Remote Control

12 Jul 2004 - 5:57pm
9 years ago
12 replies
484 reads
Thea
2004

I have been testing a touch screen remote (Marantz/Phillips) as part of my
research. Of the 100+ people that have done my experiments, only about 10
of them did not find divided attention an issue. They get very absrobed in
the small touch screen and have to be prompted to look at the TV screen to
do part of the task (setting VCR clock via on-screen menu).

However, the remote is very versatile if you have a lot of devices (eg home
theatre), especially high end devices with a lot of options. I do not find
divided attention an issue for me now that I am used to the thing.

The reason they are configured by the experts is that they need to be.
Programming from existing remotes is reasonably simple but getting into all
the other options and re-designing the whole system to suit you including
jumps, macors, icons, etc is far too complex and time consuming for the
average user. Check out remotecentral.com if you want to see what the real
remote geeks get up to!

Thea

At 10:34 AM 12/07/2004 -0700, d|b wrote:
>Michael,
>
>I have only one question for you: have you ever used a remote control
>equipped with a touch panel? There are several available on the
>market, including the (now discontinued) model from Microsoft that I
>helped design. In fact, there is a model from Philips that has a very
>nice color display. If you have not had the displeasure of using one,
>I would suggest that you give it a try and then report back about
>whether you find divided attention to be an issue. My own experience
>is all of the proof that I need.
>
>d|b
>
>On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 12:41:05 +0100, Michael Bartlett
><michael.bartlett at workshare.com> wrote:
> > >In any case, as has been pointed out several times already, two
> screens are
> >
> > >not, in this case, better than one. As soon as there is more than a single
> > >display, the user is forced to continually shift their locus of attention.
> >
> > I don't believe this has been proven. There is a big difference between a
> > one and two-screen approach in this instance that has not been considered
> > and that is the advantage that the screen in your hand (remote) can be
> touch
> > sensitive.
> >
> > Consider a "My Favourite Channel" interaction. For the sake of the example
> > lets lay your favourite channels out in plain old text running down the
> > screen as such:
> >
> > Sky Sports 1
> > eXtreme Sports Channel
> > Cartoon Network
> > BBC 1
> > Sky Movies
> > BBC News 24
> > Sky Sports 2
> > The Playboy Channel
> >
> > So to navigate these with a remote in your hand that does not have a
> > touch-sensitive screen you would need to press the down button 4 times to
> > get to "Sky Movies". With a touch-sensitive screen it would require a
> single
> > touch.
> >
> > Of course you could number "My Favourites" and choose them like you would
> > speed dial on a phone (hold down 1 - for Favourite Channel #1).
> >
> > Personally I would prefer a colour touch screen with the icons (or
> logos) of
> > my favourite channels layed both across and down the screen - once again a
> > touch screen would bring considerable benefit to quickly selecting the
> > channel whereas now you would need to navigate both down and across to
> > access these channels using the "screen in front of you".
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Interaction Design Discussion List
> > discuss at interactiondesigners.com
> > --
> > to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
> http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
> > --
> > Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
> > --
> > Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements
> already)
> > http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
> > --
> > http://interactiondesigners.com/
> >
>_______________________________________________
>Interaction Design Discussion List
>discuss at interactiondesigners.com
>--
>to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
>http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
>--
>Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
>--
>Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
>http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
>--
>http://interactiondesigners.com/

Thea Blackler
PhD Candidate
P/T Lecturer in Industrial Design
School of Design and Built Environment
Queensland University of Technology
CRICOS No 00213J.

Comments

13 Jul 2004 - 6:30am
Michael Bartlett
2004

I used to use my Palm Pilot and OmniRemote and perhaps had some problems
with divided attention - but not for the *more common tasks* such as
changing channels, switching "modes", and the benefit that I got by being
able to control my AMP, VCR, DVD Player and TV as well as set cross-device
macros far outweighed the occasions where I did in fact need to interact
with both the TV and the display on the remote. I mean how often do you set
the VCR clock vs pressing three button combinations to change channels or
picking up multiple remotes to control different devices?

-----Original Message-----
From: Thea [mailto:a.blackler at qut.edu.au]
Sent: 12 July 2004 23:58
To: d|b; Michael Bartlett
Cc: discuss-interactiondesigners.com at lists.interactiondesigners.com
Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Remote Control

I have been testing a touch screen remote (Marantz/Phillips) as part of my
research. Of the 100+ people that have done my experiments, only about 10 of
them did not find divided attention an issue. They get very absrobed in the
small touch screen and have to be prompted to look at the TV screen to do
part of the task (setting VCR clock via on-screen menu).

However, the remote is very versatile if you have a lot of devices (eg home
theatre), especially high end devices with a lot of options. I do not find
divided attention an issue for me now that I am used to the thing.

The reason they are configured by the experts is that they need to be.
Programming from existing remotes is reasonably simple but getting into all
the other options and re-designing the whole system to suit you including
jumps, macors, icons, etc is far too complex and time consuming for the
average user. Check out remotecentral.com if you want to see what the real
remote geeks get up to!

Thea

At 10:34 AM 12/07/2004 -0700, d|b wrote:
>Michael,
>
>I have only one question for you: have you ever used a remote control
>equipped with a touch panel? There are several available on the market,
>including the (now discontinued) model from Microsoft that I helped
>design. In fact, there is a model from Philips that has a very nice
>color display. If you have not had the displeasure of using one, I
>would suggest that you give it a try and then report back about whether
>you find divided attention to be an issue. My own experience is all of
>the proof that I need.
>
>d|b
>
>On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 12:41:05 +0100, Michael Bartlett
><michael.bartlett at workshare.com> wrote:
> > >In any case, as has been pointed out several times already, two
> screens are
> >
> > >not, in this case, better than one. As soon as there is more than a
> > >single display, the user is forced to continually shift their locus of
attention.
> >
> > I don't believe this has been proven. There is a big difference
> > between a one and two-screen approach in this instance that has not
> > been considered and that is the advantage that the screen in your
> > hand (remote) can be
> touch
> > sensitive.
> >
> > Consider a "My Favourite Channel" interaction. For the sake of the
> > example lets lay your favourite channels out in plain old text
> > running down the screen as such:
> >
> > Sky Sports 1
> > eXtreme Sports Channel
> > Cartoon Network
> > BBC 1
> > Sky Movies
> > BBC News 24
> > Sky Sports 2
> > The Playboy Channel
> >
> > So to navigate these with a remote in your hand that does not have a
> > touch-sensitive screen you would need to press the down button 4
> > times to get to "Sky Movies". With a touch-sensitive screen it would
> > require a
> single
> > touch.
> >
> > Of course you could number "My Favourites" and choose them like you
> > would speed dial on a phone (hold down 1 - for Favourite Channel #1).
> >
> > Personally I would prefer a colour touch screen with the icons (or
> logos) of
> > my favourite channels layed both across and down the screen - once
> > again a touch screen would bring considerable benefit to quickly
> > selecting the channel whereas now you would need to navigate both
> > down and across to access these channels using the "screen in front of
you".
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Interaction Design Discussion List
> > discuss at interactiondesigners.com
> > --
> > to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
> http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
> > --
> > Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
> > --
> > Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements
> already)
> > http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
> > --
> > http://interactiondesigners.com/
> >
>_______________________________________________
>Interaction Design Discussion List
>discuss at interactiondesigners.com
>--
>to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
>http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
>--
>Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
>--
>Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements
>already) http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
>--
>http://interactiondesigners.com/

Thea Blackler
PhD Candidate
P/T Lecturer in Industrial Design
School of Design and Built Environment
Queensland University of Technology
CRICOS No 00213J.

13 Jul 2004 - 7:10am
Dave Malouf
2005

While I can see advantages for both touch screen and non-touchscreen
remotes, I can't get past that human factors aspect of the non-touchscreen
remote, which is tactile response. Shapes of buttons help users find what
they are looking for, no?

Why can't a remove have both tactile and non-tactile areas? For channel
surfing there could be both areas (an up/down) toggle that is tactile, and
then a screen area as was described by someone that allowed you to scroll
easily to a channel and then use a touch screen to select it right away.

Eh?

-- dave

-----Original Message-----
From:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.
com] On Behalf Of Michael Bartlett
Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 7:30 AM
To: discuss-interactiondesigners.com at lists.interactiondesigners.com
Subject: RE: [ID Discuss] Remote Control

I used to use my Palm Pilot and OmniRemote and perhaps had some problems
with divided attention - but not for the *more common tasks* such as
changing channels, switching "modes", and the benefit that I got by being
able to control my AMP, VCR, DVD Player and TV as well as set cross-device
macros far outweighed the occasions where I did in fact need to interact
with both the TV and the display on the remote. I mean how often do you set
the VCR clock vs pressing three button combinations to change channels or
picking up multiple remotes to control different devices?

-----Original Message-----
From: Thea [mailto:a.blackler at qut.edu.au]
Sent: 12 July 2004 23:58
To: d|b; Michael Bartlett
Cc: discuss-interactiondesigners.com at lists.interactiondesigners.com
Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Remote Control

I have been testing a touch screen remote (Marantz/Phillips) as part of my
research. Of the 100+ people that have done my experiments, only about 10 of
them did not find divided attention an issue. They get very absrobed in the
small touch screen and have to be prompted to look at the TV screen to do
part of the task (setting VCR clock via on-screen menu).

However, the remote is very versatile if you have a lot of devices (eg home
theatre), especially high end devices with a lot of options. I do not find
divided attention an issue for me now that I am used to the thing.

The reason they are configured by the experts is that they need to be.
Programming from existing remotes is reasonably simple but getting into all
the other options and re-designing the whole system to suit you including
jumps, macors, icons, etc is far too complex and time consuming for the
average user. Check out remotecentral.com if you want to see what the real
remote geeks get up to!

Thea

At 10:34 AM 12/07/2004 -0700, d|b wrote:
>Michael,
>
>I have only one question for you: have you ever used a remote control
>equipped with a touch panel? There are several available on the market,
>including the (now discontinued) model from Microsoft that I helped
>design. In fact, there is a model from Philips that has a very nice
>color display. If you have not had the displeasure of using one, I
>would suggest that you give it a try and then report back about whether
>you find divided attention to be an issue. My own experience is all of
>the proof that I need.
>
>d|b
>
>On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 12:41:05 +0100, Michael Bartlett
><michael.bartlett at workshare.com> wrote:
> > >In any case, as has been pointed out several times already, two
> screens are
> >
> > >not, in this case, better than one. As soon as there is more than a
> > >single display, the user is forced to continually shift their locus of
attention.
> >
> > I don't believe this has been proven. There is a big difference
> > between a one and two-screen approach in this instance that has not
> > been considered and that is the advantage that the screen in your
> > hand (remote) can be
> touch
> > sensitive.
> >
> > Consider a "My Favourite Channel" interaction. For the sake of the
> > example lets lay your favourite channels out in plain old text
> > running down the screen as such:
> >
> > Sky Sports 1
> > eXtreme Sports Channel
> > Cartoon Network
> > BBC 1
> > Sky Movies
> > BBC News 24
> > Sky Sports 2
> > The Playboy Channel
> >
> > So to navigate these with a remote in your hand that does not have a
> > touch-sensitive screen you would need to press the down button 4
> > times to get to "Sky Movies". With a touch-sensitive screen it would
> > require a
> single
> > touch.
> >
> > Of course you could number "My Favourites" and choose them like you
> > would speed dial on a phone (hold down 1 - for Favourite Channel #1).
> >
> > Personally I would prefer a colour touch screen with the icons (or
> logos) of
> > my favourite channels layed both across and down the screen - once
> > again a touch screen would bring considerable benefit to quickly
> > selecting the channel whereas now you would need to navigate both
> > down and across to access these channels using the "screen in front of
you".
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Interaction Design Discussion List
> > discuss at interactiondesigners.com
> > --
> > to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
> http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
> > --
> > Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
> > --
> > Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements
> already)
> > http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
> > --
> > http://interactiondesigners.com/
> >
>_______________________________________________
>Interaction Design Discussion List
>discuss at interactiondesigners.com
>--
>to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
>http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
>--
>Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
>--
>Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements
>already) http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
>--
>http://interactiondesigners.com/

Thea Blackler
PhD Candidate
P/T Lecturer in Industrial Design
School of Design and Built Environment
Queensland University of Technology
CRICOS No 00213J.
_______________________________________________
Interaction Design Discussion List
discuss at interactiondesigners.com
--
to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
--
Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
--
Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
--
http://interactiondesigners.com/

13 Jul 2004 - 11:48am
drewbam
2004

Dave,

This is a great idea, and is already implemented by both the Philips
Pronto and the MS Take Control remotes. The MS remote has a roller for
channel selection and +/- and mute keys for volume control (these the
the most common tasks).

d|b

On Tue, 13 Jul 2004 08:10:58 -0400, David Heller
<dave at interactiondesigners.com> wrote:
> While I can see advantages for both touch screen and non-touchscreen
> remotes, I can't get past that human factors aspect of the non-touchscreen
> remote, which is tactile response. Shapes of buttons help users find what
> they are looking for, no?
>
> Why can't a remove have both tactile and non-tactile areas? For channel
> surfing there could be both areas (an up/down) toggle that is tactile, and
> then a screen area as was described by someone that allowed you to scroll
> easily to a channel and then use a touch screen to select it right away.
>
> Eh?
>
> -- dave
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From:
> discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> [mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.
> com] On Behalf Of Michael Bartlett
> Sent: Tuesday, July 13, 2004 7:30 AM
> To: discuss-interactiondesigners.com at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> Subject: RE: [ID Discuss] Remote Control
>
> I used to use my Palm Pilot and OmniRemote and perhaps had some problems
> with divided attention - but not for the *more common tasks* such as
> changing channels, switching "modes", and the benefit that I got by being
> able to control my AMP, VCR, DVD Player and TV as well as set cross-device
> macros far outweighed the occasions where I did in fact need to interact
> with both the TV and the display on the remote. I mean how often do you set
> the VCR clock vs pressing three button combinations to change channels or
> picking up multiple remotes to control different devices?
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Thea [mailto:a.blackler at qut.edu.au]
> Sent: 12 July 2004 23:58
> To: d|b; Michael Bartlett
> Cc: discuss-interactiondesigners.com at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> Subject: Re: [ID Discuss] Remote Control
>
> I have been testing a touch screen remote (Marantz/Phillips) as part of my
> research. Of the 100+ people that have done my experiments, only about 10 of
> them did not find divided attention an issue. They get very absrobed in the
> small touch screen and have to be prompted to look at the TV screen to do
> part of the task (setting VCR clock via on-screen menu).
>
> However, the remote is very versatile if you have a lot of devices (eg home
> theatre), especially high end devices with a lot of options. I do not find
> divided attention an issue for me now that I am used to the thing.
>
> The reason they are configured by the experts is that they need to be.
> Programming from existing remotes is reasonably simple but getting into all
> the other options and re-designing the whole system to suit you including
> jumps, macors, icons, etc is far too complex and time consuming for the
> average user. Check out remotecentral.com if you want to see what the real
> remote geeks get up to!
>
> Thea
>
> At 10:34 AM 12/07/2004 -0700, d|b wrote:
> >Michael,
> >
> >I have only one question for you: have you ever used a remote control
> >equipped with a touch panel? There are several available on the market,
> >including the (now discontinued) model from Microsoft that I helped
> >design. In fact, there is a model from Philips that has a very nice
> >color display. If you have not had the displeasure of using one, I
> >would suggest that you give it a try and then report back about whether
> >you find divided attention to be an issue. My own experience is all of
> >the proof that I need.
> >
> >d|b
> >
> >On Mon, 12 Jul 2004 12:41:05 +0100, Michael Bartlett
> ><michael.bartlett at workshare.com> wrote:
> > > >In any case, as has been pointed out several times already, two
> > screens are
> > >
> > > >not, in this case, better than one. As soon as there is more than a
> > > >single display, the user is forced to continually shift their locus of
> attention.
> > >
> > > I don't believe this has been proven. There is a big difference
> > > between a one and two-screen approach in this instance that has not
> > > been considered and that is the advantage that the screen in your
> > > hand (remote) can be
> > touch
> > > sensitive.
> > >
> > > Consider a "My Favourite Channel" interaction. For the sake of the
> > > example lets lay your favourite channels out in plain old text
> > > running down the screen as such:
> > >
> > > Sky Sports 1
> > > eXtreme Sports Channel
> > > Cartoon Network
> > > BBC 1
> > > Sky Movies
> > > BBC News 24
> > > Sky Sports 2
> > > The Playboy Channel
> > >
> > > So to navigate these with a remote in your hand that does not have a
> > > touch-sensitive screen you would need to press the down button 4
> > > times to get to "Sky Movies". With a touch-sensitive screen it would
> > > require a
> > single
> > > touch.
> > >
> > > Of course you could number "My Favourites" and choose them like you
> > > would speed dial on a phone (hold down 1 - for Favourite Channel #1).
> > >
> > > Personally I would prefer a colour touch screen with the icons (or
> > logos) of
> > > my favourite channels layed both across and down the screen - once
> > > again a touch screen would bring considerable benefit to quickly
> > > selecting the channel whereas now you would need to navigate both
> > > down and across to access these channels using the "screen in front of
> you".
> > >
> > >
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Interaction Design Discussion List
> > > discuss at interactiondesigners.com
> > > --
> > > to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
> > http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
> > > --
> > > Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
> > > --
> > > Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements
> > already)
> > > http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
> > > --
> > > http://interactiondesigners.com/
> > >
> >_______________________________________________
> >Interaction Design Discussion List
> >discuss at interactiondesigners.com
> >--
> >to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
> >http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
> >--
> >Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
> >--
> >Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements
> >already) http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
> >--
> >http://interactiondesigners.com/
>
> Thea Blackler
> PhD Candidate
> P/T Lecturer in Industrial Design
> School of Design and Built Environment
> Queensland University of Technology
> CRICOS No 00213J.
> _______________________________________________
> Interaction Design Discussion List
> discuss at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
> http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
> http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
> --
> http://interactiondesigners.com/
>
> _______________________________________________
> Interaction Design Discussion List
> discuss at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest): http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
> --
> Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
> http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
> --
> http://interactiondesigners.com/
>

14 Jul 2004 - 9:52am
Josh Seiden
2003

Is anyone working on touch screen technology with
physical morphing capability? That would be very cool.
Buttons could raise and lower dynamically, scrolling
areas could appear, text could be output in Braille...

You would be a rich man, woman, or Japanese
conglomerate if you could make this happen...

JS

> > Why can't a [remote] have both tactile and
non-tactile areas?

14 Jul 2004 - 9:56am
whitneyq
2010

This is a pretty interesting idea, and I could see lots of applications.

I have an image of one of those toys with the small rods that slide up and
down to make a textured landscape.

Wasn't there a mouse a few years ago that had a detent at any clickable object?

I've been working on voting system standards for usability and
accessibility. If you are going to use an electronic device, touch screen
has many advantages both for usability and because there are no "extra
pieces". But this poses an accessibility challenge for visually impaired
people, who need a tactile control, and one that they can feel without
engaging.

As my accessibility-expert colleagues remind me, most people who are blind
can see. That is, there are many people who have a variety of visual
disabilities that classify them as "blind" but who still have some vision.
Many do not read Braille, but rely on enlarged text or audio output, along
with tactile controls.

At 10:52 AM 7/14/2004 -0400, Joshua Seiden wrote:

>Is anyone working on touch screen technology with
>physical morphing capability? That would be very cool.
>Buttons could raise and lower dynamically, scrolling
>areas could appear, text could be output in Braille...
>
>You would be a rich man, woman, or Japanese
>conglomerate if you could make this happen...
>
>JS
>
> > > Why can't a [remote] have both tactile and
>non-tactile areas?

Whitney Quesenbery
Whitney Interactive Design, LLC
w. www.WQusability.com
e. whitneyq at wqusability.com
p. 908-638-5467

UPA - www.usabilityprofessionals.org
STC Usability SIG: www.stcsig.org/usability

14 Jul 2004 - 10:36am
Greg Petroff
2004

I have always thought this would be amazing idea and the logical next
direction for input device. Hopefully with the advent of organic lcd's
that are plyable someone will figure out how to stretch the display media
to act as a button with real force feeback etc.

As a group maybe we could sponsor a conceptual design call for ideas to
generate interest in industry pursuing the technology to make this happen.

One thing I like about the idea is that ui and input could blend into the
backround of products and built form until needed.

Greg

Gregory Petroff
desk 212 383 4092
mobile 646 387 2841

|---------+----------------------------------------------------------------------->
| | "Joshua Seiden" <josh at 36partners.com> |
| | Sent by: |
| | discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactionde|
| | signers.com |
| | |
| | |
| | 07/14/2004 10:52 AM |
| | Please respond to josh |
| | |
|---------+----------------------------------------------------------------------->
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|
| |
| To: <discuss-interactiondesigners.com at lists.interactiondesigners.com> |
| cc: (bcc: Greg Petroff/SIAC) |
| Subject: RE: [ID Discuss] Remote Control |
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------|

> ----------
> From:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com on
behalf of Joshua Seiden[SMTP:JOSH at 36PARTNERS.COM]
> Sent: Wednesday, July 14, 2004 4:52:17 PM
> To:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com at lists.interactiondesigners.com
> Subject: RE: [ID Discuss] Remote Control
> Auto forwarded by a Rule
>
Is anyone working on touch screen technology with
physical morphing capability? That would be very cool.
Buttons could raise and lower dynamically, scrolling
areas could appear, text could be output in Braille...

You would be a rich man, woman, or Japanese
conglomerate if you could make this happen...

JS

> > Why can't a [remote] have both tactile and
non-tactile areas?

_______________________________________________
Interaction Design Discussion List
discuss at interactiondesigners.com
--
to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest):
http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
--
Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
--
Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements
already)
http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
--
http://interactiondesigners.com/

-----------------------------------------
This message and its attachments may contain privileged and confidential information. If you are not the intended recipient(s), you are prohibited from printing, forwarding, saving or copying this email. If you have received this e-mail in error, please immediately notify the sender and delete this e-mail and its attachments from your computer.

14 Jul 2004 - 10:42am
Dave Malouf
2005

"organic lcd's"

Are these LCDs free-range raised without any anti-biotics and pesticides?

(sorry couldn't resist)

-- dave

14 Jul 2004 - 1:56pm
Patrick Caldwell
2004

I have not been following the whole thread but here is, I think, a new twist
on the remote discussion

Accessing your PC through a remote.

http://www.forbes.com/2004/07/09/cx_mhazlin_0709tentech.html

14 Jul 2004 - 3:16pm
Alain D. M. G. ...
2003

Pending a completely morphable tactile screen you could always consider
Sony's TouchEngine technology. They had several working versions of it
(one a prototype Sony Clie, the other a production audio controller for
commercial post production houses) at UIST 2003 in Vancouver and
Poupyrev and Maruyama presented a TechNote on it: Tactile Interfaces
for Small Touch Screens.

I had the occasion to try both of them, and while they did not give
distinct shapes for a finger to recognize (it was after all a flat
touchscreen LCD), they did give a perfect tactile illusion of a button
click, by making the entire screen area bend a tiny bit. Of course, it
only works if you press one button at a time, as is the case for most
small screen uses.

Alain V.

=====
Alain D.M.G. Vaillancourt

ndgmtlcd at yahoo.com

__________________________________________________________
Lèche-vitrine ou lèche-écran ?
magasinage.yahoo.ca

15 Jul 2004 - 3:50am
Andrei Sedelnikov
2004

> Is anyone working on touch screen technology with
> physical morphing capability? That would be very cool.

I'm not so optimistic at this point. We all know, that hiding and
showing controls on the screen form is bad practice - instead we
should keep the layout constant and only disable particular controls.

The same goes with physically morphed buttons: who needs appearing and
disappearing buttons? What does have the real future is the simple
tactile feedback from the touch screen, which was already mentioned by
Alain D. M. G. Vaillancourt in this thread. I have seen the Poupyrev's
presentation on CHI2004 and it makes an impression!

Andrei Sedelnikov
http://usabilist.de/en/

14 Jul 2004 - 3:20pm
Gerard Torenvliet
2004

And from the theatre of the obscure, some researchers (who shall remain unnamed) attempted to add tactile feedback to a touchscreen by means of a small electric shock.

Fortunately, the designs didn't pass usabiity testing.

Talk about interaction!

-Gerard

:: Gerard Torenvliet / gerard.torenvliet at cmcelectronics.ca
:: Human Factors Engineering Design Specialist
:: CMC Electronics Inc.
::
:: Ph - 613 592 7400 x 2613
:: Fx - 613 592 7432
::
:: 415 Legget Drive, P.O. Box 13330
:: Ottawa, Ontario, CANADA, K2K 2B2
:: http://www.cmcelectronics.ca

-----Original Message-----
From: Alain D. M. G. Vaillancourt [mailto:ndgmtlcd at yahoo.com]
Sent: July 14, 2004 4:17 PM
To: discuss-interactiondesigners.com at lists.interactiondesigners.com
Subject: RE: [ID Discuss] Remote Control

Pending a completely morphable tactile screen you could always consider
Sony's TouchEngine technology. They had several working versions of it
(one a prototype Sony Clie, the other a production audio controller for
commercial post production houses) at UIST 2003 in Vancouver and
Poupyrev and Maruyama presented a TechNote on it: Tactile Interfaces
for Small Touch Screens.

I had the occasion to try both of them, and while they did not give
distinct shapes for a finger to recognize (it was after all a flat
touchscreen LCD), they did give a perfect tactile illusion of a button
click, by making the entire screen area bend a tiny bit. Of course, it
only works if you press one button at a time, as is the case for most
small screen uses.

Alain V.

=====
Alain D.M.G. Vaillancourt

ndgmtlcd at yahoo.com

__________________________________________________________
Lèche-vitrine ou lèche-écran ?
magasinage.yahoo.ca
_______________________________________________
Interaction Design Discussion List
discuss at interactiondesigners.com
--
to change your options (unsubscribe or set digest): http://discuss.interactiondesigners.com
--
Questions: lists at interactiondesigners.com
--
Announcement Online List (discussion list members get announcements already)
http://interactiondesigners.com/announceList/
--
http://interactiondesigners.com/

15 Jul 2004 - 7:40am
Michael Bartlett
2004

A tad OT, but doesn't the longish paragraph underneath the image of the
remote control with all of the mixed bold, brackets, parentheses and
hyperlinks make your mind to backflips when you are trying to read it?

It starts with "Last week, the company..."

-----Original Message-----
From:
discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.com
[mailto:discuss-interactiondesigners.com-bounces at lists.interactiondesigners.
com] On Behalf Of Patrick Caldwell
Sent: 14 July 2004 19:57
To: 'discuss-interactiondesigners.com at lists.interactiondesigners.com'
Subject: RE: [ID Discuss] Remote Control

I have not been following the whole thread but here is, I think, a new twist
on the remote discussion

Accessing your PC through a remote.

http://www.forbes.com/2004/07/09/cx_mhazlin_0709tentech.html

Syndicate content Get the feed