skip to main content
10.1145/3419249.3420095acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesnordichiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Effects of Position and Alignment of Notifications on AR Glasses during Social Interaction

Published: 26 October 2020 Publication History

Abstract

Notifications are one of the smartphones’ key features. However, notifications can be disruptive, especially during social interaction. Augmented reality (AR) glasses can embed notifications directly into the user’s field of view and enable reading them while being engaged in a primary task. However, for efficient notification presentation using AR glasses, it is necessary to understand how notifications should be displayed without negatively affecting social interaction. Therefore, we conducted a study with 32 participants (16 pairs) using AR glasses to investigate how to display notifications during face-to-face communication. We compared center and top-right positions for notifications while aligning them relative to the user’s field of view or with the conversation partner. We found significant effects of notification position and alignment on how notifications are perceived using AR glasses during face-to-face communication. Insights from our study inform the design of applications for AR glasses that support displaying digital notifications.

References

[1]
Deepak Akkil, Andrés Lucero, Jari Kangas, Tero Jokela, Marja Salmimaa, and Roope Raisamo. 2016. User Expectations of Everyday Gaze Interaction on Smartglasses. In Proceedings of the 9th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (Gothenburg, Sweden) (NordiCHI ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 24, 10 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2971485.2971496
[2]
Fouad Alallah, Ali Neshati, Yumiko Sakamoto, Khalad Hasan, Edward Lank, Andrea Bunt, and Pourang Irani. 2018. Performer vs. Observer: Whose Comfort Level Should We Consider when Examining the Social Acceptability of Input Modalities for Head-worn Display?. In Proceedings of the 24th ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (Tokyo, Japan) (VRST ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 10, 9 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3281505.3281541
[3]
Ann Blandford, Dominic Furniss, and Stephann Makri. 2016. Qualitative HCI research: Going behind the scenes. Synthesis lectures on human-centered informatics 9, 1(2016), 1–115.
[4]
John Brooke. 1996. SUS: A “quick and dirty” usability scale. Usability evaluation in industry(1996), 189––194.
[5]
Scott W Campbell and Nojin Kwak. 2011. Mobile communication and civil society: Linking patterns and places of use to engagement with others in public. Human Communication Research 37, 2 (2011), 207–222.
[6]
Varoth Chotpitayasunondh and Karen M Douglas. 2018. The effects of “phubbing” on social interaction. Journal of Applied Social Psychology 48, 6 (2018), 304–316.
[7]
Soon Hau Chua, Simon T. Perrault, Denys J. C. Matthies, and Shengdong Zhao. 2016. Positioning Glass: Investigating Display Positions of Monocular Optical See-Through Head-Mounted Display. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Symposium on Chinese CHI (San Jose, USA) (ChineseCHI2016). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 1, 6 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2948708.2948713
[8]
Saverio Debernardis, Michele Fiorentino, Michele Gattullo, Giuseppe Monno, and Antonio Emmanuele Uva. 2013. Text readability in head-worn displays: Color and style optimization in video versus optical see-through devices. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 20, 1(2013), 125–139.
[9]
Tilman Dingler and Martin Pielot. 2015. I’ll Be There for You: Quantifying Attentiveness towards Mobile Messaging. In Proceedings of the 17th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (Copenhagen, Denmark) (MobileHCI ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1–5. https://doi.org/10.1145/2785830.2785840
[10]
Tilman Dingler, Dominik Weber, Martin Pielot, Jennifer Cooper, Chung-Cheng Chang, and Niels Henze. 2017. Language Learning On-the-Go: Opportune Moments and Design of Mobile Microlearning Sessions. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (Vienna, Austria) (MobileHCI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 28, 12 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3098279.3098565
[11]
Cambridge ESOL. 2008. Speaking Test Preparation Pack for FCE Paperback with DVD. Cambridge University Press.
[12]
Joseph L Gabbard, J Edward Swan, and Deborah Hix. 2006. The effects of text drawing styles, background textures, and natural lighting on text legibility in outdoor augmented reality. Presence: Teleoperators & Virtual Environments 15, 1(2006), 16–32.
[13]
Hüseyin Uğur Genç, Fatoş Gökşen, and Aykut Coşkun. 2018. Are We ’Really’ Connected?: Understanding Smartphone Use During Social Interaction in Public. In Proceedings of the 10th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (Oslo, Norway) (NordiCHI ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 880–885. https://doi.org/10.1145/3240167.3240235
[14]
Sarthak Ghosh, Lauren Winston, Nishant Panchal, Philippe Kimura-Thollander, Jeff Hotnog, Douglas Cheong, Gabriel Reyes, and Gregory D Abowd. 2018. NotifiVR: exploring interruptions and notifications in virtual reality. IEEE transactions on visualization and computer graphics 24, 4(2018), 1447–1456.
[15]
Jonna Häkkilä, Farnaz Vahabpour, Ashley Colley, Jani Väyrynen, and Timo Koskela. 2015. Design Probes Study on User Perceptions of a Smart Glasses Concept. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous Multimedia (Linz, Austria) (MUM ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 223–233. https://doi.org/10.1145/2836041.2836064
[16]
Edward Twitchell Hall. 1966. The hidden dimension. 1966.
[17]
Gunnar Harboe and Elaine M. Huang. 2015. Real-World Affinity Diagramming Practices: Bridging the Paper-Digital Gap. In Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Seoul, Republic of Korea) (CHI ’15). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 95–104. https://doi.org/10.1145/2702123.2702561
[18]
Sandra G Hart. 2006. NASA-task load index (NASA-TLX); 20 years later. In Proceedings of the human factors and ergonomics society annual meeting, Vol. 50. Sage publications Sage CA: Los Angeles, CA, 904–908.
[19]
Roberto Hoyle, Srijita Das, Apu Kapadia, Adam J. Lee, and Kami Vaniea. 2017. Was My Message Read? Privacy and Signaling on Facebook Messenger. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Denver, Colorado, USA) (CHI ’17). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 3838–3842. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025925
[20]
Carl J Huberty and John D Morris. 1992. Multivariate analysis versus multiple univariate analyses.(1992).
[21]
Shamsi T. Iqbal and Brian P. Bailey. 2010. Oasis: A Framework for Linking Notification Delivery to the Perceptual Structure of Goal-directed Tasks. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 17, 4, Article 15 (Dec. 2010), 28 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/1879831.1879833
[22]
Pranut Jain, Rosta Farzan, and Adam J. Lee. 2019. Are You There?: Identifying Unavailability in Mobile Messaging. In Extended Abstracts of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI EA ’19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article LBW0226, 6 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290607.3312893
[23]
Jacek Jankowski, Krystian Samp, Izabela Irzynska, Marek Jozwowicz, and Stefan Decker. 2010. Integrating Text with Video and 3D Graphics: The Effects of Text Drawing Styles on Text Readability. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Atlanta, Georgia, USA) (CHI ’10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1321–1330. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753524
[24]
Matthew Kay and Jacob Wobbrock. 2019. ARTool: Aligned Rank Transform for Nonparametric Factorial ANOVAs. R package version 0.10.6.9000(2019). https://github.com/mjskay/ARTool
[25]
Minsam Ko, Seungwoo Choi, Koji Yatani, and Uichin Lee. 2016. Lock N’ LoL: Group-based Limiting Assistance App to Mitigate Smartphone Distractions in Group Activities. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, California, USA) (CHI ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 998–1010. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858568
[26]
Minsam Ko, Subin Yang, Joonwon Lee, Christian Heizmann, Jinyoung Jeong, Uichin Lee, Daehee Shin, Koji Yatani, Junehwa Song, and Kyong-Mee Chung. 2015. NUGU: A Group-based Intervention App for Improving Self-Regulation of Limiting Smartphone Use. In Proceedings of the 18th ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work & Social Computing (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (CSCW ’15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1235–1245. https://doi.org/10.1145/2675133.2675244
[27]
Marek Kowalski, Zbigniew Nasarzewski, Grzegorz Galinski, and Piotr Garbat. 2018. Holoface: Augmenting human-to-human interactions on hololens. In 2018 IEEE Winter Conference on Applications of Computer Vision (WACV). IEEE, 141–149.
[28]
Kostadin Kushlev, Jason Proulx, and Elizabeth W. Dunn. 2016. ”Silence Your Phones”: Smartphone Notifications Increase Inattention and Hyperactivity Symptoms. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, California, USA) (CHI ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1011–1020. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858359
[29]
Andrés Lucero and Akos Vetek. 2014. NotifEye: Using Interactive Glasses to Deal with Notifications While Walking in Public. In Proceedings of the 11th Conference on Advances in Computer Entertainment Technology (Funchal, Portugal) (ACE ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 17, 10 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/2663806.2663824
[30]
Sven Mayer, Lars Lischke, Paweł W. Woźniak, and Niels Henze. 2018. Evaluating the Disruptiveness of Mobile Interactions: A Mixed-Method Approach. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 406, 14 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173980
[31]
Gerard McAtamney and Caroline Parker. 2006. An Examination of the Effects of a Wearable Display on Informal Face-to-face Communication. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal, Quebec, Canada) (CHI ’06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 45–54. https://doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124780
[32]
Abhinav Mehrotra, Veljko Pejovic, Jo Vermeulen, Robert Hendley, and Mirco Musolesi. 2016. My Phone and Me: Understanding People’s Receptivity to Mobile Notifications. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, California, USA) (CHI ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1021–1032. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858566
[33]
Carol Moser, Sarita Y. Schoenebeck, and Katharina Reinecke. 2016. Technology at the Table: Attitudes About Mobile Phone Use at Mealtimes. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, California, USA) (CHI ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1881–1892. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858357
[34]
Eyal Ofek, Shamsi T. Iqbal, and Karin Strauss. 2013. Reducing Disruption from Subtle Information Delivery During a Conversation: Mode and Bandwidth Investigation. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Paris, France) (CHI ’13). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3111–3120. https://doi.org/10.1145/2470654.2466425
[35]
Jason Orlosky, Kiyoshi Kiyokawa, and Haruo Takemura. 2014. Managing Mobile Text in Head Mounted Displays: Studies on Visual Preference and Text Placement. SIGMOBILE Mob. Comput. Commun. Rev. 18, 2 (June 2014), 20–31. https://doi.org/10.1145/2636242.2636246
[36]
Chunjong Park, Junsung Lim, Juho Kim, Sung-Ju Lee, and Dongman Lee. 2017. Don’T Bother Me. I’m Socializing!: A Breakpoint-Based Smartphone Notification System. In Proceedings of the 2017 ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work and Social Computing (Portland, Oregon, USA) (CSCW ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 541–554. https://doi.org/10.1145/2998181.2998189
[37]
Shwetak N Patel, Julie A Kientz, Gillian R Hayes, Sooraj Bhat, and Gregory D Abowd. 2006. Farther than you may think: An empirical investigation of the proximity of users to their mobile phones. In International Conference on Ubiquitous Computing. Springer, 123–140.
[38]
Martin Pielot, Bruno Cardoso, Kleomenis Katevas, Joan Serrà, Aleksandar Matic, and Nuria Oliver. 2017. Beyond Interruptibility: Predicting Opportune Moments to Engage Mobile Phone Users. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 1, 3, Article 91 (Sept. 2017), 25 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3130956
[39]
Martin Pielot, Karen Church, and Rodrigo de Oliveira. 2014. An In-situ Study of Mobile Phone Notifications. In Proceedings of the 16th International Conference on Human-computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (Toronto, ON, Canada) (MobileHCI ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 233–242. https://doi.org/10.1145/2628363.2628364
[40]
Martin Pielot and Luz Rello. 2017. Productive, Anxious, Lonely: 24 Hours Without Push Notifications. In Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (Vienna, Austria) (MobileHCI ’17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 11, 11 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3098279.3098526
[41]
Martin Pielot, Amalia Vradi, and Souneil Park. 2018. Dismissed!: A Detailed Exploration of How Mobile Phone Users Handle Push Notifications. In Proceedings of the 20th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (Barcelona, Spain) (MobileHCI ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 3, 11 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3229434.3229445
[42]
Halley Profita, Reem Albaghli, Leah Findlater, Paul Jaeger, and Shaun K. Kane. 2016. The AT Effect: How Disability Affects the Perceived Social Acceptability of Head-Mounted Display Use. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, California, USA) (CHI ’16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 4884–4895. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858130
[43]
Andrew K Przybylski and Netta Weinstein. 2013. Can you connect with me now? How the presence of mobile communication technology influences face-to-face conversation quality. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships 30, 3(2013), 237–246.
[44]
Stephan Raidt, Gerard Bailly, and Frederic Elisei. 2007. Gaze Patterns During Face-to-Face Interaction. In Proceedings of the 2007 IEEE/WIC/ACM International Conferences on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology - Workshops(WI-IATW ’07). IEEE Computer Society, Washington, DC, USA, 338–341. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1339264.1339721
[45]
Rufat Rzayev, Sabrina Hartl, Vera Wittmann, Valentin Schwind, and Niels Henze. 2020. Effects of Position of Real-Time Translation on AR Glasses. In Proceedings of the Conference on Mensch Und Computer (Magdeburg, Germany) (MuC ’20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 251–257. https://doi.org/10.1145/3404983.3405523
[46]
Rufat Rzayev, Sven Mayer, Christian Krauter, and Niels Henze. 2019. Notification in VR: The Effect of Notification Placement, Task and Environment. In Proceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play (Barcelona, Spain) (CHI PLAY ’19). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 199–211. https://doi.org/10.1145/3311350.3347190
[47]
Rufat Rzayev, Paweł W. Woźniak, Tilman Dingler, and Niels Henze. 2018. Reading on Smart Glasses: The Effect of Text Position, Presentation Type and Walking. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montreal QC, Canada) (CHI ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 45, 9 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3173619
[48]
Alireza Sahami Shirazi, Niels Henze, Tilman Dingler, Martin Pielot, Dominik Weber, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2014. Large-scale Assessment of Mobile Notifications. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Toronto, Ontario, Canada) (CHI ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 3055–3064. https://doi.org/10.1145/2556288.2557189
[49]
Cary Stothart, Ainsley Mitchum, and Courtney Yehnert. 2015. The attentional cost of receiving a cell phone notification.Journal of experimental psychology: human perception and performance 41, 4(2015), 893–897.
[50]
Kohei Tanaka, Yasue Kishino, Masakazu Miyamae, Tsutomu Terada, and Shojiro Nishio. 2008. An information layout method for an optical see-through head mounted display focusing on the viewability. In 2008 7th IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality. IEEE, 139–142.
[51]
Shari P Walsh, Katherine M White, and Ross McD Young. 2009. The phone connection: A qualitative exploration of how belongingness and social identification relate to mobile phone use amongst Australian youth. Journal of Community & Applied Social Psychology 19, 3(2009), 225–240.
[52]
Dominik Weber, Alexandra Voit, and Niels Henze. 2018. Notification Log: An Open-Source Framework for Notification Research on Mobile Devices. In Proceedings of the 2018 ACM International Joint Conference and 2018 International Symposium on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing and Wearable Computers (Singapore, Singapore) (UbiComp ’18). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 1271–1278. https://doi.org/10.1145/3267305.3274118
[53]
Jacob O. Wobbrock, Leah Findlater, Darren Gergle, and James J. Higgins. 2011. The Aligned Rank Transform for Nonparametric Factorial Analyses Using Only Anova Procedures. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (CHI ’11). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 143–146. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1978963

Cited By

View all

Index Terms

  1. Effects of Position and Alignment of Notifications on AR Glasses during Social Interaction
    Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Other conferences
    NordiCHI '20: Proceedings of the 11th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society
    October 2020
    1177 pages
    ISBN:9781450375795
    DOI:10.1145/3419249
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part 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 components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 26 October 2020

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. AR
    2. Face-to-face communication
    3. Interruption.
    4. Notification

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Conference

    NordiCHI '20
    NordiCHI '20: Shaping Experiences, Shaping Society
    October 25 - 29, 2020
    Tallinn, Estonia

    Acceptance Rates

    NordiCHI '20 Paper Acceptance Rate 89 of 399 submissions, 22%;
    Overall Acceptance Rate 379 of 1,572 submissions, 24%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)208
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)37
    Reflects downloads up to 08 Feb 2025

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    HTML Format

    View this article in HTML Format.

    HTML Format

    Figures

    Tables

    Media

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media