
IN T
L•
TE
N P
 Summary • Attentive environments and transparent
0 1 8
computing Y 2
U L
Interaction
• J
– IBM’s BlueEyes technology proposal
paradigm
IG N
– Sensor detecting physiological state and needs of
E S
the users
N D
IO
– Interaction
T
based on emotion sensing

A C
– Architecture including DAU and CSU
ER
IN T
L•
TE
N P
 Summary • Alternate explanations of interaction
0 1 8
paradigms Y 2
U L
Interaction – Computer-as-tool • J
paradigm
I
– Computer-as-partner GN
E S
D
– Computer-as-medium
N
T IO
A C
ER
IN T
L•
TE
N P