skip to main content
10.1145/3365610.3368420acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmumConference Proceedingsconference-collections
poster

Alternative interaction techniques for drone-based mission definition: from desktop UI to wearable AR

Published: 26 November 2019 Publication History

Abstract

In this paper we address the adaptation of applications for conventional platforms (web, tablets and smartphones) to Augmented Reality (AR) settings. We do this on a specific use case, a tool to help users to define drone missions, which has been implemented with equivalent functionalities both for web-enabled devices and AR wearable devices (in particular, HoloLens). First, a brief description of the application workings is presented as well as the creation process for the mission and the manipulation of its components. Then, we present a preliminary validation with 8 users to analyze the degree of acceptance of the AR version, taking the web user interface as a baseline. Despite the technical limitations of the AR version (mainly related to the device visualization constraints and weight) and the reduction in efficiency (tasks need more time to be completed), several users have expressed their preference for this version. However, with the problem of precision in AR Head Mounted Display context always present, the need to establish new interaction techniques is once more highlighted.

References

[1]
Juan Besada, Luca Bergesio, Iván Campaña, Diego Vaquero-Melchor, Jaime López-Araquistain, Ana Bernardos, and José Casar. 2018. Drone mission definition and implementation for automated infrastructure inspection using airborne sensors. Sensors 18, 4 (2018), 1170.
[2]
Mark Billinghurst, Raphael Grasset, and Julian Looser. 2005. Designing augmented reality interfaces. ACM Siggraph Computer Graphics 39, 1 (2005), 17--22.
[3]
Pedro Quelhas Brito, Jasmina Stoyanova, and António Coelho. 2018. Augmented reality versus conventional interface: Is there any difference in effectiveness? Multimedia Tools and Applications 77, 6 (2018), 7487--7516.
[4]
Yu-An Chen, Te-Yen Wu, Tim Chang, Jun You Liu, Yuan-Chang Hsieh, Leon Yulun Hsu, Ming-Wei Hsu, Paul Taele, Neng-Hao Yu, and Mike Y Chen. 2018. ARPi-lot: designing and investigating AR shooting interfaces on mobile devices for drone videography. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services. ACM, 42.
[5]
Yifei Liu, Nancy Yang, Alyssa Li, Jesse Paterson, David McPherson, Tom Cheng, and Allen Y Yang. 2018. Usability Evaluation for Drone Mission Planning in Virtual Reality. In International Conference on Virtual, Augmented and Mixed Reality. Springer, 313--330.
[6]
Jesse Paterson, Jiwoong Han, Tom Cheng, Paxtan Laker, David McPherson, Joseph Menke, and Allen Yang. 2019. Improving Usability, Efficiency, and Safety of UAV Path Planning through a Virtual Reality Interface. arXiv preprint arXiv:1904.08593 (2019).

Cited By

View all

Index Terms

  1. Alternative interaction techniques for drone-based mission definition: from desktop UI to wearable AR

      Recommendations

      Comments

      Information & Contributors

      Information

      Published In

      cover image ACM Other conferences
      MUM '19: Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia
      November 2019
      462 pages
      ISBN:9781450376242
      DOI:10.1145/3365610
      Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      Published: 26 November 2019

      Check for updates

      Author Tags

      1. augmented reality
      2. head mounted display
      3. interface adaptation
      4. user validation

      Qualifiers

      • Poster

      Conference

      MUM 2019

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate 190 of 465 submissions, 41%

      Contributors

      Other Metrics

      Bibliometrics & Citations

      Bibliometrics

      Article Metrics

      • Downloads (Last 12 months)18
      • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
      Reflects downloads up to 07 Nov 2024

      Other Metrics

      Citations

      Cited By

      View all

      View Options

      Get Access

      Login options

      View options

      PDF

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader

      Media

      Figures

      Other

      Tables

      Share

      Share

      Share this Publication link

      Share on social media