Show simple item record

dc.contributor.authorLemmelä, Saija
dc.contributor.authorVetek, Akos
dc.contributor.authorMäkelä, Kaj
dc.contributor.authorTrendafilov, Dari
dc.date.accessioned2015-07-06T08:06:12Z
dc.date.available2015-07-06T08:06:12Z
dc.date.issued2008-12
dc.identifier.citationLemmelä , S , Vetek , A , Mäkelä , K & Trendafilov , D 2008 , Designing and evaluating multimodal interaction for mobile contexts . in ICMI'08: Procs of the 10th Int Conf on Multimodal Interfaces . ACM Press , pp. 265-272 , 10th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces, ICMI'08 , Chania, Crete , Greece , 20/10/08 . https://doi.org/10.1145/1452392.1452447
dc.identifier.citationconference
dc.identifier.isbn9781605581989
dc.identifier.otherPURE: 8699573
dc.identifier.otherPURE UUID: d51dba50-deb9-4ac0-8ffb-3f4fa490fe68
dc.identifier.otherScopus: 63449121544
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/2299/16131
dc.description.abstractIn this paper we report on our experience on the design and evaluation of multimodal user interfaces in various contexts. We introduce a novel combination of existing design and evaluation methods in the form of a 5-step iterative process and show the feasibility of this method and some of the lessons learned through the design of a messaging application for two contexts (in car, walking). The iterative design process we employed included the following five basic steps: 1) identification of the limitations affecting the usage of different modalities in various contexts (contextual observations and context analysis) 2) identifying and selecting suitable interaction concepts and creating a general design for the multimodal application (storyboarding, use cases, interaction concepts, task breakdown, application UI and interaction design), 3) creating modality-specific UI designs, 4) rapid prototyping and 5) evaluating the prototype in naturalistic situations to find key issues to be taken into account in the next iteration. We have not only found clear indications that context affects users' preferences in the usage of modalities and interaction strategies but also identified some of these. For instance, while speech interaction was preferred in the car environment users did not consider it useful when they were walking. 2D (finger strokes) and especially 3D (tilt) gestures were preferred by walking users.en
dc.format.extent8
dc.language.isoeng
dc.publisherACM Press
dc.relation.ispartofICMI'08: Procs of the 10th Int Conf on Multimodal Interfaces
dc.subjectDesign
dc.subjectExperimentation
dc.subjectHuman factors
dc.subjectTheory
dc.subjectComputer Science Applications
dc.subjectHuman-Computer Interaction
dc.titleDesigning and evaluating multimodal interaction for mobile contextsen
dc.contributor.institutionSchool of Computer Science
rioxxterms.versionofrecordhttps://doi.org/10.1145/1452392.1452447
rioxxterms.typeOther
herts.preservation.rarelyaccessedtrue


Files in this item

FilesSizeFormatView

There are no files associated with this item.

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record