skip to main content
10.1145/1851600.1851647acmotherconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesmobilehciConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Would you do that?: understanding social acceptance of gestural interfaces

Published:07 September 2010Publication History

ABSTRACT

With gesture-based interactions in mobile settings becoming more popular, there is a growing concern regarding the social acceptance of these interaction techniques. In this paper we begin by examining the various definitions of social acceptance that have been proposed in the literature to synthesize a definition that is based on how the user feels about performing a particular interaction as well as how the bystanders perceive the user during this interaction. We then present the main factors that influence gestures' social acceptance including culture, time, interaction type and the user's position on the innovation adoption curve. Through a user study we show that an important factor in determining social acceptance of gesture-based interaction techniques is the user's perception of others ability to interpret the potential effect of a manipulation.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

p275-montero.mp4

mp4

31.3 MB

References

  1. Brewster, S., Murray-Smith, R., Crossan, A., Vasquez-Alvarez Y. & Rico, J. The GAIME project: Gestural and Auditory Interactions for Mobile Environments. British computer Society, 2009.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Costanza, E., Inverso, S.A. & Allen, R. Toward Subtle Intimate Interfaces for Mobile Devices using an EMG Controller. Proc. CHI 2005. ACM Press, 481--489. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Dillon, A. User Acceptance of Infomration Technology. W. Karwowski. Encyclopedia of Human Factors and Ergonomics. London: Taylor and Francis, 2001.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Dourish, P. Where the Action Is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. 2001, MIT Press Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Feldman, A., Tapia, E.M., Sadi, S., Maes, P. & Schmandt, C. ReachMedia: On-the-Move Interaction With Everyday Objects. Proc. ISWC'05, 2005, 52--59. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Keronen, J., Bergman, J. & Kauko, J. Gravity Sphere: Gestural Audio-Tactile Interface for Mobile Music Exploration. Proc. CHI 2009, ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Monk, A., Carroll, J., Parker, S. & Blythe, M. Why Are Mobile Phones Annoying? Behaviour & Information Technology, 2004, Vol. 23, 33--41. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Pirhonen, A., Brewster, S. & Holguin, C. Gestural and Audio Metaphors as a Means of Control for Mobile Devices. Proc. CHI 2002, ACM. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Reeves, S., Benford, S., O'Malley, C., & Fraser, M. Designing the Spectator Experience. Proc. CHI 2005, ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Rekimoto, J. GestureWrist and GesturePad: Unobtrusive Wearable Interaction Devices. IEEE Computer Society, 2001. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Rogers, E. Diffusion of Innovations. New York Free Press, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Ronkainen, S., Hakkila, J., Kaleva, S., Colley, A. & Linjama, J. Tap Input as an Embedded Interaction Method for Mobile Devices. Proc. TEI'07, ACM 2007. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Scheible, J., Ojala, T. & Coulton, P. MobiToss: A Novel Gesture Based Interface for Crating and Sharing Mobile Multimedia Art on Large Public Displays. Proc. MM'08, ACM Press 2008, 957--960. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Shackel, B. Usability-Context, Framework, Definition, Design and Evaluation. J Richardson, B. Shackel. Human Factosrs for Informatics Usability. Cambridge University Press, 1991. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Tan, G., Takechi, M. & Brave, S. Effects of Voice vs. Remote on U.S. and Japanese User Satisfaction with Interactive HDTV Systems. Short Talk: Domesticated Design, CHI 2003, ACM 714--715. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Would you do that?: understanding social acceptance of gestural interfaces

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Other conferences
          MobileHCI '10: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Human computer interaction with mobile devices and services
          September 2010
          552 pages
          ISBN:9781605588353
          DOI:10.1145/1851600
          • General Chairs:
          • Marco de Sá,
          • Luís Carriço,
          • Program Chair:
          • Nuno Correia

          Copyright © 2010 ACM

          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 ACM 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: 7 September 2010

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • research-article

          Acceptance Rates

          MobileHCI '10 Paper Acceptance Rate46of225submissions,20%Overall Acceptance Rate202of906submissions,22%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader