OP: A Novel Programming Model for Integrated Design and Prototyping of Mixed Objects Celine Coutrix & Laurence Nigay CNRS, University Joseph Fourier Grenoble INTERACT 2011

Outline Introduction The Mixded Interaction Model Related Work OP Toolkit Evaluation and Use Conclusion

Introduction Physical-digital objects & designer- developer pairs Problem –Portotyping toolkits would not probide an optimal abstraction level for better design flexbility –Interaction model and prototyping toolkits are hardly used together

Introduction OP (Object Prototyping) –New programming model –Integrated design approach

Mixded Interaction Model Hybrid physical-digital objects –Model a mixed object at a higher level of abstraction

Related Work Viewpoint –How these tools support the structuring of the prototype based on a mixed object –Which extext they support a systematic exploration of the design space by relying on the ability on the interaction model

Related Work Mixed Object Programming Model –Do not imply a code structuring based on a mixed object (Phidgets, Arduino, ARToolKit, Intuino) –Difficult to visually localize the block composing the code in regard to a MIM modeling (MaxMSP)

Related Work Mixed Object Programming Model –Use predefined brick and hardly consider the feedback (ICON, ICARE, OpenInterface, Context toolkit) –Manipulate the phusical part and the digital part, but does not use a detailed definition of the association (Papier-mache, d.tools)

Related Work Systematic exploration as a design approach –Developer: Textual coding (Phidegets, Arduino, ARToolKit, Context toolkit) & GUI (MaxMSP, PureData, ICON) –Non-instrumented design: GUI (BOXES, d.tools, Intuino) –Explict link to existing interaction models: Textual (Papier-mache), graphically (ICARE, OpenInterface)

OP Toolkit Intro. –I/O linking device components –I/O linking language –Composition components –Flexibility & reusability –Extensibility

OP Toolkit Building Mixed Objects –Linking device components VideoInputDevice MIDIDevice PhidgetinterfaceKitDevice –Linking language IdentityLanguage (Raw data) RampLanguage (Ramp function) ThresholdLanguage (True/False) RepeatLanguage BeepOutputLanguage (Impulse function) Inserting Mixed Objects into an Application –Connect (Nokia Qt)

Ramp Function GUI

Evaluation and Use Evaluating a software tool is a difficult problem –NO EVALUATE This study –Evaluate programming model –Evaluate expressive match of the toolkit

Evaluation and Use ORBIS

Evaluation and Use Evaluation of the integrated design approach –Reducing solution viscosity Reduce effort to explore possible design solutions –Flexibility Rapid changes –Expressive leverage Accomplish more by expressing less –Expressive match Closeness between the means of design choices and solutions

Evaluation and Use This paper applies Expressive match –Explain the target situations, tasks and users –State importance of the problem –Demonstrate the expressive match Measuring time to create a design or express a set of choices Challenging subjects to correct a design flaw and by reporting time, errors, difficulties and or success rates

Evaluation and Use Participants –Four developers who are novices with OP –Make two different randomly chosen modifications in the code of ORBIS –Work in the pairs –Provide doc. to participants –Perform these realistic modifications (experience with designers)

Evaluation and Use Problem –Unnatural to change a parameter in the linking language component –Toolkit should go even further and literally follow the MIM outline, bypassing existing software Encourage –Reuse the code for the interaction model –OP code is not the code –GUI

Conclusion OP Toolkit –Object level in prototyping mixed systems –Built on top of low-level technological toolkits Future –Integrate OP mixed object library into User Interface Management System(UIMS) –Designers –End-user define Mixed Interaction Model