\newcommand\phdyear{2008}
\newcommand\yearssincephd{\the\numexpr \the\year - \phdyear \relax} % F=m*a
-Intro générale.
-
-This manuscript starts where my Ph.D. manuscript ended, \yearssincephd~years ago.
-The objective of my research was to use haptics to help visually impaired children at school.
-My main contributions consisted in encoding information with touch, using Brewster's concept of Tactons~\cite{brewster04}.
-It was a pleasure and honor to me to have the opportunity to collaborate with his team on some of these projects.
-At this time, the way I viewed haptic at this point was a way to send information to users through their sense of touch.
-I designed different kinds of Tacton sets: force feedback with active exploration~\cite{pietrzak05}, passive exploration~\cite{pietrzak05a}, and pin arrays~\cite{pietrzak09,pietrzak06}.
-I used them in two educational applications: an electric circuits exploration software~\cite{pietrzak07a,pietrzak09a}, and a geometric shapes exploration software~\cite{pietrzak09a,pietrzak09b}.
-Let $n$ be the number of Tactons in the set, the theoretical number of bits each Tacton in this set can transmit is $log_2(n)$.
-For example, each Tacton in a set of 8 Tactons can transmit up to $3$ bits.
-I performed user studies to analyze confusions and deduced the number of bits effectively transmitted to users.
-This was an estimation of the throughput of this communication channel.
-Finally, I designed a multimodal API~\cite{pietrzak07b} to use these output modalities along with sound and 3D graphics.
-
-The first chapter…
-
-Input…
-The second chapter
-
-During the committee questions after my defense presentation, Yves Guiard talked for 15 minutes to tell me how he “liked my work but does not agree”.
-This was the most exciting moment of my defense.
-To this day we still talk about that each time we have the chance to meet.
-His point referred to Gibson's work on perception, especially his paper on active touch~\cite{gibson62}.
-In this paper, Gibson describes an experiment in which participants had to recognize the shape of cookie cutters with their sense of touch only.
-There were two conditions: half of the participants could only feel the cookie-cutter pressed on their hand, the other half could explore the contours with their fingers.
-It turned out that participants of the first condition recognized $29\%$ of the shapes, and participants of the other condition $95\%$ of the shapes.
-This experiment clearly shows that our exploration actions are as important as our sensations in our understanding of our environment.
-In my work, I made a consensual distinction between tactile and force feedback.
-I called tactile feedback sensations coming from the mechanoreceptors in the skin, and force feedback sensations coming from muscles, tendons, and joints~\cite{oakley00}.
-Pr. Guiard argued for a different taxonomy in which tactile feedback refers to sensations resulting from tangential movements, and force feedback refers to sensations resulting from normal movements.
-His taxonomy is certainly in line with Gibson's idea that our understanding of our environment depends on our exploratory movements.
-However, my understanding is that the actual sensations got lost in the way.
-We can however fill the gap with Lederman and Klatzky's work on exploratory movements~\cite{lederman87}.
-
-Indeed, I discussed the relation between movement and perception to some extent in my Ph.D. manuscript on several occasions, even if I was not aware of Gibson's work yet.
-The first time was when I designed force-feedback icons.
-The first Tacton set I published used active exploration with force feedback~\cite{pietrzak05}.
-Users manipulated a force feedback stylus (Phantom), which tip was constrained on a line.
-These Tactons consisted of bumps that varied in number, direction, and amplitude.
-Later, I created Tactons with passive exploration~\cite{pietrzak05a}.
-They also used a force feedback stylus, but this time the tip was stuck and dragged around in different directions, amplitudes, multiple times.
-The main difference between these Tactons is the active or passive exploration from users.
-Participants in my user studies perceived both kinds of Tactons.
-The difference was essentially the situations in which they could be used.
-Typically, in the electric circuits schematics exploration software I designed~\cite{pietrzak07a,pietrzak09a}, active exploration encoded electrical components.
-It enabled users to scan components and deduce their type.
-Passive exploration Tactons were used at joints, in which users could query the adjacent directions, and help them to explore the topology of circuits.
+% Intro générale.
+
+% This manuscript starts where my Ph.D. manuscript ended, \yearssincephd~years ago.
+% The objective of my research was to use haptics to help visually impaired children at school.
+% My main contributions consisted in encoding information with touch, using Brewster's concept of Tactons~\cite{brewster04}.
+% It was a pleasure and honor to me to have the opportunity to collaborate with his team on some of these projects.
+% At this time, the way I viewed haptic at this point was a way to send information to users through their sense of touch.
+% I designed different kinds of Tacton sets: force feedback with active exploration~\cite{pietrzak05}, passive exploration~\cite{pietrzak05a}, and pin arrays~\cite{pietrzak09,pietrzak06}.
+% I used them in two educational applications: an electric circuits exploration software~\cite{pietrzak07a,pietrzak09a}, and a geometric shapes exploration software~\cite{pietrzak09a,pietrzak09b}.
+% % Let $n$ be the number of Tactons in the set, the theoretical number of bits each Tacton in this set can transmit is $log_2(n)$.
+% % For example, each Tacton in a set of 8 Tactons can transmit up to \qty{3}{\bit}.
+% % I performed user studies to analyze confusions and deduced the number of bits effectively transmitted to users.
+% I performed user studies to analyze confusions and estimated the thoughput of this modality.
+% % This was an estimation of the throughput of this communication channel.
+% Finally, I designed a multimodal API~\cite{pietrzak07b} to use these output modalities along with sound and 3D graphics.
+
+
+% During the questions after my Ph.D. defense presentation, Yves Guiard talked for \qty{15}{\minute} to tell me how he “liked my work but does not agree”.
+% This was the most exciting moment of my defense.
+% To this day we still talk about that each time we have the chance to meet.
+% His point referred to Gibson's work on perception, especially his paper on active touch~\cite{gibson62}.
+% In this paper, Gibson describes an experiment in which participants had to recognize the shape of cookie cutters with their sense of touch only.
+% There were two conditions: half of the participants could only feel the cookie-cutter pressed on their hand, the other half could explore the contours with their fingers.
+% It turned out that participants of the first condition recognized \qty{29}{\percent} of the shapes, and participants of the other condition \qty{95}{\percent} of the shapes.
+% This experiment clearly shows that our exploration actions are as important as our sensations in our understanding of our environment.
+% In my work, I made a consensual distinction between tactile and force feedback.
+% I called tactile feedback sensations coming from the mechanoreceptors in the skin, and force feedback sensations coming from muscles, tendons, and joints~\cite{oakley00}.
+% Pr. Guiard argued for a different taxonomy in which tactile feedback refers to sensations resulting from tangential movements, and force feedback refers to sensations resulting from normal movements.
+% His taxonomy is certainly in line with Gibson's idea that our understanding of our environment depends on our exploratory movements.
+% However, my understanding is that the actual sensations got lost in the way.
+% We can however fill the gap with Lederman and Klatzky's work on exploratory movements~\cite{lederman87}.
+
+% Indeed, I discussed the relation between movement and perception to some extent in my Ph.D. manuscript on several occasions, even if I was not aware of Gibson's work yet.
+% The first time was when I designed force-feedback icons.
+% The first Tacton set I published used active exploration with force feedback~\cite{pietrzak05}.
+% Users manipulated a force feedback stylus (Phantom), which tip was constrained on a line.
+% These Tactons consisted of bumps that varied in number, direction, and amplitude.
+% Later, I created Tactons with passive exploration~\cite{pietrzak05a}.
+% They also used a force feedback stylus, but this time the tip was stuck and dragged around in different directions, amplitudes, multiple times.
+% The main difference between these Tactons is the active or passive exploration from users.
+% Participants in my user studies perceived both kinds of Tactons.
+% The difference was essentially the situations in which they could be used.
+% Typically, in the electric circuits schematics exploration software I designed~\cite{pietrzak07a,pietrzak09a}, active exploration encoded electrical components.
+% It enabled users to scan components and deduce their type.
+% Passive exploration Tactons were used at joints, in which users could query the adjacent directions, and help them to explore the topology of circuits.
+
+
+From Ancient Greek {\mygreek ἁπτικός} (haptikós, “able to come in contact with”), from {\mygreek ἅπτω} (háptō, “to touch”) + {\mygreek -ικός} (-ikós, “suffix forming an adjective from a noun”)\footref{https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/haptic}.
+
+Document useful for anybody who wants to design, implement, or evaluate interactive systems, in particular with haptics.
\paragraph{\refchap{chap:output}}
-\paragraph{\refchap{chap:input}}
+The \refchap{chap:output} extends my Ph.D. work during which I used haptics to help visually impaired children at school.
+I describe a haptics rendering pipeline that details the different steps on both the system and human side, and both the hardware and software parts.
+This pipeline highlights the possible causes of alteration of the original message between the softare and the user's mind.
+I explain the basics of haptic technologies and the sense of touch, then I discuss challenges for their design.
+The first challenge is about the output vocabulary and how we encode information with haptic cues.
+The second one is about intertwined relation between the engineering and the evaluation of haptic devices.
+The third challenge addresses the restoration of missing haptic properties of physical controls in multi-touch and gestural interaction.
+The fourth challenge is about the haptic properties of tangible controls and their effect on interaction.
+Then I discuss a number of contributions about these challenges.
-\paragraph{\refchap{chap:loop}}
+\paragraph{\refchap{chap:input}}
-While Chapter 2 and 3 are the vision I used to have, the point of the third chapter is to explain I should not have separated these three chapters.
+The \refchap{chap:input} presents a mirror vision of the work presented in \refchap{chap:output}.
+The input pipeline I discuss is almost identical to the haptic rendering pipleline, except that the user is initiating the action.
+In a similar way, this pipeline describes possible cause of alteration of the system's interpretation of the user's actionsintentions.
+I could not find an equivalent term of \emph{senses} for human outputs.
+For lack of anything better, I defined the term \emph{ability} and in particular the \emph{motor ability}.
+I describe the way it works, as well as the way input systems work.
+Then I present challenges for the design of input systems.
+The first challenge is about the sensing and interpretation of human abilities.
+The second one addresses the design of input vocabularies.
+The third challenges is about the relevance of unnatural inputs and the futility to replicate the physical world into the digital world.
+To address these challenges I present several contributions.
+\paragraph{\refchap{chap:loop}}
-From Ancient Greek {\mygreek ἁπτικός} (haptikós, “able to come in contact with”), from {\mygreek ἅπτω} (háptō, “to touch”) + {\mygreek -ικός} (-ikós, “suffix forming an adjective from a noun”)\footnote{\href{https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/haptic}{https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/haptic}}.
+While \refchap{chap:input} and \refchap{chap:output} described the vision of HCI I had at the beginning of my research career.
+This vision evolved as the sensorimotor loop kept having a greater importance in my work.
+The point of \refchap{chap:loop} is to explain that the first two chapters should have never been separated.
+%integrate the first two chapters into a whole that worth more than its parts.
+%explain I should not have separated these three chapters.
+It starts with studies that failed at improving interaction substantially because they followed the vision of the two first chapters.
+Then I discuss the connections between computing and the sensorimotor loop through models of human behavior and system and architectures and paradigms.
+[I propose new models that extend fundamental HCI models to make the connection with the ]
% \begin{verbatim}
% ==
projects / hdr.git / commitdiff