rotation and translation mechanisms for tabletop interaction mark s. hancock, frédéric d. vernier,...
TRANSCRIPT
Rotation and TranslationMechanisms for Tabletop Interaction
Mark S. Hancock, Frédéric D. Vernier, Daniel Wigdor, Sheelagh Carpendale, Chia Shen
MITSUBISHIELECTRIC
Changes for the better
Rotation and translation techniquescan be better understood by comparing thedegrees of freedoms of input to output
Motivation
DownhillBack-Country (Telemark)
Motivation
• Downhill bindings– Attached at rear
•Telemark bindings–Free at rear
Motivation
Degrees of Freedom
The minimum number of independent variables that describes the possible movement in a system.
Degrees of Freedom
• Input (physical movement):– Single-point or multi-point (per person)– 2D surface or physical 3D space
• Output (virtual movement):– Position (2D)– Angle (1D)
Rotation & Translation
Can
you
read
this
?C
an y
ou
read
this
?
Methods ofRotation & Translation
Explicit Specification
• Input– x, y, θ, etc.– 1 DOF
• Output– x, y, θ, etc.– 1 DOF
• Input DOF = Output DOF
Independent Translation
• Input– x & y– 2 DOF
• Output– x & y– 2 DOF
• Input DOF = Output DOF
Independent Translation
T
C
O
T’
C’
Independent Rotation
• Input– x & y– 2 DOF
• Output– θ– 1 DOF
• Input DOF > Output DOF
Independent Rotation
C
T
T’
Ө
C
T
T’
Ө
Automatic Orientation
• Input– x & y– 2 DOF
• Output– r, θ– 2 DOF
• Input DOF = Output DOF
Automatic Orientation
T
O
T’
C
θ
Integral Rotation & Translation
• Input– x & y– 2 DOF
• Output– x, y, & θ– 3 DOF
• Input DOF < Output DOF
Integral Rotation & Translation
Ө
Ө T
T’
C
C’
C
Two-Point Rotation & Translation
T2 T’1
T1 T’2
T2
Ө
• Input– x1, y1, x2, y2
– 4 DOF
• Output– x, y, θ– 3 DOF
• Input DOF > Output DOF
Two-Point Rotation & Translation
T2 T’1
T1 T’2
T2
Ө
Degrees of Freedom
T2 T’1
T1 T’2
T2
Ө
1DOF → 1DOF 2DOF → 2DOF 2DOF → 2DOF
2DOF → 1DOF 4DOF → 3DOF 2DOF → 3DOF
Explicit Specification Independent Translation Automatic Orientation
Independent Rotation 2-Point Integrated
Impact ofDegrees of Freedom
Coordination & Communication
• Use rotation & translation to communicate
• Must support both:– Need all 3 DOF output
Coordination & Communication
T2 T’1
T1 T’2
T2
Ө
Communication-Friendly
Communication-Unfriendly
Consistency
• Consistent– Output = f(Input)– Output DOF ≤ Input DOF
• Inconsistent– Output ≠ f(Input)– Output DOF > Input DOF:
Consistency
ConsistentInconsistent
Completeness
• Complete– Output DOF ≥ Entire space
• Incomplete– Output DOF < Entire space
Completeness
Complete
Incomplete
GUI Integration
• Restricted Areas– Input DOF = Output DOF
• Works!
GUI Integration
Input DOF < Output DOF(Larger area desirable)
Input DOF > Output DOF(Difficult to constrain)
Role of Snapping
• Input DOF > Output DOF– e.g. Ruler: 2DOF Input, 1DOF Output– e.g. Independent Rotation, 2-Point
Role of Snapping
• Snap to polar-grid• Snap to rectilinear grid• Snap to one another
• Snap:– Position– Orientation– Both
Design Questions
• What DOF of output is necessary?
• What DOF of input is available?
• How can the input DOF be mapped to the output DOF?
• If the mapping involves a change in DOF, how will this affect interaction?
Conclusion
• Downhill bindings– Less DOF input– Good for downhill
•Telemark bindings–More DOF input–Good for uphill climbs
Conclusion
Alpine Touring (AT) Bindings
Rotation and translation techniquescan be better understood by comparing thedegrees of freedoms of input to output
Mark S. Hancock ([email protected])
Frédéric D. Vernier ([email protected])
Daniel Wigdor ([email protected])
Sheelagh Carpendale ([email protected])
Chia Shen ([email protected])
Thank you!