Paper Reading #13: LightSpace

References
Andrew D. Wilson, Hrvoje Benko.  "Combining Multiple Depth Cameras and Projectors for Interactions On, Above, and Between Surfaces". UIST '10 Proceedings of the 23rd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology.  ACM New York, NY, USA ©2010.

 Author Bios
Andrew D. Wilson is a senior researcher at Microsoft Research. He received his bachelor's from Cornell, and subsequently his master's and Ph. D. at MIT. He helped found the Surface Computing group at Microsoft.

Hrvoje Benko is also researcher at Microsoft. He received his Ph.D. from Columbia University. His  interests revolve mostly around augmented reality and in discovering new ways to blur the line between 2D computing and our 3D world.

Summary 

• Hypothesis - This paper did not have a hypothesis; it was simply a discussion and description of a design concept.
• Method/Content - The main concept behind this design was to allow users to interact with projected displays using normal tables (or other ordinary flat surfaces) as touch-screens. It made use of a suspended apparatus containing 3 IR and depth cameras and 3 projectors. The device decided what the user was doing by creating a 3D mesh of them and simulating their movements in a virtual 3D space. It created the mesh by using its cameras to create depth maps from different angles. Because it used the notion of one virtual space for all 3 cameras and projectors, there was no real discrepancies or major mistakes in gesture recognition. Available interactions included dragging some projected object off of a table, holding said object, putting the object back on the table (or a different one), moving objects from table to vertical screen and back, transferring objects from one person to another, and an interactive menu. The menu worked by moving through options based upon the height of the users hand, and selecting it if the user held it there for 2 seconds. Holding an object worked loosely on the idea of holding a ball; the user held their hand level and carried the "ball" where the wanted it to go. They could let go and drop the ball at any time.
• User feedback on this system was overall very good. During their public demonstration they discovered a number of limitations that were not readily apparent, but were possible to fix. One of the limitations was that if there were more than 6 people in the room, the system would get confused as to who was who because everyone was too close to one another. It was hard for the system to distinguish what person was trying to perform what action. This is easily enough fixed by increasing the space in the room and the range of the cameras/projectors. Another limitation found was that having 3 or more people in the room slowed the system drastically; the refresh rate of the system (and thus the projectors) dropped below the camera's refresh rate. This is also pretty easily fixed, to a point: use a more powerful computer to render the 3D space and meshes used. There is obviously an upper bound on the amount of people the system can accommodate (due to both size constraints and computing power) but it can definitely perform better than what has already been implemented.

 Discussion
Again, I loved this paper. It seems that the more I read, the more I realize that we are much closer to virtual reality environments than I thought. This system has a huge range of applications, from meetings to showcases, from artists to engineers, from product design to video games. The concept of moving objects from one surface to another is not really what excites me; it's the system itself. The fact that they can use relatively simple and inexpensive cameras to track multiple entities without the users wearing external apparatus (ie dots or markers) is amazing. I would absolutely love to have this system in my house, if just to play around with and maybe customize (to perform different actions).

On Gangs

Sudhir's Gang Leader for a Day was a very interesting book. I thoroughly enjoyed all but the last few pages. In those pages, I was really disappointed that he said they had never been friends. It seems to me that when you go through that many things together for that long and still enjoy being around one another, you have become friends. Even to this day, Sudhir visits JT whenever he is in Chicago; that says friend to me. I suppose he needed to say that (according to lawyers) in order to acquit himself and show that he is and was not associated with any gangs, but it still seems to be a terrible way to end the book.

During the book, it astounded me to see what the people living in the projects did and endured to survive, especially the women. Some of the things they did I had previously associated with third world countries; that it was happening here in the US and especially in one of the most influential cities made me sad. Although thinking about it now, I suppose it should not have come as a surprise; you'll find poverty anywhere.

When Sudhir was a gang leader for a day, I felt that he embellished on a lot of it. I think that his decision about the guy who stole and the guy who withheld pay was correct; but it still wasn't his decision in the end. Throughout the day he was sort of riding shotgun instead of driving; JT would do most things and occasionally ask what Sudhir thought, then took it as advice rather than as instruction. There are reasons he couldn't truly make any of the final decisions: JT couldn't afford to lose face in front of his subordinates, if he made a wrong decision it could cause the loss of a lot of money, etc. But I still don't think 'gang leader for a day' is a proper description for what he did; 'gang leader adviser for a day' is a much more apt description.

When the projects were torn down, I felt bad for JT and his two long time friends. Yes, they were gang leaders and yes, they were perpetuating the use of drugs, but they truly believed that what they were doing helped the community as a whole (or so they claimed). Although they were perhaps rough about it and obtained the money for it through unethical means, they did what they needed to to survive; with those methods they also helped the community in many ways, whether or not they had an ulterior motive for it. I felt really sad when T-bone died; he truly had a plan for after the gang life. He wanted to get a degree, live normally and honestly. He seemed to me one of those that truly got caught up in something they didn't want and couldn't get out.

All in all, I really enjoyed the book. Sometimes sad, sometimes happy, but most of the time just interesting. The end was disappointing, but that by no means made it a bad book. I would definitely recommend this book for the future classes. 

Paper Reading #12: Enabling beyond-surface interactions

References
Thomas Augsten, et al.  "Enabling Beyond-Surface Interactions for Interactive Surface wit An Invisible Projection". UIST '10 Proceedings of the 23rd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology.  ACM New York, NY, USA ©2010.

Author Bios
Li-Wei Chan is a Ph. D. student in the Graduate Institute of Networking and Multimedia at the National Taiwan University. He received his master's and bachelor's in Computer Science from the National Taiwan University and from Fu Jen Catholic University respectively.

Hsiang-Tao Wu, Hui-Shan Kao, and Home-Ru Lin are students at the National Taiwan University.

Ju-Chun Ko is a Ph. D. student at the Computer & Information Networking Center, National Taiwan University. He got his master's in Informatics from Yun Ze University.
Mike Y. Chen is a professor in the Department of Computer Science at National Taiwan University. His research interests lie in mobile technologies, HCI, social networks, and cloud computing.

Jane Hsu is a professor of Computer Science and Information Engineering at National Taiwan University. Her research interests include intelligent multi-agent systems, data mining, service oriented computing and web technology.

Yi-Ping Hung is a professor in the Graduate Institute of Networking and Multimedia at National Taiwan University. He received his bachelor's from National Taiwan University and his Master's and Ph.D. from Brown University.

Summary

• Hypothesis - Using IR (infrared) cameras to place invisible markers will improve reliability for interactive tabletops.
• Method -For this experiment, they used a custom interactive tabletop prototype. It projected both color and IR from under the table, and used two IR cameras under the table to detect touches. The IR projector also selectively projects white space on the tabletop to perform multi-touch detection. The tabletop itself is comprised of two layers: a diffuser layer and a touch-glass layer. Due to the reflective nature of the touch-glass, it caused problems whether it was above or below the diffuser layer. They found that when it was above, it reflected the visible light of projections from above the tabletop, which caused not only a degrade in the luminance of the projection, but also shined the light on observers. When the glass was under the diffuser layer, it partially reflected the IR rays from beneath the table, resulting in dead zones for the image processing. They found that they could fix the dead zone problem by using two IR cameras instead of one, so they implemented the table with the touch-glass underneath the diffuser layer. The IR cameras used a dynamic sizing system to track projections and move/resize markers as needed. The proposed 3 different projection systems: the i-m-Lamp, the i-m-Flashlight, and the i-m-View. The first was a combination pico-projector/IR camera which appeared as a simple table lamp. Its small dimensions were thought to be ideal for integration with personal tabletop systems. The second (i-m-Lamp) implementation proposed is a mobile version of the i-m-Lamp. Users can inspect fine details of a region by focusing the i-m-Flashlight at the desired location. The i-m-View is a tablet PC attached to an IR camera. The programmed use for it was to intuitively explore 3D geographical information. They used the i-m-View to explore 3D buildings from above a 2D map shown on the prototype tabletop system. They asked 5 users to try out their systems and were encouraged to think aloud.
• The main problems found for the i-m-Lamp was that because the i-m-Lamp and the tabletop system both project on the same surface, the overlapped region caused a blue artifact. To avoid it, they masked the tabletop projection where the projections overlapped. For the i-m-Flashlight, they encountered a focus problem; the lens focus of the pico-projectors needed to be manually focused. This limited usability; however, they proposed that replacing the projector with one that contains a laser (such as the Microvision ShowWX) would provide an image that is always in focus. The largest problem with the i-m-View was that it was easy for users to get lost in the 3D view and not be able to pay as much attention to the 2D map. They fixed this by showing the boundaries of the 2D map inside the 3D view, allowing the user to simultaneously see what was changing on the table and what it represented in the 3D view. During for the i-m-View users often found that the buildings in the 3D view were too tall for the view; they wished to either pan up or rotate the tablet in order to get a portrait view of the landscape, neither of which were currently supported by the system. Another problem was that they i-m-View occasionally got lost because no IR markers entered its field of view; this was dealt with by continuously updating the orientation of the i-m-View. The overall feedback from users was positive, and the problems discussed are supposed to be addressed in future work.

Discussion
Quite frankly, I found this entire paper awesome. I thought that much of it was quite advanced, a huge step in HCI. While it may not have much application for me personally (I can't readily see this augmenting programming in many ways), it would have huge impacts on artists, the military, modelers and designers, engineers (such as civil or mechanical) and many more. Artists could use it to selectively edit only certain portions of their work without using the cumbersome selection methods used in today's art development programs. The military could quite easily use this for strategic purposes such as battle maps or location coordination. Modelers and engineers could use this to select certain pieces in a 3D model or blueprint to edit. In short, this technology has a huge range of applications that would make great use of it. I hope to see this technology distributed widely soon.

Paper Reading #11: Multitoe

References
Thomas Augsten, et al.  "Multitoe: high-precision interaction with back-projected floors based on high-resolution multi-touch input". UIST '10 Proceedings of the 23rd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology.  ACM New York, NY, USA ©2010.

Author Bios
Thomas Augsten, Konstantin Kaefer, are a master student of IT systems at Hasso Plattner Institute (University of Potsdamn) in Germany.

Christian Holz is a Ph. D. student in Human Computer Interaction at the Hasso Plattner Institute. He believes the only way to continue to further miniaturize mobile devices is to fully understand the limitations of human computer interaction. 

Patrick Baudisch is a professor in Computer Science at the Hasso Plattner Institute.

Rene Meusel, Caroline Fetzer, Dorian Kanitz, Thomas Stoff, and Torsten Becker are students at the Hasso Plattner Institute.

Summary

• Hypothesis - Using foot input is an effective way to interact with a back-projected floor based computer.
• Method - The first study conducted was intended to be built off of for subsequent experiments. It was to test how buttons could be intentionally walked over without activating them. Participants were asked to walk over 4 buttons, two of which were meant to be activated, 2 of which were not. User methods were recorded and categorized. The second study determined which area of the foot user expected to be detected to activate a button. The third study was to determine if there was consistency in preferred hotspots across the user base. The fourth was meant to determine user ability; they were asked to type a sentence using a projected keyboard.
• The results for the first test were that users did not generally have a consistent way to activate buttons. In the second test, most users agreed that the foot's arch was the best way to activate a button. The third test showed that users had virtually no agreement between users; no hotspots had the majority of usage. In the fourth test, it was found (as expected) that the smaller the keyboard, the more errors the user made. Users were about even in their preferences of the medium and large keyboards.

Discussion
While I'm not sure that this technology has immediate application, I believe that this could be one of the first steps to virtual reality rooms. I really enjoyed the concept, although I'm not sure that the users enjoyed it as much as me. Current uses may be exploring maps, or games such as Dance Dance Revolution, or if they include multi touch (with a large amount of possible touches) it could support group activities or games.

Paper Reading #10: Sensing Foot Gestures from the Pocket

References
Jeremy Scott, et al.  "Sensing Foot Gestures from the Pocket". UIST '10 Proceedings of the 23rd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology.  ACM New York, NY, USA ©2010.

Author Bios
Jeremy Scott received his Bachelors in Computer Engineering from the University of Toronto and is working toward a Ph.D. in Computer Science from MIT. He was an undergraduate researcher at U of T and is now a research assistant at MIT.

David Dearman is a Ph.D. student at University of Toronto. His research interests lie in combining HCI, Ubiquitous computing, and Mobile computing.

Koji Yatani is a Ph. D. student at the University of Toronto. His research revolves around HCI and Ubiquitous computing, with an emphasis on hardware and sensing technologies.

Khai N. Truong is a professor at University of Toronto. His main interests lie in HCI and ubiquitous computing, revolving around enhancing usability and usefulness of mobile technology.

Summary

Hypothesis - A mobile device placed in a pocket of a person's pants can recognize simple foot gestures using the built-in accelerometer.

Method - For this paper, two experiments were conducted. The first used 16 right-footed individuals (8 male, 8 female). They were given specific angles to rotate their feet at (in four different ways, as seen below).

The researchers recorded the accuracies of each angle as well as the amount of time it took for a user to confidently position their foot. After comparing all of this research, they then designed a system for the iPhone using the accelerometer to sense the foot gestures. A user would double tap their foot (average of about 330 milliseconds apart) and subsequently execute at gesture (rotating their foot a certain way to a range of angles). They used 6 ranges of angles, 3 clockwise and 3 counter (from natural foot position). This experiment used 6 right-footed participants, 4 male and 2 female.

Results - The results were relatively successful. Their system could determine about 10 different foot gestures with 86% accuracy. They determined that with this system it is possible to augment user experience.

Discussion
I found this article to be really interesting. I have a particular interest in gestures that aren't based on visual feedback or physical manipulation of technology. This seems to be a good step in that direction. I'm not sure if foot gestures can really be read accurately enough to make it be a viable replacement for other similar gestures, but this is definitely a good stepping stone.

Ethnography - Point 1

In the past couple of semesters, I have taken the fencing class but have never actually hung out with anyone who does it seriously. I already knew from experience that there is a huge difference, as I took a couple archery classes and then proceeded to join the club. The culture change between those who signed up for the classes and those who have done it for years (some of them professionally) was complete. So, I decided that I would join the fencing club as my ethnography project.

We (Andrew Funderburgh and I) actually planned to go to their meeting on Monday, but ended up being there early. We found the room completely empty, so we went downstairs to ask the people at the front desk (ish, more of just a window where they look at your id before you can go in) where the fencing club was supposed to meet and where. We figured that maybe their website was simply outdated. However, when we talked to those at the front, they told us that fencing was never scheduled to be in that building at all. Thus, having no contacts, we were forced to drop it for the day.

The next day, in fencing class, I asked the teacher when they were supposed to meet. He told me that it was where and when we thought it was. One of the other people in the class, who also happens to be in the club, told me that they just happened to be running late Monday. Unlucky.

So, Wednesday comes around and we try for a second round. When we get there, there were only a couple of people waiting. We sat on the floor and waited for things to get running. When the club president came in, he promptly gave us forms to fill out for rec sports so that we could be allowed to fence, basically just a liability form. There hadn't been much conversation between the few people who were there or with us, but it wasn't precisely awkward.

Having fenced before, I was "allowed" to participate in the conditioning that happens before every practice. During this, the only thing I could get my mind to learn was the fact that I am terribly out of shape. At any rate, during drills people talked more or less amongst themselves, occasionally shouting across the room to someone in another conversation. The conversations were mostly banter, nothing about fencing or really anything in particular. They all seemed to know each other extremely well.

After conditioning, I went with a few people down to the "armory", which is where spare equipment is kept. I had no clue where everything was, so I had to keep asking questions. Except for my questions, we talked mostly about dancing of all things (we passed a dancing club on the way there).

During the actual fencing, everyone was serious and very much participating at the height of their prowess. This was highly unusual for me, for during the classes there's hardly ever 5 minutes without a joke cracked. The fact that everyone was giving their all was also somewhat unusual; during the classes, those who are better than others tend to hold back when fencing. It A) gets boring to those who are good and frustrating for those who are not, and B) doesn't give the other people a chance to learn. In the club, it was clear that I was somewhat on my own. They gave me advice on my techniques when we were done with our bout, but during it was all work and no play. The level at which these people were at also took me off guard; I've usually been somewhere near the top during the classes, but in the club I am definitely low-tier. Some of them moved so fast I literally did not see them in time to react.

In all, it was a fun first time. The people were very open and talkative. They were helpful and instructive (when not fencing). Doing an ethnography on these guys will be interesting, if tough. I am definitely bringing a gigantic water bottle next time.

Paper Reading #9: Jogging over a Distance between Europe and Australia

References
Florian Mueller, et al.  "Jogging over a Distance between Europe and Australia". UIST '10 Proceedings of the 23rd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology.  ACM New York, NY, USA ©2010.


Author Bios
Florian Mueller is an avid athlete and advocator of sports. His main work focuses on the social and physical effects of integrating technology and exercise. He has researched with many institutions including Stanford University, MIT Media Lab, Media Lab Europe, Microsoft Research and many others.


Frank Vetere has several degrees, among them a bachelor's in science and a doctorate in philosophy, both from the University of Melbourne. His research interests are in Human Computer Interaction and Interaction Design. He is currently a professor at the University of Melbourne and works with the Interaction Design Group.


Martin R. Gibbs has a Ph. D. in sociology and is currently a lecturer at the University of Melbourne. His main research interests are in design space and intergenerational play.


Darren Edge received his bachelor's and Ph. D. in Computer Science from the University of Cambridge. He is currently a researcher at Microsoft Research based in Beijing. His main interests lie in how to combine abstract analysis, user research, and design thinking in order to further HCI.


Stefan Agamanolis holds a master's and a doctorate in Media Arts and Sciences from MIT. He is currently the Associate Director of the Rebecca D. Considine Research Institute at Akron Children's Hospital. His research interests revolve around experience design for healthcare scenarios.


Jennifer Sheridan has a Ph.D. in Computer Science and a Master's in Human Computer Interaction. She is currently the Senior User Experience Consultant and Director of User Experience at BigDog Interactive.

Summary

• Hypothesis - Focusing on the user experience of engaging systems that integrate technology and social exertion will contribute to the knowledge of the underlying elements involved.
• Method - In this experiment, two people plan to jog at the same time (GMT). Both of them are wearing a headset, a heart monitor, a mini computer and a mobile phone. Based upon a set goal heart rate (chosen before the running begins), the audio from the other person is projected to the user from a different virtual location. For example, if they are both running at the same percentage of the targeted heart rate, they will both hear each other as if they were running side by side. However, if one person's heart rate goes beyond their goal and the other's stays at it, the sound from the first person will be coming from in front of the second (as if the first were running faster and was getting ahead). On the first person's end, it would appear to them that the second person is behind them; thus the users are able to judge how much effort they are putting in compared to their running partner. 
• Their results were successful; the technology turned the exercise into a social activity, thus increasing user engagement. They conclude that their hypothesis was correct, that they did indeed come out of this with a better understanding of what may go into social exercise. 

Discussion
This article didn't really reach me personally. I do agree that exercise is better and more immersive when done socially, but don't we already have sports for that? I can't stand running, mostly because I find it intensely boring. Perhaps this may help develop something that would make running more fun for me, but in order to get proper exercise, I can just as easily turn to soccer or fencing or some other group sport (it would be a lot cheaper, too). To be frank, I think this is a study more suited for people fighting obesity and less for people aiming to create future human computer interaction; this, in my opinion, was entirely human-human even though it used technology to bridge a distance.

Paper Reading #3: Pen + Touch = New Tools

References:
Ken Hinckley, et al. "Pen + Touch = New Tools". UIST '10 Proceedings of the 23rd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology.  ACM New York, NY, USA ©2010.

Author Bios:
Ken Hinckley received his Ph. D. in Computer Science from the University of Virginia and is currently a researcher at Microsoft. His main focus is touch sensors and pen/touch interaction.

Koji Yatani is currently a Ph. D. student at the University of Toronto. He assisted in this research as an intern, and will work for Microsoft after graduation.

Michel Pahud received his Ph. D. in parallel computing from the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology and is currently a research at Microsoft. His area of interest is in distributed collaboration and pen/touch experience.

Nicole Coddington received her bachelor's in Visual Communication from Florida State University. A past Senior Interaction Designer at Microsoft, she now works for HTC. She is interested in NUI design for mobile devices.

Jenny Rodenhouse received her bachelor's from Syracuse University, and is currently a designer at Microsoft.

Andy Wilson received his Ph. D. from MIT and is currently a senior researcher at Microsoft. He is interested in innovating new styles of HCI.

Hrvoje Benko got his Ph. D. from Cornell University and is a researcher at Microsoft. His focus is on surface computing technology.

Bill Buxton received a degree in music from Queen's University. He starting designing his own musical instruments, which ultimately led him to pursue a Master's in Computer Science from the University of Toronto. He is now the Principal Researcher at Microsoft.

Summary:

• Hypothesis -  That an input method using both pen and touch is more natural for users and allows for much more functionality than just one or the other.
• Method - The main method employed during this work involved observing subjects create a scrapbook. They provided raw materials and a subject matter (such as a documentary) to create a scrapbook with. They then observed the ways in which the test subjects interacted with the tools, the paper, and how they used their hands in particular to manipulate their surroundings.
  
  
  Based upon this study, they then proceeded to design a system that mimics as much of their natural movements and instincts as possible.
• Results - The results were indistinct. While the application itself was a success and the users mostly gave positive reviews, the hypothesis itself was never fully addressed. The paper mostly concentrated on the software and its functions.
• Contents - As stated above, the contents of this paper mostly included the software and how it worked. It also included small sections on the study used to develop the software and the results in testing.

Discussion:
During this paper, I somewhat got the impression that they were showing off their software more than they were trying to prove something. I think the software itself was rather interesting, but I don't see much long-term application for it. Technology like this already exists, and personally I can only see this as something to assist artists(which they already have in major corporations and companies). Any use by the average person would need to be mobile, and using both a hand and a pen for input would be virtually impossible to be made mobile. Not only is size a problem (it would be very hard to implement both methods on something the size of an iPad, not to mention a phone), but so is mobility itself. When using mobile devices, most people use one hand to hold it and another to interact with it; this is impossible when required to use both hands for input.

Paper Reading #2: Hands-on math

References:
Robert Zeleznik,  Andrew Bragdon, Ferdi Adeputra, and Hsu-Sheng Ko. "Hands-on math: a page-based multi-touch and pen desktop for technical work and problem solving". UIST '10 Proceedings of the 23rd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology.  ACM New York, NY, USA ©2010.

Author Bios:
Robert Zeleznik received both his bachelor's and master's in Computer Science at Brown University. He has worked as a consultant for Sun Microsystems, SpaceTec, and E-Quill Corp. He is now the director of research at Brown University, in the computer graphics group.

Andrew Bragdon is a second year Ph.D. student of Computer Science at Brown University. His main interests lie in human-computer interaction, more specifically "developing methods of making computing tasks more fluid, natural and cognitively lightweight."

Ferdi Adeputra received his degree in Applied Mathematics - Computer Science at Brown University.

Hsu-Sheng Ko also received his degree from Brown University.

Summary:

• Hypothesis -  A method of integrating virtual paper with high-level mathematical computing will allow users to quickly and more efficiently solve problems.
• Method - The technology developed (Hands-on math) used a multi-touch desktop combined with an infrared lightpen. It made use of gestures with the non-dominant hand combined with tap-based commands with the pen in order to write, evaluate, and manipulate mathematical expressions. It also allowed a user to have many virtual sheets of paper upon which to work. These sheets were of an unfixed length and could be arranged at will on a desktop of unlimited size. This allowed users to keep the flow of one equation while being able to refer to another equation side-by-side. Gestures were used to manipulate sheets and equations. Manipulating equations included moving around or factoring out variables, simplifying and condensing expressions, substitution, and much more.
  
  
  During the research, subjects were told to use the technology to help with a problem related to their field of work (ie, physics, math, chemistry etc). The results of the test were subject evaluations of the technology and its usefulness, as well as its ease of use. 
• Results - The results of the experiment did not contradict their hypothesis. On the whole, subjects were in agreement that this technology would help them with their studies. They particularly liked the fact that they could still work out the math step-by-step, where other computing software gave just an answer. They all found that being able to freely write equations and subsequently be able to manipulate its form and representations was very powerful. There were mixed feelings on the gestures and multi-touch functionality, but on the whole it was simple enough to learn.
• Contents - The contents of this paper were mostly over the functionality of Hands-on math itself. It discussed the reasons for both hand-gesture and pen input were integral to their system. They also explained how the pages and desktop as a whole worked. They finally explored the methods by which they may improve this technology and how changing certain properties of the software might heighten usability and user-friendliness. 

Discussion
This technology seemed to me like it would be an extremely useful application for many areas, especially school. While in professions it may not be as useful to go through equations step by step (as that would increase the time to solve problems and take away from productivity levels), it would be a very powerful tool for learning. When learning higher-level math, it may take up to several pages to finish a single problem if each step is shown. However, with this technology the user could efficiently take the same amount of space for calculation without the hassle of a notebook or a lot of free-floating papers. It also would help with eliminating "stupid mistakes" during the learning process. For higher level math students, there are many instances where they may make a stupid mistake that makes a problem unsolvable. With this technology, it would prevent the stupid mistake and allow the user to learn what they were intended to learn without wasting unneeded time on catching stupid errors. While students do need to learn how to not make these stupid mistakes, they should be able to learn without worrying about that, and learn to deal with that when they already know the material and are reviewing or studying (say for a test). I personally would love to have this technology, although I don't believe I would have much use for it anymore. It just seems like it would be fun to play around with at this point!

Paper Reading #1: Imaginary Interfaces

References:
Patrick Baudisch, Daniel Bierwirth, and Sean Gustafson. "Imaginary Interfaces: Spatial Interaction with Empty Hands and without Visual Feedback". UIST '10 Proceeding of the 23nd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology. ACM New York, NY, USA ©2010.

Author Bios:
Sean Gustafson received his degree from the University of Manitoba. Before his research career, he participated in the development of medical devices using embedded systems. He now works under Patrick Baudisch at the Hasso Plattner Institute. His main interests lie in gestural input and eyes-free portable technology.

Daniel Bierwirth received his master's degree at the Hassno Plattner Institute. His recent careers have been a software developer for start-up companies, and also as an independent contractor. His area of study centers around user-centered mobile software development and design.

Patrick Baudisch studied Computer Science at the Darmstadt University of Technology. He has worked for Xerox and Microsoft as a research scientist, and is currently a professor at the Hasso Plattner Institute. Most of his work deals with touch screens.

Summary:

• Hypothesis - Humans can use surface-based input technology efficiently without visual feedback, using only their imagination and short-term visual memory (which they dub visuospatial memory).
• Method - A random sample of test subjects from the institute were selected. During this experiment, they were required to draw several types of shapes and characters in mid-air using Imaginary Interfaces (the device used for testing). The device worked by recognizing a plane of input when the user made an L with their non-dominant hand. This L-shape served as a frame to outline an x-y plane of a 3d coordinate system. The device then compensated for its orientation during movement analyzing, then threw out the z-coordinate entirely, resulting in apparent 2d shapes on a 2d plane.
  
  
  The subjects were not given any sort of screen to show them what they were drawing; instead, they were given an image, and when they had taken the image into their memory, tried to duplicated in the air without that reference. Throughout the experiment, several different tests were preformed during and after the drawing of images. In the first test, they were simply asked to draw different shapes and characters.
  
  
  In the second test, they were asked to draw simple glyphs, rotating 90 either during or after, and then point to particular spots on that glyph (pointed out to the subject after the drawing of the object was finished). This second test was to show how much movement and a change of background could hinder a subject's frame of reference.
  
  
  The third test was to pick out points on a user-defined space/scale. For example, the user would be told to point to a coordinate (2,1) with their 'L' as the origin. The user would then need to find a coordinate in which the x-coordinate was twice the length of their thumb and the y-coordinate at the same length as their pointer finger. The units were decided by thumb and forefinger for the x and y planes respectively.
  
  
  The last experiment was a simple experiment to see how much worse accuracy became with more strokes (more complicated shapes).
• Results - During the first test, it was found that people could create simple shapes and characters with a surprisingly high degree of accuracy. During a test of 6 one-stroke characters and 12 users, only 4 out of the possible 72 characters were not recognized by the computer to be accurate. In the second test, the researchers were generally disappointed in the results, but found what type of things hindered the human visuospatial memory. In the third test, it was found that the closer to the origin users chose their spot, the more accurate they were in selecting the correct coordinate. It was also seen that users could not identify the correct points for negative coordinates very well. The last test showed that a person's accuracy greatly decreased when more strokes were involved in the drawing of an object. This was used to project how a person's visuospatial memory would fade over time.
• Contents - The contents of this paper was the experiment and results of users interfacing with Imaginary Interfaces. They analyzed how people performed at different tasks and published their results and statistics. Note that the main point of this experiment was not to prove that their device worked; indeed, that technology was already available. The experiment was instead to prove that humans can use it without feedback with a high degree of accuracy. The conclusion was a human's visuospatial memory was much more capable than research performed in the past, and that technology like this may be a viable solution for mobile devices.

Discussion
I was personally very excited about this technology. If I were to get into the field of HCI, which is a distinct possibility, this is the area I would like to join. Ever since I read the book Daemon by Daniel Suarez, I have been fascinated by the concept of "d-space" user interfaces. This is the concept that with visual feedback from glasses or contact lenses, additional information is projected onto things in the real world. The user interfaces with it using hand and body gestures and voice commands in order to manipulate things in this "d-space". I believe that someday, this alternate reality parallel to our own will be realized; the technology used in this article is the first stepping stone toward that end. However, on the order of visuospatial memory, I believe that for any useful application, humans will always require some sort of feedback, whether it be visual or touch-based. If we truly wish to create user interfaces without feedback, the human imagination and short-term memory (which has been declining in recent years) need to improve drastically. A few seconds (or even a minute) of spatial memory is not enough to finish anything practical. Short notes perhaps, even a shopping list, but never could an essay be written on something like this.

On Computers

"On Plants". The Complete Works of Aristotle, The Revised Oxford Edition. Edited by Jonathan Barnes, Volume Two.


Searle, John R. (1980) Minds, Brains, and Programs.

About the Authors:

Aristotle
Aristotle was a philosopher in ancient Greece. A student of Plato, he went on to create his own school. He was well known for his very systematic approach toward his topics. His range of topics was vast, from physics to biology, poetry to politics, and linguistics to ethics. Many of his findings were only proven correct in recent centuries, although the theories themselves were hundreds of years old.

John Searle
Searle is a modern day philosopher and a professor at University of California. Many of his works revolve around intentionality; that is, the part of the human mind that makes references and inferences to and from the world outside itself.

On Plants
The main motivation for On Plants was to analyze the hypotheses on whether or not plants have souls or intellect. His hypothesis is that plants do not, in fact, have souls. Aristotle argues that before one can make these statements, one must compare the aspects of plants to those of animals, which we assume to have consciousness. During his work, he describes many differences between plants and animals, and between plants themselves. He also compares the parts of plants and animals that are similar in nature and in function, but on the whole, he offers differences. Throughout his arguments, his viewpoint seems to gradually shift from a strong belief in his hypothesis to more of a curious middle ground, where he may be admitting that he cannot know for certain. However, although he does not explicitly state a conclusion in the end, on the whole his logic supports his hypothesis.

Minds, Brains, and Programs
During this paper, Searle argues against the basic principles of what is called "Strong AI". This is the belief that human intelligence can be duplicated through logical programs, and thus human consciousness can be understood. His argument is that "Strong AI", by definition, is impossible. His work argues for his main point in the first half of his paper, making strong points to support his claim. After this, he goes on to thoroughly shut down rebuttals of his theory from people whom he shared his intellectual exercise with. This exercise consisted of a man, who is put into a room where there are no observers. While in this rooms, he is given a set of instructions, in a language he can understand, to convert certain Chinese characters into a different set of Chinese characters. The man himself does not, in fact, understand Chinese; yet to an outside observer (one not in the room), he is participating and passing the Turing test. Searle argues that, while it does pass the Turing test, the system is not intelligent; the man has no understanding of what he is doing, in reality he does not even realize he is answering questions. The results of his paper is clear: "Strong AI" cannot exist by his arguments. He leaves little room for argument, giving sound reasons why it cannot be true and replying to arguments with thorough, even slashing, counterarguments.

While these two articles may seem at surface value to have nothing to do with one another, they in fact share the same basic principle: the human mind is not the simple product of structure and logic, but something else entirely. While Aristotle may have been wrong on many points during his thesis (basic principles of physics, biology, etc) his main idea remains a solid point in arguments about the human mind. I found both articles to be a great read, and found myself agreeing with both. For years I have thought much the same as Searle. I agree that AI cannot be duplicated through simple programs and logic. Instead, I believe that by creating an identical or similar structure to the human mind and a similar environment, AI will and must come to be on its own. This, in my opinion, is the only way for intelligence to emerge; intelligence is gained, not taught.

I am tentatively (and somewhat jokingly) calling my theory "True AI", as opposed to "Weak" or "Strong" AI. Strong has just been thoroughly taken down, whereas Weak can hardly be considered AI at all. This is one of the fields I wish to pursue.