THE FUTURE OF OPERATING SYSTEMS WIELDING MOTION CAPTURE ... · THE FUTURE OF OPERATING SYSTEMS WIELDING MOTION CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY ... technology, specifically the Leap Motion

University of West London

School of Computing and Technology

Undergraduate Computing

THE FUTURE OF

OPERATING SYSTEMS

WIELDING MOTION

CAPTURE

TECHNOLOGY

Daron Gardi

May 2015

The Future Of Operating Systems Wielding Motion Capture Technology Daron Gardi

THE FUTURE OF OPERATING SYSTEMS WIELDING MOTION CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY - MAY 2015

Daron Gardi

Submitted in support of BSc (Information Systems for Business)

May 2015

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank the participants of my testing videos and interviews as well as Preece,

Rogers & Sharp for providing the knowledge to aid in most of the research for both the

project and dissertation and finally my supervisor Dr. José Abdelnour Nocera for providing

excellent guidance throughout the process of completing both the project and dissertation.

DECLARATION

“I certify that this work has not been accepted in substance for any degree, and is not

concurrently being submitted for any degree other than that of BSc Information Systems /

Applied Computing being studied at the University of West London.

I also declare that this work is the result of my own investigations except where otherwise

identified by references and that I have not plagiarised another‟s work”.

CONTENTS PAGE

1 - INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................... 3

1.1 - Background ............................................................................................................................... 4

1.2 - Aims & Objectives .................................................................................................................... 4

2- LITERATURE REVIEW ................................................................................................................ 5

2.1 – Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 5

2.2 - Design of Graphical User Interfaces ....................................................................................... 5

2.3 - Usability ..................................................................................................................................... 6

2.4 - Leap Motion Controller ........................................................................................................... 6

2.5 - Benefits and Applications......................................................................................................... 7

2.6 - Weaknesses and Limitations .................................................................................................... 7

3 - METHODOLOGIES ....................................................................................................................... 8

3.1 - Introduction .............................................................................................................................. 8

3.2 - Personas ..................................................................................................................................... 9

3.2.1 - What? ................................................................................................................................... 9


[1]

3.2.2 - Rationale .............................................................................................................................. 9

3.2.3 - How? .................................................................................................................................... 9

3.3 - Heuristic Evaluation ............................................................................................................... 10

3.3.1 - What? ................................................................................................................................. 10

3.3.2 - Rationale ............................................................................................................................ 10

3.3.3 - How? .................................................................................................................................. 10

3.4 - Test Plan .................................................................................................................................. 11

3.4.1 - What? ................................................................................................................................. 11

3.4.2 - Rationale ............................................................................................................................ 11

3.4.3 - How? .................................................................................................................................. 11

3.5 - Low Fidelity Prototype ........................................................................................................... 12

3.5.1 - What? ................................................................................................................................. 12

3.5.2 - Rationale ............................................................................................................................ 12

3.5.3 - How? .................................................................................................................................. 12

3.6 – Interviews................................................................................................................................ 12

3.6.1 - What? ................................................................................................................................. 12

3.6.2 - Rationale ............................................................................................................................ 13

3.6.3 - Opposing Methodologies ................................................................................................... 14

4 – ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION ....................................................................................................... 15

4.1 - Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 15

4.2 - The Leap Motion Controller .................................................................................................. 16

4.2.1 – Evaluation Tasks ............................................................................................................... 17

4.3 - Results Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 19

4.3.1 - Quantitative Data .............................................................................................................. 19

4.2.2 – Qualitative Data ................................................................................................................ 24

4.4 – Results Evaluation ................................................................................................................. 27

4.5 - Approach Justification ........................................................................................................... 28

4.6 – Literature Relation ................................................................................................................ 29

5 – CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................... 30

5.1 - Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 30

5.2 – Findings ................................................................................................................................... 30

5.3 – Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 31

6 – CRITIQUE .................................................................................................................................... 31

6.1 - Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 31

6.2 - Importance of Research ......................................................................................................... 32

6.3 – Research Conclusions ............................................................................................................ 32


[2]

REFERENCES .................................................................................................................................... 34

APPENDICES ..................................................................................................................................... 36

FIGURES FIGURE 1 ............................................................................................................................................................... 16 FIGURE 2 ............................................................................................................................................................... 36 FIGURE 3 ............................................................................................................................................................... 37 FIGURE 4 ............................................................................................................................................................... 38 FIGURE 5 ............................................................................................................................................................... 39 FIGURE 6 ............................................................................................................................................................... 40 FIGURE 7 ............................................................................................................................................................... 40 FIGURE 8 ............................................................................................................................................................... 41 FIGURE 9 ............................................................................................................................................................... 42 FIGURE 10 ............................................................................................................................................................. 43 FIGURE 11 ............................................................................................................................................................. 44 FIGURE 12 ............................................................................................................................................................. 45 FIGURE 13 ............................................................................................................................................................. 46 FIGURE 14 ............................................................................................................................................................. 53 FIGURE 15 ............................................................................................................................................................. 54 FIGURE 16 ............................................................................................................................................................. 55 FIGURE 17 ............................................................................................................................................................. 55 FIGURE 18 ............................................................................................................................................................. 56 FIGURE 19 ............................................................................................................................................................. 58 FIGURE 20 ............................................................................................................................................................. 59 FIGURE 21 ............................................................................................................................................................. 60 FIGURE 22 ............................................................................................................................................................. 62 FIGURE 23 ............................................................................................................................................................. 63 FIGURE 24 ............................................................................................................................................................. 67 FIGURE 25 ............................................................................................................................................................. 67 FIGURE 26 ............................................................................................................................................................. 67 FIGURE 27 ............................................................................................................................................................. 68 FIGURE 28 ............................................................................................................................................................. 68 FIGURE 29 ............................................................................................................................................................. 69 FIGURE 30 ............................................................................................................................................................. 69 FIGURE 31 ............................................................................................................................................................. 70 FIGURE 32 ............................................................................................................................................................. 70 FIGURE 33 ............................................................................................................................................................. 71 FIGURE 34 ............................................................................................................................................................. 71 FIGURE 35 ............................................................................................................................................................. 72 FIGURE 36 ............................................................................................................................................................. 72

TABLES

TABLE 1 ................................................................................................................................................................. 46 TABLE 2 ................................................................................................................................................................. 47 TABLE 3 ................................................................................................................................................................. 48 TABLE 4 ................................................................................................................................................................. 49 TABLE 5 ................................................................................................................................................................. 50 TABLE 6 ................................................................................................................................................................. 51 TABLE 7 ................................................................................................................................................................. 52


[3]

TABLE 8 ................................................................................................................................................................. 73

ABSTRACT

Moore‟s law (1965) dictates that technology is exponentially and rapidly growing, this

philosophy asks the question what is the future of operating systems and particularly will

motion capture technologies such as the Leap Motion prevail as a more integrated way of

humans interacting with computers. This topic is open to interpretation, evaluation, and

discussion providing many functionality limitations in the Human-Computer Interaction field,

the Human-Computer Interaction field is defined by Bannon & Winograd (2011) as “the

design role in construction of the inner space in which people live rather than an interface

with which they interact”. This project sought out to investigate & evaluate the limitations of

motion capture technology and particularly the Leap Motion in effort to answer the research

question, is motion capture technology the future of operating systems? Based on the fact that

this technology is somewhat new, this means that although there is research on the field and

on the technology there is little research done using the Leap Motion. Thus, it provides a

certain aspect of originality to this project and thus the researcher decided that throughout this

project the researcher would conduct primary research both quantitative and qualitative with

the method of various informal interviews, accompanied and based upon video recordings of

6 users testing and validating an application within the dedicated Leap Motion application

store. The application would allow the users to access certain functions within Microsoft‟s

Windows operating system with gesture based movements. The researcher would then

interview the users and ask them to rate the system based upon various HCI fundamentals

such as functionality, usability, design etc. of the system and ask the users for evidence to

support their claims. This testing would provide the basis of a low fidelity prototype in a

storyboarded format, as an attempt to quell all negative comments made by the users and to

answer the research question, is a gesture based operating system plausible and realistic

within the Human-Computer Interaction field?

1 - INTRODUCTION This project and dissertation in its entirety was planned by the researcher using Microsoft

Project to create a Gantt Chart [Figure.2], which defined by Gantt.com (2015) is a project

management tool. This allowed the researcher to understand what is needed from the

researcher within a specific time frame, however this proved difficult to stick to throughout


[4]

the progress of this project and dissertation. It did however prove to be a useful source in

efficiently undergoing both the project and dissertation.

This paper will consist of literature reviews, as well as methodologies providing a thorough

explanation of the research completed an overall discussion and critique of the research

question and finally a conclusion and critique of my findings and theories based on the paper.

1.1 - Background

The Leap Motion is a hardware made up of a 3-inch controller, however it is not the size of

the hardware that is impressive instead the power it possesses, this is because the controller

has an infrared sensor along with two stereo camera‟s and this technology tracks infrared

light within a wavelength of 850 nanometres (Colgan, 2014). The importance of this

technology will be deciphered in this dissertation, particularly the capabilities of the Leap

Motion and the technologies ability to become a pivotal technology in ubiquitous computing.

Despite the importance of the subject, being that the technology is somewhat new to the

public this means that there are some limitations to the progress made possible by this project

as there is a lack of substantial independent research completed on this technology.

1.2 - Aims & Objectives

This paper will discuss many different viewpoints on the Leap Motion as well as the

fundamentals of Human-Computer Interaction and review the many different literatures

available such as Preece, Rogers & Sharp‟s Interaction Design book. Through reviewing

literatures the researcher aims to achieve an intelligent and knowledgeable understanding of

the Leap Motions capabilities as well as the progress this technology could have on the

Human-Computer Interaction field. This project will also achieve said aim by conducting

primary research; this will be done in the form of user testing via interviews and video

recordings of users testing the Leap Motion for the first time. It will specifically involve

using an application provided by the Leap Motion that allows users to control certain

functionalities within the windows 8.1 operating system. Finkel (1996) defines an operation

system as “a set of programs that controls a computer”. This testing will help build

knowledge on the experiences that first time users of the technology will have, providing an

insight as to whether the technology could be applicable to the future of operating systems.

As well as user testing, heuristic evaluations will completed by the researcher. Heuristic

evaluations are a way of defining and identifying genuine usability issues (Salian & Sim,

2014) and this was done to aid in the research that will be carried out and allow for a more in-

depth critique and discussion. The data from the user testing as well as the testing carried out


[5]

by the researcher will be analysed and interpreted in an effort to understand whether this

technology has potential in becoming more than a gimmick in the furtherance of technology

as well as pushing technological boundaries and limitations in the field of computing.

2- LITERATURE REVIEW

2.1 – Introduction

Addressing the question of the future of operating systems wielding motion capture

technology, specifically the Leap Motion controller technology, requires a broader outlook on

key issues surrounding the concept. These will be introduced in the review of this literature,

including the design of graphical user interfaces, the usability spectrum within Human-

Computer Interaction, the Leap Motion controller and finally strengths and weaknesses

within the leap motion controller.

2.2 - Design of Graphical User Interfaces

The current world of technology today is increasingly focused on the need for graphical user

interfaces assimilating gestures. One of the earliest, well-known and commercially feasible

solutions was the WiiMote controller. Released in 2006 by (Nintendo of Europe GmbH), the

Wiimote features an accelerometer that makes the acquisition of full 3D gestures possible as

well as functioning as a separate device agreeable with various applications. Furthermore, in

late 2010 Microsoft saw the release of the Kinect sensor (Xbox.com) featuring visual and

auditory inputs and a depth-sensing camera. Interestingly, when coupled with an open SDK,

which is defined by (Nykaza et al, 2002) as a software development kit, Kinect can be

employed to recognition of full body gestures for multiple users simultaneously (Guna, Jakus,

Pogačnik, Tomažič, & Sodnik, 2014).

However, the process of designing graphical user interfaces integrating gestures is not a

straightforward one but rather poses challenges for software developers who lack in their

knowledge and expertise with gesture interaction. The field of hand and pen-based gestures

has gained a significant amount of attention in research and development owing to the

technical difficulty of analysing, modelling, interpreting and recognizing gestures in a wide

spectrum of systems. Graphical user interfaces assimilating hand and pen based gestures have

yet to reach their full potential for a number of reasons. The complexity of the task lies in a

lack of expertise with designers and developers in deciding which recognition algorithm to

select, how to adjust the preferred algorithm to fit the framework of use, and subsequently


[6]

how to integrate the chosen algorithm into streamlined User Interface (UI) development

(Beuvens & Vanderdonckt, 1988).

2.3 - Usability

Usability is an integral aspect of software design and development. It is defined by the ISO

(2015) as “the capability of a software product to be understood, learned, used, and attractive

to the user, when used under specified conditions”. This is vital to the success of software

application in practice and plays a large part in user experience. A number of usability

guidelines have been established comprised from several analysis and design artefacts with

software developers in mind, this is to ensure that software engineers incorporate particular

usability features in their application. The guidelines, which are too extensive to address

individually within the scope of this work, focus mainly on functional usability features such

as favourites, personal object space and preferences to name but a few. These guidelines were

tested in an academic setting, the authors proved their hypotheses correct and reported that

adherence of these guidelines not only reduces development time but also improves the

quality of the resulting applications (Carvajal, Moreno, Sánchez-Segura, & Seffah, 2013).

Furthermore, designing graphical user interfaces and software that includes usability features

with a high impact on application logic is a seemingly difficult and complex task. However,

the use of the aforementioned guidelines has reduced much of the perceived complexity of

these tasks with software developers therefore influencing them in favour of usability.

2.4 - Leap Motion Controller

The Leap Motion technology indisputably offers a revolutionary input device for gesture

based Human-Computer interaction. The Leap Motion Controller consists of a small

peripheral that plugs into a USB port and sits on a flat surface in front of a Mac or Windows

based computer. The device employs three infrared LEDs as light sources and two cameras to

capture motion data. The system detects and tracks motion caused by hand and pen based

gestures one inch to two feet (25 to 600 millimeters) in front of, to the side of, and above the

device (Guna et al., 2014). Gesture input devices incorporating a device whereby an

individual becomes a controller rather than an operator is preferred, these are typically

hands/body-free methods. The former would seem logical; gestures are a normal human form

of interaction and communication that comes very naturally to people. Eliminating the need

for intermediate devices such as a mouse or keyboard allows for a user interface that mimics

the natural form of human communication incorporating real life motions.


[7]

2.5 - Benefits and Applications

Many gestural systems experience latency, this is caused by the large cameras employed that

extract sizeable amounts of information from an area thereby requiring substantial

computational analysis (Beuvens & Vanderdonckt, 1988). Conversely, the Leap Motion

Controller has minimal latency largely because it engages a small camera. Also, the

algorithms used refine the data input, only extracting the data required for the task at hand;

this enables increased accuracy and detection of small hand gestures and movements. A

noteworthy feature of Leap Motion is its versatility, because the system is small and mainly

software based it may be implanted in a variety of devices (Plemmons & Holz, 2014). More

to the point, another strength of the Leap Motion controller stems largely from the level of

accuracy and detail provided by the Leap Motion API which delivers access to detection data

through direct mapping to hands and fingers. This feature is unique and in direct contrast to

other 3D sensory input devices like the Microsoft Kinect where sensory data is returned in

raw format to be “cleaned up” and interpreted subsequently. Robust API pre-processing

allows for faster building of client applications as well as consistently accurate data (Potter,

Araullo & Carter, 2013).

Furthermore, a study focused on the robustness and accuracy of the Leap Motion Controller

employed an experimental set up consisting of an industrial robot with a reference pen

allowing a position accuracy of 0.2 mm. The results of this experimental design showed a

deviation ranging from the desired 3D position and the average measured positions below 1.2

mm for dynamic setups and 0.2 mm for static setups (Weichert, Bachmann, Rudak, &

Fisseler, 2013). This demonstrates that the Leap Motion controller is a reliable and accurate

system for tracking static points. Another study of the Leap Motion Controller has

demonstrated a level of potential for gestures in handwriting recognition applications. The

authors treated the input data as a time series of 3D positions and processed using a Dynamic

Time Warping algorithm to recognize characters (Vikram, Li, & Russell, 2013). The authors

concluded that their experiments showed promising recognition performance and speed.

2.6 - Weaknesses and Limitations

Early product reviews of the Leap Motion controller voiced concerns with the technology in

relation to app control, motion sensitivity and arm fatigue. Moreover, the precision, accuracy

and reliability of the Leap Motion Controller has attracted a great amount of attention in the

past few years since the device was made publicly available in summer 2013. Consequently,

a number of studies have been published detailing the findings on the accuracy and usability


[8]

of Leap Motion. An early study exploring the suitability of the Leap Motion Controller for

sign language recognition reported that hand signs require a certain level of distance from the

chest of the signer which may be problematic as the Leap Motion controller must be facing

downwards. The authors of the study further explain that the weaknesses of the Leap Motion

controller lies in “maintaining accuracy and fidelity of detection when there is not a direct

line of sight with the controller” (Potter, Araullo & Carter, 2013). There is also a line of sight

problem, this is evident when the users hand was placed at a certain angle, the Leap Motion

Controller failed to recognize the gesture. Another weakness outlined by the authors is that

the pinching motion is irregular and can skip frames in the recognition.

Another study investigating the precision and reliability of the Leap Motion sensor and its

suitability for static and dynamic tracking revealed certain weaknesses in the accuracy of

Leap Motion. The controller‟s performance was evaluated using both static and dynamic

measurements using a plastic arm model and a V-shaped tool used to simulate two human

fingers respectively. The static scenario reported a standard deviation of less than 0.5 mm,

this increased significantly when moving away from the controller, and these findings are

concurrent with the above mentioned study by Weichert et al 2013. However, inaccuracies

and inconsistencies were revealed in the dynamic scenario with a significant drop in accuracy

for samples taken more than 250 mm above the Leap Motion controller‟s surface (Guna,

Jakus, Pogačnik, Tomažič, & Sodnik, 2014). This confirms a spatial dependency that directly

affects the controller‟s consistency and functionality. Therefore, the authors of the said paper

conclude that “due to its rather limited sensory space and inconsistent sampling frequency”

the Leap Motion controller is not suitable for use as a professional tracking system with its

existing configuration.

The limitations of motion capture technologies can be attributed to the lack of attention by

designers in developing applications that function with gestural interfaces. Many developers

that are perhaps biased towards traditional user interfaces have yet to realize gestural

controls‟ potential.

3 - METHODOLOGIES

3.1 - Introduction

Below will discuss in detail the methodologies set out to complete the project, this will

include many different aspects such as Personas, Heuristic Evaluation, Test Planning, as well


[9]

as Low Fidelity Prototyping and finally Interviews based upon user testing. These

methodologies will be explained and referenced mainly by Preece, Rogers, Sharp (2015) as

this book heavily influenced the researcher in compiling most of these project entities. The

methodologies above will also include a description of what the methodology is, a rationale

as to why the methodology is effective in ensuring project success and how the researcher

used the methodology within the project. The interview methodology will also include

opposing methodologies as this methodology was chosen in light of two other methodologies,

being focus groups and questionnaires. This will be discussed in detail explaining why the

interview methodology was chosen instead of the other aforementioned methodologies.

3.2 - Personas

3.2.1 - What?

A persona is defined by Preece, Rogers, Sharp. (2015, p357-359), as a rich methodology of

describing typical users that products can be designed towards, one persona can represent

many users, however these users are not real, living, breathing people, they are however

accurately descriptive representations of user groups and idealistic user demographics. The

personas are a synthesised way of analysing demographically statistical data in order to create

understandable user goals. Aside from user goals the personas will fundamentally include a

description of the users‟ skills, attitudes, tasks and environmental backgrounds. These all help

define the key users of the system and help understand what generically would be desired by

them for the system.

3.2.2 - Rationale

The rationale or reasoning behind the effectiveness and strengths for personas is that based

upon Preece, Rogers, Sharp. (2015, p357-359), this allows organisations developing systems

that will be ultimately used by humans which means that said systems must be developed

with the use of human interaction in mind. Personas help the organisations devise and plan

various user requirements for the system being created. This is done by analysing

demographical information and permits the organisation to fabricate what is needed by the

users in regards to an innovating system. This ultimately allows the organisation to create a

successful Human-Computer system.

3.2.3 - How?

The personas were devised to aid in the creation of a low fidelity prototype, this allowed the

researcher to analyse behavioural patterns within conventional persona attributes such as

personality traits, motivational entities as well as goals and frustrations. Based upon Preece,


[10]

Rogers, Sharp. (2015, p357-359) the researcher created a simplistic and eye catching layout

to coincide with the precedence of using this style of persona [Figure.3 – 13].

3.3 - Heuristic Evaluation

3.3.1 - What?

A heuristic evaluation is a way in which a user can evaluate and examine a system based

upon various Human-Computer Interaction fundamentals such as (Table 1-7)

Providing an effective home page

Matching structure with user needs

Providing usable e-functions

Testing how much the application is user-centred?

Supporting the user

Ensuring Visual Elements Do No compromise usability

The evaluation as explained by Preece, Rogers, Sharp. (2015, p454) can be used to evaluate

any system “from low-tech prototypes to complete systems”. This will help the creators of

the system delve into the minds of users and evaluate how effective the system is at

efficiently and effectively carrying out the required user needs.

3.3.2 - Rationale

The reasoning behind the use of heuristic evaluations numbers in the many, as this

methodology provides many advantages, namely Preece, Rogers, Sharp. (2015, p453)

explain that “from a business and marketing perspective, well designed products sell” this

business aspect paired with the human computing interaction aspect of focusing on user

needs to efficiently improve user lives through computing means that heuristic evaluations

provide a useful tool for assessing the Human-Computer Interaction issues in advance thus

solving said issues. It is notable that these evaluations are not set out to cater to specific

users‟ needs or likes however to discover concerns and disputes within the design of the

created system overall.

3.3.3 - How?

The researcher created a heuristic evaluation as a way in which to evaluate the Leap Motion

Shortcuts V2 application that was being tested. This helped the researcher understand flaws

within the system based upon fundamentals within the Human-Computer Interaction field

such as the support offered by the system to the user and the visual elements of the user

interface compromising usability.


[11]

3.4 - Test Plan

3.4.1 - What?

The test plan as defined by is a plan that is devised in order to adequately complete testing of

a specific system, test plans crucially need to include [Figure 14-15]

A Study Summary & Purpose

Participants of The Test

Evaluation Tasks

Test Environment & Supplies

Researchers Role

Evaluation Measures

The test plan uses these metrics to strategically plan the user testing of the system and aid in

streamlining the testing by noting entities of the user testing such as the supplies needed and

the desired environment of the test plans.

3.4.2 - Rationale

The rationale behind test planning is mainly the age old saying of, failing to plan is planning

to fail. This simplistic and effective time management tool allows the researcher to

effortlessly grasp what the desired outcome within the user testing is and how said outcome

can be rationalised by listing the attributes of the test and breaking down what is needed from

the testers. This proves to be a useful tool in allowing researchers to comprehend and foresee

any issues with the testing such as for example the environment of the testing and establish

ways of correcting any issues as highlighted by (Pilgrim, 2013) such as recognition rather

than recall that may arise before the issues become serious constraints in completing the

testing of the system.

3.4.3 - How?

The test plans carried out by the researcher were done before any testing was done and most

of the test plan was based upon assumptions such as the participants and environments.

However the test plan provided a concise way of breaking down the purpose of the testing

and allowed the researcher to analyse what is needed from the researcher before starting the

testing.


[12]

3.5 - Low Fidelity Prototype

3.5.1 - What?

According to Preece, Rogers, Sharp. (2015, p389) a low fidelity prototype looks very

dissimilar to the final product and does not provide the same functionality as the final

product, rather the low fidelity prototype is only there to represent the functions of a system.

The method of storyboarding prototypes shows a user transitioning through tasks, for

example [Figure 16-17] shows a low fidelity prototype going from a home screen of an

operating system to a word processing application.

3.5.2 - Rationale

The rationale behind using low fidelity prototyping as a methodology in building a system is

defined by Preece, Rogers, Sharp. (2015, p389) as a “simple, cheap and quick to modify”

way of creating a basic functionless prototype. This is done because prototyping at an early

stage needs to be flexible and easily changed in order to cope with new ideas emerging,

changing the way in which the prototype user interface will look. The rationale behind the

storyboarding process within low fidelity prototyping would be as explained by Preece,

Rogers, Sharp. (2015, p389) as a way of interacting with a system that hasn‟t been created or

implemented fully yet, this allows users to mingle with the prototype in order to imagine

ways of improving the streamlining of tasks or scenarios within the system.

3.5.3 - How?

[Figure 16-17] shows the researchers low fidelity prototype, this was done in a storyboarded

format however based upon the fundamentals of the prototyping method this low fidelity

prototype was unconventional as instead of sketching this prototype was done using Abode

Fireworks which is as defined by (Creative.adobe.com, 2015) as “a lightweight and efficient

means of creating graphics”, this was done in an effort to make the prototype more

understandable and easily digestible.

3.6 – Interviews

3.6.1 - What?

The researcher decided to create testing videos and voice recorded interviews to test the Leap

Motion hardware based upon the Shortcuts V2. (2015). Software, this software allowed the

Leap Motion to harness certain functionalities within the Windows 8 Operating System, the

testing videos were split up into 6 videos for 6 different user testers. The aforementioned

users were recorded getting to grips with the system and accessing each functionality that the

Shortcuts V2 application allowed, this was namely changing between applications, scrolling


[13]

through webpages and finally controlling music through play, pause, back & next track and

finally volume control. The testers were then asked to comply with a 15 question interview as

shown in [Figure.24]. The questions were based upon Human-Computer Interaction (HCI)

principles and the questions were devised around HCI metrics and usability fundamentals.

The questions were based upon either a positive or negative response or a quantitative grade

based out of 10 for the first 6 questions of the interview, This was done in order to ensure that

the results could be rationalised and calculated however the testers were also encouraged to

speak freely and express their true opinions on both the hardware (Leap Motion) and the

software (Shortcuts V2). These interviews were then analysed and transcribed by the

researcher as shown in [Figure.18-23]. However the rest of the interview was qualitative data

which would not translate to raw data that could be analysed rather opinions that could be

interpreted.

3.6.2 - Rationale

The rationale behind creating the interviews with user testers and the interviews with said

user testers was mainly because of the 1 on 1 style of the interviews, this made the user

testers feel calmer and more obliged to answer questions truthfully accurately based upon

their perceptions of the hardware and software. Preece, Rogers, Sharp. (2015 P276), explain

the advantages of quantitative data, stating that quantitative data is “data in the form of

numbers or that can easily be translated into numbers” this was one of the main reasons

behind the researcher‟s choice of using interviews and video testing, the interviews created

could be easily translated into understandable numbers. Another rationale behind the

researcher‟s choice to conduct interviews was as stated by Preece, Rogers, Sharp. (2015

P278). States that “raw interview data usually in the form of audio recording and interviewer

notes” the researcher was adamant that this procedure be followed correctly as this ensured

that the success of gathering data in aid of the researchers question would become evidently

more successful by recording the users testing the hardware and software. Preece, Rogers,

Sharp. (2015 P276), claims the traditional view of quantitative and qualitative data being

separate is a fallacy. This gave the researcher the idea of having a dual styed interview, one

that would mine both quantitative and qualitative data. This was done by prompting the user

testers to provide both numerical answers and answers of free expression as shown in

[Figure.22] this transcript shows the answer to a question being both answered with a score

out of 10 but also the reasoning behind that score.


[14]

3.6.3 - Opposing Methodologies

The following paragraphs dictate discussions of other methodologies that could have used in

the conduction of gathering data to aid in answering the research question. This will include

what the research method is, namely questionnaires and focus groups and why said research

methods were not used.

3.6.3.1 - Questionnaires

3.6.3.1.1 – What?

Questionnaires are compiled of mostly closed questions which is defined by (Oates) as

questions that do not start with „what‟, ‟how‟, „why‟ these closed questions were

predominantly multiple choice, this research method has proven to be useful for many aspects

of gathering data. Questionnaires are specifically designed to gather primary data in an

efficient way, this is done by providing simple answers that require little time and effort, this

however may not be applicable to all aspects of research and this methodology is isolated to

certain research questions.

3.6.3.1.2 - Rationale

The first method that could have been used is the questionnaire method, this methodology

according to Gillham (2000, P1-14). States that there are many pros and cons to using

questionnaires, focusing upon the cons, the researcher will rationalize the reasoning behind

not choosing this researcher method based upon its capabilities for the desired result. The

first con would have to be the problems of data quality, this is mainly down to respondents of

the questionnaire having personal relationships with the researcher this would cause

impersonal questionnaires thus meaning that the response rate of around 30% as oppose to if

the questionnaires were formally done. This could also cause a huge negative response

especially if the researcher is of a low experience in conducting primary research. Ultimately

this shows that testing videos done on users of a system could prompt the researcher to ask

follow up questions and engage more with the tester allowing for a deeper insight as well as

recording the testing of the application ensuring that no results were falsified. Secondly

another negative aspect to using questionnaires would be the misunderstandings that cannot

be corrected, i.e. if the researcher asks the respondent to carry out the questionnaire but fails

to comply correctly which may be down to either a lack of understanding from the

respondent or a lack of competent questioning skills could mean that many questionnaires are

left un-useable, or could possibly taint the results. This was a big factor in the researchers

decision to conduct personal recorded interviews as oppose to questionnaires as and

misconstrued questions could quickly be reworded and re-evaluated as well as showing the


[15]

user a tutorial on how to use the hardware that was to be tested to ensure the user tester was

completely capable of answering all questions efficiently and effectively.

3.6.3.2 - Focus Groups

3.6.3.2.1 – What?

Focus groups as defined by (Dawson & Dawson, 2009, p79-89) as a “number of people asked

to come together in order to discuss a certain issue for the purpose of research.” This is a

popular market research method and proves to be a sufficient way of gathering data to be

analysed before a product hits the market. The focus groups are moderated and involves the

moderator asking questions and sparking discussions based upon the research entity, the

moderator‟s task is to ensure that the conversations do not digress and stick to the topic of the

research entity. Below the researcher will discuss the rationale behind this methodology not

being used as opposed to the video interview methodology that was initially picked by the

researcher.

3.6.3.2.2 - Rationale

There are weaknesses to using focus groups as a methodology mainly being that as expressed

by (Dawson & Dawson, 2009, p79-89) such as the defensiveness of the focus groups, the

attendees have joined the focus groups on their own accord and therefore may means that this

may start arguments within the focus groups, this may cause a huge issue and this could

become skewed from the original arguments that should be based upon the system. This

could be problematic as with the researchers question would not necessarily spark interesting

conversations and if these conversations were to become skewed this may be difficult to

maintain focus on the research question, especially as the research taking the role of

moderating the focus groups has novice abilities in capturing data, this could result in

ineffective results. Secondly a con of using focus groups as the primary way of collecting

data to support the research question is that focus groups generically require a lot of

concentration on the moderator to ensure that the focus groups are kept on track, once again

as the researcher is a novice this may mean that the focus group may become hard to control

and manage.

4 – ANALYSIS & DISCUSSION

4.1 - Introduction

This chapter will discuss the Leap Motion controller, illustrating the controller‟s properties

and clearly evaluating the tasks that were tested. Secondly this discussion and analysis

portion of the research paper will be subdivided into a number of sections, firstly the results


[16]

will be summarised and broken down into various sub-sections showing the results gathered

upon the primary research explained within the methodologies and explaining the purpose of

the research gathered, the first section of this chapter will be divided into 15 sections based

upon the 15 questions that were asked during the collection of primary research within the

conduction of said interviews carried out by the researcher each subsequent section will

discuss the question and analyse the results based upon graphs found in the appendices as

well as in the text. Thirdly this section will discuss and justify the approach of gathering the

research based upon the methodologies, taking each subsection of the methodologies

previously mentioned and justifying the use of this methodology in gathering results to aid in

answering the research question. Following this a critical evaluation of the results will also be

included, analysing the results as a whole. Finally the discussion and analysis portion of the

research paper will relate the results and evaluate the effectiveness of the research carried out

against the literature review.

4.2 - The Leap Motion Controller

Below shows [Figure.1] which is three pictures of the Leap Motion controller as taken from

(Motion), shows the leap motion controller with an illustrated field of view of the controller,

this shows that the controller however small it may still has as according to 8 cubic feet of

vision for the user to comfortably use the hardware without having to remain in one place the

entirety of the time spent using the controller. Secondly [Figure.1] shows the in use with a

gaming application, this shows the controller in action, as seen below the user places fingers

above the controller showing how the system can recognise different gestures, finally

[Figure.1] shows the controller in comparison to the keyboard, the Leap Motion controller

boasts a tiny size of only 3 inches long showing how portable it can be.

Figure 1


[17]

4.2.1 – Evaluation Tasks

4.2.1.1 - Task 1

The first task to be evaluated was the task of allowing users to change between screens or

application windows, this task was simply done with a hand gesture as shown both below and

in [Figure.33-34]. This gesture is completed by placing ones hand upside down, raising said

hand into a higher position, this would prompt the user to then pinch and zoom the

application they would like to use via pinching the application they wish to select with two

fingers, dragging the application into the center of the screen and un-pinching the application

so as to open it.

4.2.1.2 – Task 2

The second task evaluated in the results below is the task of scrolling through a webpage as

shown both below and in [Figure.32], similar to the changing of the application as

aforementioned the user would pinch two fingers on a webpage and move said fingers in an

up and down motion so as to move the webpage up and down.


[18]

4.2.1.3 – Task 3

Finally the task evaluated by user testers and examined within the results analysis below

shows the task of controlling the music player, this task as shown both below and in

[Figure.35] shows that users had many different sub-tasks and gestures to complete within

this particular task, firstly users would point their finger at the screen as shown in [Figure.35]

and below. This would open the media player, in which users could swipe right for „next

track‟, swipe up for „play / pause‟, swipe left for „previous track‟ and finally slide their finger

left and right towards the bottom of the media player to change the volume in which the

media is outputted.


[19]

4.3 - Results Analysis

4.3.1 - Quantitative Data

4.3.1.1 - Question 1

[Figure.25] shows the question „Out of 10 how easy was the system to learn‟ this question

was asked in order to understand within the field of Human-Computer Interaction the

usability of the Shortcuts V2 Leap Motion application. The results show that all 6 user testers

believed that the system was greatly usable, scoring the system either 7 or 8 out of 10. This

shows that the system has great promise in usability principles such as providing consistent

responses and providing easily manageable controls as detailed by (Pinelle & Wong, 2008),

given detail upon the reason why the scores for this question were so high shows a consensus

of an easy understanding of the functionality of the system however this also boils down to

the systems limited functionality.


[Figure.26] shows the question „how effective is the system at carrying out tasks‟ once again

this was based upon a rating out of 10 by each user tester, unlike question 1 this question

shows more of a broader result base, in which the answers ranged between scoring the system

from 5-9, the reasoning behind this is because some users found that the system was laggy

and problematic with one user describing the system as having “problems latching onto

things and freezing at times”. However this was based upon the user‟s ability to interact with

the system as some users found no problems navigating through the functionalities of the

system and the tasks that were set out by the researcher to be tested by the users.

7, 50% 8, 50%

Q1: Out of 10 How Easy Was The System To Learn

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


[20]


[Figure.27] shows the question „out of 10 how efficient was the usability of the system‟ the

answers from 3 to 10, this showed very little correlation between the users with 33% of users

selecting 6 as their rating of the usability of the system. The rationale behind the lower

markings given by the users would be most notably as one user stated in [Figure.20] that they

found the system to be unresponsive testifying that “it didn‟t really do what I wanted it to do

in the time I wanted it to” this shows a huge lack of functionality and the system‟s ability to

seamlessly function, however much like the two sided coin there is an inverse to this

argument as (Figure.17) shows one user marking the usability of the system 10/10, this was

backed up as the user believed that “the system was very simple to use it just has the device

and seems to register my hand motions and translates that onto the computer”. This although

5 16%

6 33%

7 17%

8 17%

9 17%

Q2: How Effective Was The System At Carrying Out Tasks

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


[21]

seems as more of an amazement at the functionality rather than the usability.


[Figure.28] shows the question „out of 10 how enjoyable was the system‟ this question

prompts the results of the Human-Computer Interaction metric of user experience which is

defined as “the way a user feels about a particular product or system” by (Kamau, Crandall &

Awori, 2012 ). This aids in understanding the user experience of the system as a whole. The

results from the interviews and testing of the Leap Motion shows that users experience with

the system was at a cohesive high, with ratings of user enjoyment of the system ranging from

7-10. This showed the Leap Motions advantage of being somewhat of a newer technology

with users boasting how unconventional and fun the system was.

3 16%

6 33%

7 17%

9 17%

10 17%

Q3: Out of 10 How Efficent Was The Usability Of The System

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


[22]


[Figure.29] shows question 5, this question asks the user testers „out of 10 how comfortable

was the system to use‟ this helps the researcher understand within the Human-Computer

Interaction field the comfort of using the system, this is mainly because the Leap Motion

harnesses the use of LED cameras and infrared lighting to offer users an experience of

computing that is based upon gestures rather than clicking of buttons. This is perhaps Leap

Motions biggest asset and due to the nature of this system being radically different to the

convention of a mouse and keyboard personal computing this means that the ability for the

system to be comfortable for the user is of the utmost importance, this reflects badly on the

results as users generally found the system was uncomfortable with 66% of users rating the

system either a 4 or 5 out of 10, this shows that this would become a major drawback for the

development of this technology as would drastically need to improve.

7 17%

8 33%

9 17%

10 33%

Q4: Out of 10 How Enjoyable Was The System To Use

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


[23]


[Figure.30] shows the question „out of 10 how safe do you think the system is‟ this question

carries importance as this technology requires more physical activity than a generic mouse

and keyboard approach to personal computing, the results for this question favour the Leap

Motion quite well as 50% of user testers rated the system a 10/10 and 100% safe, with the

another 33% of user testers giving the Leap Motion hardware an 8/10. The only issue was

one user scoring the hardware a 3/10 however this was due to the user tester thinking that

there might be “uncomfortable to use”, this shows that there are no foreseen safety issues

within the system rather the only issue is the comfort of using the system for drastic periods

of time.

4 33%

5 33%

6 17%

7 17%

Q5: Out of 10 How Comfortable is The System To Use

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


[24]

4.2.2 – Qualitative Data


[Figure.24] shows the question „in your opinion what constraints do you think the system

has?” this question has been asked in an effort to understand what drawbacks there are within

both the hardware and software that was being tested. The main findings from this question

was that users found that there was a lack of functionality within the system this could cause

disadvantages as stated by Alexandros & Michalis, (2013). This is because limitations in

functionality can cause emotional stress within the user, this was based on the application

only allowing users to change between applications, and access a media player. Apart from

the constraints of functionality of the software one user states that “people who do not have

full mobility in their limbs or hands for example somebody that has osteoarthritis in their

fingers would have a great deal if difficulty when using something like this” this statement

provides an excellent point that based on the Leap Motion hardware‟s need of recognising 5

fingers within a hand, amputees or the physically disabled would not be able to use the

system in its current state.


[Figure.24] shows the question „in your opinion what advantages do you think the system

has‟ this question was asked to aid in the research of the strengths of both the hardware and

software namely the Leap Motion and Shortcuts V2 application, this question provided useful

answers and there was a cohesive reply with most user testers claiming that that the system

provides a way of computing for people with disabilities, one user highlighted “people that

3 17%

8 33%

10 50%

Q6: Out of 10 How Safe Do You Think The System Is

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


[25]

have problems like carpel tunnel” stating that this would make computing easier as they

wouldn‟t need a mouse or keyboard.


[Figure.24] shows the question „is there any features that you think could improve this

technology‟ this prompts the interviewees to think of any improvements to the application

and the Leap Motion hardware. This question provided many different insights into the

technology. Over 50% of the users stated that they would like to see more interactions with

the system, claiming that there is limited functionality, however this argument is incredibly

valid due to the software only having 3 functions within it. The rest of the users argued that

the system was limited in the aspect of interaction within the hardware claiming that the

gestures were difficult as one user stated that “more interaction with the system and making it

easier to manoeuvre it because some gestures are hard to get right”

4.3.2.10 - Question 10

[Figure.24] shows the question „would you consider using the system permanently‟ this

question was asked by the researcher to aid in the understanding of the systems capabilities as

a whole and whether this system can be considered the future of operating systems given the

right technological advancements, the general response to this question shows users

responding in a negative way, claiming that they would only use this system permanently if

there was major improvements to it this was because of the constraints of the system. Namely

the limited functionality especially as many users pointed out that the tasks they completed in

the testing of the application could have easily been done in a fraction of the time using a

regular mouse and keyboard.

4.3.2.11 - Question 11

[Figure.24] shows the question „did the system allow you the freedom to do what you‟d like‟

this question was asking as within the Human-Computer-interaction field this is considered

an important metric and this includes attributes such as not allowing users to complete

irrevocable actions, offering undo and redo and providing exits to openings within the

application. This could become problematic if unimproved for example as stated by Wu

(2008) an example of bad error prevention could be “participants executed a correct plan

incorrectly”. The general consensus for this questions results showed that most users found

that the system provided very little freedom outside of the specific functionalities that the

system possesses. This was because of the simplicity of the system and users did not mention

the ability to go backwards with undo and redo buttons at all. The most notable of answers


[26]

came from a user that stated “I think that it was quite constricted in what it did offer me but it

did allow me to do a lot of things”. This shows that although the functionality is limited the

abilities of the system stretch beyond one application and varies between them, for example

the scrolling function of the Shortcuts V2 application can be used to scroll through any

webpage, word document etc.

4.3.2.12 - Question 12

[Figure.24] shows the question „did you find the system provided you with sufficient

feedback?‟ this question was asked to aid in the research of finding out how interactive the

human and computer can be. This directly relates to the Human-Computer Interaction field,

the importance of this can be quoted by MacDonald &Atwood, (2014) which states, “a

system‟s usefulness is shaped by the context in which it is used”. The results provide critical

feedback to answer how usable the system is and if it can prove to be useful in the future of

operating systems, showing that users found that the only feedback offered was as one user

said „it wouldn‟t allow me to complete a gesture it would get stuck mid-way‟ this was seen

by the user and feedback for the system however the system showed no signs of error

messaging which caused over 50% of the users to claim that there was no feedback given

whatsoever. This shows a huge design flaw in the software and means that this would have

to be amended to ensure that the system will become more usable.

4.3.2.13 - Question 13

[Figure.24] shows the question „did you find the system informed you of errors and helped

navigating said errors?‟ this question was asked as a way of ensuring that the user would

consider errors and feedback as two different entities, this is because error prevention and

recovery is of the utmost importance in humans and computers interacting (Wu, 2008). The

results from this question show a complete 100% agreement with all users that there was no

error messaging or navigation and help from errors within the system. This proved to be a

huge drawback for the system especially as this is incredibly important for human computer

interactions. One user stated that “it was quite annoying because you would keep doing it and

it wasn‟t telling you why it wasn‟t doing it” and another user stating that “it definitely needs

more work that‟s what I‟d say” these two notable quotes show that the system needs radical

improvements for it to become something that is worthy of proving itself within the future of

computing.


[27]

4.3.2.14 - Question 14

[Figure.24] shows the question „did you like the overall design of the system?‟ this question

was asked in order to help the researcher understand what the impact of the design of the user

interface was and if this design and layout would prove to be more efficient than existing

operating systems. The results from this question proved to be outstanding and showed that

the design had very little flaws within it. 100% of user testers had positive answers regarding

the design of the system, all users said that the design was enjoyable and overall very good.

One user even stated that “I felt like I was interacting with what I was doing more so than

usually” this shows that the design has a great starting point and if this was to be continued

throughout the improvements of this technology than this could mean that the future of

computing could become a gesture based operating system.

4.3.2.15 - Question 15

[Figure.24] shows the question „is there anything else you would consider notable such as

design flaws in the system?‟ this question was asked in unison with the previous question,

this was a way of ensuring that the users were not impressed by the design and could not

think of any flaws within it. This proved to be a useful question as although most users stated

that there was no design flaws within the system some users opposed this and stated that there

was issues within the hardware for example one user exclaimed that “the only thing I would

change is the sensitivity and reliability of the product” as well as users referring back to the

constraints that were previously mentioned. This shows that although the user interface

design is of a great calibre there is still many improvements and tweaking needed to ensure

this technology is see more seriously as a way of harnessing personal computing rather than

simply a fun way of using a computer.

4.4 – Results Evaluation

Over all the results show great promise. As aforementioned in the methodologies the

interviews were voice recorded as well as the testing of the Leap Motion hardware and

Shortcuts V2 software was video recorded as shown in [Figure.31-36]. The questions devised

were based upon Human-Computer Interaction metrics such as usability and functionality

metrics. The results from the interviews show that users generally found that within the

specific functionalities available both the hardware and software performed exponentially.

User testers showed that they found the system to be quite enjoyable to use and despite this

system being inefficient in completing tasks as oppose to using a generic keyboard and

mouse method, users still agreed that given the correct amount of research and development

within the hardware and software that this system would be considered to be used by them


[28]

permanently. Based upon the usability of the system users cohesively agreed upon the

usability being at a good standard with some users claiming that the system provided an

excellent design for the system however due to the limited functionality i.e. only being

allowed to perform 3-4 main tasks showed that the system would be unusable for computing

beyond a simple media integrated manor.

Based upon the results the future of the Leap Motion system shows great promise, the

applications so far may be tricky to navigate and ineffective at completing tasks now however

this technology is somewhat new, showing that given enough feedback and product

development for example if the Leap Motion were to be longer in size allowing for a greater

field of view and a smoother gesture recognition technology then this would greatly improve

the productivity of the Leap Motion. Another design implication to be considered for future

product development using the Leap Motion technology would be having the technology be

able to face in any directions, this could aid in users being able to interact with the system

more so than now with gestures moving from hand based onto arm and body based. Below

shows a tabulated format [Table.8] of the results evaluation as a whole, this format shows the

key usability and user experience issues found whilst testing the system.

Leap Motion Issues

Usability Basic in usability

Not complex enough to be considered

seriously applicable to modern

computing.

User Experience Frustrating within some aspects

No error reporting

Positives Fun to use

easily understandable

4.5 - Approach Justification

Within the conduction of research gathering the research found there were many entities

surrounding the gathering of this research that needed clarification. For example the approach

to finding the respondents, the conduction of the interviews and the reason for the choice of

questions. Below will discuss the justifications to this approach and will relate the approach

to the field of Human-Computer interaction. First and foremost the approach of finding

respondents was based upon the reading of Bryman & Bell (2011 P395). Conducted by the

researcher found that respondents would have to have qualities such as credibility in order to


[29]

succeed. This was easily done as the researcher chose peers, family and friends to conduct

these interviews this was done to ensure that there was no tainting of the results. Guba, E. and

Lincoln, Y. (n.d.), propose two terms for assessing qualitative data, this being trustworthiness

and authenticity. This also aided the researcher in choosing peers, friends and family in

conducting the research and finding credible respondents as this ensured that the results

would not be fictitious in any way.

Secondly the approach of conducting interviews was researcher by (Dennis & Wixom, 2010

P116-117) which explains that there is three different types of questions, close ended, open-

ended and finally probing questions. (Dennis & Wixom, 2010) discuss that the interview

process must have a “logical order through the process” this was evidently carried out by the

researcher when devising the interview questions, as (Figure.23) shows that for example

questions 14 and 15 both ask about the design of the system being tested. One question asks

about the users experience with the design whilst another asks about any design flaws the

user could find throughout the testing process. This was also a probing question as it ensured

that users thought twice about the design of the system as this is one of the most important

usability metrics within human computer interaction.

Thirdly and finally the approach of choosing specific questions written by the research can be

justified by Human-Computer Interaction observation techniques. This is discussed by

(MacKenzie, 2013, P132-133) as the investigator being the observer, using the researcher as a

tool in silently collecting information whilst the user testing is being carried out, this was

simply done by the researcher observing the in user testers whilst they were being recorded

testing the Leap Motion and Shortcuts V2 application. This allowed the researcher to ensure

that there was no factious results being produced as the researcher could clearly see and

report back to the videos once the interviews were conducted.

4.6 – Literature Relation

The results in relation to the literature shows that the leap motion has many drawbacks, for

example as aforementioned with chapter 2 one of the leap motions biggest limitations would

be for example the line of sight problem, this is the issue of keeping ones hand in the line of

sight of the leap motion at all times to avoid incorrect gestures being carried out. This could

cause huge drawbacks and shows that through primary research and user testing there was

users who found issues within this limitation such as [Figure.30] shows question 5 of the

interviewing process, the results from this question show that even user testers using the

system for minutes at a time they found that this was uncomfortable to use. Despite this there


[30]

is a notable strength within the leap motion which is namely the leap motions ability to

recognise hand motions, this could be reprogrammed to allow for pens to be recognised as

well which shows that the leap motion could become useful to recognise pens and have the

ability to combat the efficiency of the keyboard and mouse, this is shown in [Figure.24] the

results from Question 11 shows that users found that the system however fun it may be was

inefficient compared to the keyboard and mouse method, with users claiming they would use

the system if the gestures and functionalities were radically improved.

5 – CONCLUSIONS

5.1 - Introduction

In the conclusion chapter of this dissertation, the research question will be detailed and the

findings will become apparent, based upon analysis and discussion of the research data

gathered. This will include logical conclusions of the research questions and

recommendations to readers of this research paper, this section also discusses limitations and

constraints of the project to provide rational advice to readers on how to take advantage of the

research to further said research if chosen to do so by the readers.

5.2 – Findings

The researcher‟s findings prove to be excellent research within the field of Human-Computer

interaction, this is because of the manner in which Human-Computer Interaction connects

users and computing is perhaps one of the most important factors within Human-Computer

interaction. As explained by Dix (2004, P.259). there are many design rules within this field

of knowledge, such as user cantered designers understanding the consequences of their

design decisions, this reflects within the findings as the findings of the research show that the

designs created by Shortcuts V2 prove to be excellent in improving usability especially as all

users had positive remarks about the design of the system. This shows that the design can be

emulated and evolved to ensure that any further research into the future of operating systems

using motion capture technology can understand the design principles given by the field of

Human-Computer Interaction as well the interface designers working at Leap Motion and

Shortcuts V2.

Another way in which the research findings relates to the field of Human-Computer

Interaction is the way in which is given by Jacko (2012, P.60) is that humans generally get

stressed whilst performing any task. Hancock & Warm (1989) created a model called „A

Dynamic Model of Stress & Sustained Attention‟ this model explains that “the task itself as

the proximal source of stress. In operational environments this is often manifested as


[31]

increases or decreases in stress” this statement shows that in regards of the findings of the

results many users found that the systems functionality was very limited, this was also shown

in many users claiming there was severe delays in the time it would take them to use the Leap

Motion to carry out a task that a keyboard or mouse could do instantaneously. This would

cause users a great deal of stress with navigating through the user interface and resulted in

many users saying they would not use the technology unless it would improve drastically.

5.3 – Recommendations

Upon the completion of the research and analysing the research question, it is clear that much

work in needed in this specific research, for example It is evident that the continuation of this

research would require more user testing, with a wider range of testers, specifically more

older people and more younger people to understand the usability within age differences.

Another aspect of this projects furtherance is based upon the time constraints, given more

time the researcher could compile more methodologies in aid of answering the research

question and creating a prototype such as PICTIVE diagrams which is as described by Muller

(1992) as a way of including stakeholders in designing a basic prototype. Secondly further

research would allow for the use of extreme programming methods, this is as explained by

(Cordeiro et al., 2008) as a communication orientated way of programming, this could be

helpful in design a program that could compete with Shortcuts V2 and possibly based upon

the findings include more functionalities. Another recommendation to further the research

would be the use of time boxing, this is as explained by (Miranda, 2011) is a way in which

developers can coincide with users in creating a plan that allows for feedback to be given to

users on a timetabled basis. Finally an agile methodology could be applied to the creation of

an application this as explained by (Maurer & Melnik, 2005) and boasts many advantages

such as constant feedback with users that would help determine that the user design and

experience is exceptional.

6 – CRITIQUE

6.1 - Introduction

Following upon the conclusion, this portion of the research paper will discuss and critically

analyse the research question, this will include a summary of the objectives of the

aforementioned research question, explaining how the project was undergone and

differentiations in the ways the researcher could have tackled the project. Secondly the

critique will include a section based upon the importance of the research, underlining the

field and possible advancements made in the field of Human-Computer Interaction based


[32]

upon the research question and the results and evaluations of the research question. Finally

the critique will also include conclusions of the research along with, stating and explaining

the overall conclusions made upon analysing the research carried out throughout the duration

of the project and dissertation, critically reviewing the research question and concluding the

answer to the question what is the future of operating systems wielding motion capture

technology.

6.2 - Importance of Research

The importance of the research carried out by the user could possibly change the way

technology advances and which direction technology will lean towards in researching and

developing new ways of computing. This research investigates and deciphers the usability of

this technology, discusses the flaws, drawbacks and weaknesses as well as the strengths of

the Leap Motion technology and the applications that can be developed using this technology.

The research conducted could greatly improve the way in which computing is done in the

future. Technology is advancing in such a rapid way as Moore‟s law (1965) dictates and

shows no signs of slowing down. This can be seen in developmental projects such as the

Circlet Bracelet, (2015). A way of utilising a phone screen, light sensors etc. in order to

create a projectable and wearable device allowing users to control their phone on their wrist.

This shows that there are many ways in which technology could advance, many avenues and

paths that could be taken and at this time period with technology advancements being at the

cusp of implementation this could mean that the research undergone could possibly lead to

the Leap Motion technology being chosen to spearhead the advancements in personal

computing. Ask yourself, if the mouse and keyboard wasn‟t the path that was chosen in 1975

as the staple way of navigating within operating systems then what would be the method

used? The research undergone by this project and dissertation shows that once technology

advances past this keyboard and mouse method the Leap Motion could become the new

staple user navigation technique within operating systems if properly research and developed.

6.3 – Research Conclusions

When this project was first started by the researcher, many aspects and research questions

were asked in order to understand and utilise the abilities to answer the question, what

metrics are needed to truly delve into the mind of the user tester in order to fully capitalise on

the interviewing process as a research method in order to fully understand what is required

from users within the future of personal computing. Another research question that arose

whilst considering how to answer the original research question of what is the future of


[33]

operating systems and is the answer to this motion capturing technology? This question was,

how useable would the system be, would the functionalities of the system be able to complete

personal computing tasks as efficiently as the generic keyboard and mouse method that has

been used ever since the first personal computer was revolutionised by bill gates and

Microsoft in 1975 as explained by (windows.microsoft.com, 2015). This system has been in

place for over 40 years, which proves a great deal about the efficiency of this method of

personal computing. The Leap Motion controller is relatively new technology and has only

been implemented for a short period of time. This means that the Leap Motion controller has

not been implemented on a worldwide scale yet, as well as not being implemented as more

than an unconventional way to carry out minor tasks on a personal computer. This provided a

rationale behind the researcher‟s project as this was an area that lack consistency in testing

and product development.

Based upon the research carried out it is evident that the technology has many leaps and

bounds needed in the testing, research and development to ensure that the product is easily

implanted into the market of personal computing. Based upon the primary research the

usability and functionality of the Leap Motion has many disadvantages, most notably the

Leap Motions lacking ability to provide a method of computing for the disfigured, amputated

or disabled. However based upon one user‟s response in [Figure.23] the Leap Motion could

also prove to be incredibly useful in helping users with nerve damage regain the aptitude to

use limbs that were previously damaged for example within injuries sustained during war.

From the research conducted it is clear to see that the Leap Motion and gesture based

computing as a technology is not a competent way of computing as of yet. This is mainly

down to the gimmicky nature of the technology and its inefficiency in keeping up with the

generic keyboard and mouse. This shows that an operating system solely reliant on the

technology as a way for users to navigate through said operating system would be ludicrous

for this stage of the information age. However based upon the research this could change as

technologies improve and advance as well as user behaviours changing and adapting, this

concept could be looked at from a different angle, if the user behaviours were to change

before the technology has been implemented then this could result in the furtherance of the

technology on a larger scale such as Microsoft and Apple introducing this technology in order

to keep up with marketing trends within the personal computing world. So to answer the

research question one must ask, if the future of operating systems is motion capture


[34]

technology then society must embrace changes in technology to truly further technology as a

whole in order to undeniably revolutionise personal computing.

REFERENCES Alexandros, Liapis, and Xenos Michalis. 'The Physiological Measurements As A Critical Indicator In Users'

Experience Evaluation'. Proceedings of the 17th Panhellenic Conference on Informatics - PCI '13 (2013):

n. pag. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.

Bannon, Liam. 'Reimagining HCI'. interactions 18.4 (2011): 50. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.

Beuvens, F., & Vanderdonckt, J. (1988). Designing Graphical User Interfaces Integrating Gestures.

Proceedings: CHI 88, 313–322.

Bryman, A. And Bell, E. (2011). Business Research Methods. Cambridge: Oxford University Press. Pp 395.

Carvajal, L., Moreno, A. M., Sánchez-Segura, M. I., & Seffah, A. (2013). Usability through software design.

IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 39(11), 1582–1596. doi:10.1109/TSE.2013.29

Cicret Bracelet, (2015). Cicret Bracelet. [online] Available at: http://cicret.com/wordpress/ [Accessed 29 Apr.

2015].

Colgan, A. And Colgan, A. (2014). How Does The Leap Motion Controller Work? [Online] Leap Motion Blog.

Available At: Http://Blog.Leapmotion.Com/Hardware-To-Software-How-Does-The-Leap-Motion-

Controller-Work/ [Accessed 24 Apr. 2015].

Cordeiro, L., Mar, C., Valentin, E., Cruz, F., Patrick, D., Barreto, R. and Lucena, V. (2008). An agile

development methodology applied to embedded control software under stringent hardware constraints.

SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes, 33(1), p.1.

Creative.adobe.com,. 'Adobe Creative Cloud'. N.p., 2015. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.

Dawson, C. And Dawson, C. (2009). Introduction to Research Methods. Oxford: How to Contents, Pp79-89

Dennis, A. And Wixom, B. (2010). Systems Analysis Design. New York: J. Wiley. Pp117

Dix, A. (2004). Human-computer interaction. Harlow, England: Pearson/Prentice-Hall. Pp259.

Figure.1 Motion, Leap. 'Leap Motion'. Leapmotion.com. N.p., 2015. Web. 6 May 2015.

Finkel, Raphel A. 'Operating Systems'. CSUR 28.1 (1996): 201-203. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.

Gantt.com,. 'What Is A Gantt Chart? Gantt Chart Information, History And Software'. N.p., 2015. Web. 30 Apr.

2015.

Gillham, B. (2000). Developing a Questionnaire. London: Continuum, Pp1-14.

Guba, E. and Lincoln, Y. (n.d.). Competing paradigms in qualitative research. [S.l.]: [s.n.].

Guna, J., Jakus, G., Pogačnik, M., Tomažič, S., & Sodnik, J. (2014). An analysis of the precision and reliability

of the leap motion sensor and its suitability for static and dynamic tracking. Sensors (Switzerland), 14(2),

3702–3720. doi:10.3390/s140203702


[35]

Hancock, P.A., & Warm, J.S. (1989). A dynamic model of stress and sustained attention. Human Factors, 31,

519-537.

Jacko, J. (2012). The human-computer interaction handbook. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press. Pp60

Kamau, Mark, Angela Crandall, and Kagonya Awori. 'User Experience Practices In Nairobi's Ihub

Community'. XRDS: Crossroads, The ACM Magazine for Students 19.2 (2012): 56. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.

MacDonald, Craig M., and Michael E. Atwood. 'What Does It Mean For A System To Be Useful?'.Proceedings

of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems - DIS '14 (2014): n. pag. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.

Mackenzie, I. (2013). Human-Computer Interaction. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science. Pp 132-133.

Maurer, F. and Melnik, G. (2005). What you always wanted to know about agile methods but did not dare to

ask. Proceedings of the 27th international conference on Software engineering - ICSE '05.

Miranda, E. (2011). Time boxing planning. SIGSOFT Softw. Eng. Notes, 36(6), p.1.

Mooreslaw.Org, (2015). Moore's Law. [Online] Available At: Http://Www.Mooreslaw.Org/ [Accessed 24 Apr.

2015].

Motion, L. (2015). Shortcuts. [Online] Apps.Leapmotion.Com. Available At:

Https://Apps.Leapmotion.Com/Apps/Shortcuts/Windows [Accessed 24 Apr. 2015].

Muller, M. (1992). Retrospective on a year of participatory design using the PICTIVE technique.

Nintendo of Europe GmbH,. 'Wii'. N.p., 2015. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.

Nykaza, Janet et al. 'What Programmers Really Want'. Proceedings of the 20th annual international conference

on Computer documentation - SIGDOC '02 (2002): n. pag. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.

Oates, Briony J. Researching Information Systems And Computing. London: SAGE Publications, 2006. Print.

Pilgrim, Chris. 'An Investigation Of Usability Issues In AJAX Based Web Sites'. (2013): n. pag. Print.

Pinelle, David, and Nelson Wong. 'Heuristic Evaluation For Games'. Proceeding of the twenty-sixth annual CHI

conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '08 (2008): n. pag. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.

Plemmons, D., & Holz, D. (2014). Creating Next-Gen 3D Interactive Apps with Motion Control and Unity3D,

1–23.

Potter, L.E. Araullo, J. Carter, L. (2013). The Leap Motion Controller: A View on Sign Language. Proceedings

of the 25th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference: Augmentation, Application, Innovation,

Collaboration. OZCHI, 175-178.

Preece, J., Rogers, Y. And Sharp, H. (2002). Interaction Design. New York, NY: J. Wiley & Sons, Pp.276-454.

Salian, Kishan, and Gavin Sim. 'Simplifying Heuristic Evaluation For Older Children'. Proceedings of the India

HCI 2014 Conference on Human Computer Interaction - IHCI '14 (2014): n. pag. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.

Vikram, S., Li, L., & Russell, S. (2013). Handwriting and Gestures in the Air, Recognizing on the Fly. CHI

2013 Extended Abstracts, ACM 978-1-.

http://www.mooreslaw.org/


[36]

Weichert, F., Bachmann, D., Rudak, B., & Fisseler, D. (2013). Analysis of the accuracy and robustness of the

Leap Motion Controller. Sensors (Switzerland), 13, 6380–6393. doi:10.3390/s130506380

windows.microsoft.com, (2015). A history of Windows - Microsoft Windows. [online] Available at:

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-GB/windows/history#T1=era0 [Accessed 29 Apr. 2015].

Wu, Lei. 'Error Recovery In Human-Computer Interaction'. Proceeding of the 2nd PhD workshop on

Information and knowledge management - PIKM '08 (2008): n. pag. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.

Xbox.com,. 'Kinect For Xbox One'. N.p., 2015. Web. 30 Apr. 2015.

APPENDICES

Figure 3

Figure 2


[37]

Figure 4


[38]

Figure 5


[39]

Figure 6


[40]

Figure 7

Figure 8


[41]

Figure 9


[42]

Figure 10


[43]

Figure 11


[44]

Figure 12


[45]

Figure 13


[46]

Figure 14

Expert’s evaluation details (provided by Usability Consultant)

Table 1

Application Name Shortcuts V2

Usability Consultant

Name

Daron Gardi

Date and time of

usability test(s)

19/03/15

12:46am

Location of usability test Paddington

Software used Leap Motion


[47]

Heuristics

Table 2

A Provide an effective home page

Tic

k

Grade Overview of heuristic

0 usability catastrophe (a) Home page should offer intuitive access to

the key tasks.

(b) Appropriate metaphor for navigation from

the home page

(c)Clear cue-card or tab metaphor can prove to

be usable

(d)Image map acceptable? clickable regions

clear

(e)Terminology relate to user tasks not

marketing speak.

1 serious usability flaws

2 significant issues

3 minor concerns

4 generally usable

5 exemplar for usability

Evidence and comment:

No home page is available within this application


[48]

Table 3

B Match structure with user needs

Ti

c

k


0 usability

catastrophe

(a)Structure should match a well-defined task specification

(b)User tasks, after leaving the home page, natural / intuitive

(c) Natural hierarchical decomposition of all key user tasks 1 serious

usability flaws

2 significant

issues

3 minor

concerns

4 generally

usable

5 exemplar for

usability


(a) Structure matches task specification well the application comes with a help page and a very easily understandable tutorial allowing the user to quickly understand what the

application can do (b) Due to the nature of the application there is no home page available however as soon as

the application is launched through the leap motion app store there is a seamless transition into the application

(c) Based on the nature of the application there is no hierarchy of key user tasks and tasks range from media software options such as play, pause, next track & volume. As well as

other functions such as scrolling through apps and webpages.


[49]

Table 4

C Provide usable e-functions

Ti

c

k


0 usability

catastrophe

(a) Its clear to the user what is going on?

(b) Is appropriate feedback provided in reasonable time?

(c) Are actions performed consistently? 1 serious

usability flaws

2 significant

issues

3 minor

concerns

4 generally

usable

5 exemplar for

usability


(a) It is very clear what is going on as once the gesture based movement is recognised by the leap motion controller the application launches various buttons depending on the task in which is carried out. For example, a pinch enables a scrolling button appearing on the

screen guiding the user into scrolling through webpages. (b) The only feedback provided is not displayed through message boxes which causes a minor

concern, however the application does work well and has no visible bugs or errors within the application.

(c) Actions can be consistently carried out however there are some significant issues within this application as the controller is quite picky with the gestures and can easily lose control and much to the users confusion and frustration not carry out the task effectively and efficiently


[50]

Table 5

D Is the application user-centred?

Ti

c

k


0 usability

catastrophe

(a) Design for recognition rather than recall – default values.

(b) Design for short-term memory.

(c) Feedback within reasonable time.

(d) Support for a strong sense of structure and place

1 serious

usability flaws

2 significant

issues

3 minor

concerns

4 generally

usable

5 exemplar

for usability


(a) The application is user centred and recognises the users gestures almost instantaneous, usually without a delay in reactions to the commands present to the application

(b) Short term memory design for this application is exemplar for usability as the application has limited functions and the user will only have to memorise three simple gestures to be

competent in using the application (c) There is no feedback in the application with error messages however feedback is given by

the tasks set out by the user not being carried out to an exemplar standard prompting the user to recalibrate the gesture linked to the command.

(d) There is a strong sense of structure and place as the applications design is nicely laid out, with clear concise buttons easily clicked, which could prove to be difficult using a hand as

appose to a track pad


[51]

Table 6

E Support the user

Ti

ck


0 usability

catastrophe

(a) application platform conventions

(b) Internal consistency – including visual identity, use of text

(c)Support user control and freedom.

(d) Support undo and redo

1 serious

usability flaws

2 significant

issues

3 minor

concerns

4 generally

usable

5 exemplar for

usability


(a) There are many conventions with application here with entities such as big buttons and a simplistic application design with button icons that are used worldwide throughout all hardware

and software, such as the play/pause button. (b) there is a lot of consistency within this application as all the application buttons are of the same

size, colour and design (c) This application supports user control and freedom by allowing the user to choose which gesture

they wish to input and does not pigeon hole the user into choosing specific ones. For example the gesture that allows for the changing of windows applications is not only accessible from the

windows home screen. (d) This application supports undo and re-do quite well, however this is not in the form of undo and

re-do buttons instead these commands are available by simply undoing or redoing the task. For example the media controller allows changing between tracks. The user can click next track in

their music player than simply click previous track to undo the change made.


[52]

Table 7

F Ensure Visual Elements Do No compromise usability

Ti

ck


0 usability

catastrophe

(a) Home page should offer intuitive access to the key tasks.

(b)Image map acceptable? clickable regions clear

(c)Terminology relate to user tasks not marketing speak.

1 serious

usability flaws

2 significant

issues

3 minor

concerns

4 generally

usable

5 exemplar for

usability


(a) home page offers intuitive access to key tasks by having icons that are universally

understood for their certain functionalities

(b) image mapping is acceptable with clearly defined buttons, this is done by hovering over the

buttons and the buttons moving in size and shape to inform the user that the image is in fact a

button

(c) un-applicable as there is no worded terminology however buttons are universally

understood for their specific purpose


[53]

Study Summary & Purpose

The purpose of this study is to evaluate and learn about the leap motions capabilities within an existing

operating system. The study will conclude whether or not the technology is capable in becoming a

standalone operating system that will be able to be viably usable and improve human-computer

interactions.

Goals

Understand the capabilities of the leap motion

Evaluate the usability of the leap motion

Interview user testers to evaluate the effectiveness of the leap motion to carry out basic usability

functionalities

Participants

For this study I will interview mainly university students, most of which are in the computing field.

However for good measure I will interview one 50 year old and one 24 year old graduate. I will also

diversify the ethnic backgrounds of the 7 user testers.

Methods/Techniques

The users will be tested in university as well as some of the graduate testers being tested in their own

homes in an effort to make the users as comfortable as possible. Each user will be briefed on what is

required of them, namely opening the application, switching between two different applications, clicking

the media player, changing a song, going to a previous song, playing & pausing the song and controlling

the volume. The user will also attempt to scroll through a list of songs. The user will then be debriefed in

the form on interview questions. This interview will be recorded as well as the test in order to be

analysed at a later date.

Evaluation Tasks

[The computer will have the windows media player open as well as a webpage to allow the user to carry

out the functions without having to use the mouse as well as the leap motion controller]

1. Each participant will be briefed as to what they need to do

a. The briefing will include what is required of the user and how to carry out these tasks

b. A recording of the user testing will be done via a handheld camera

c. Participant will be told to begin experiment whilst time taken to complete tasks is recorded

2. The researcher will observe the tester whilst filming the test in complete silence as to not help the user in

understanding the program

3. Once the test is finished the user will be debriefed in the form of an interview

4. The experiment will be complete and set up again for the next user

Figure 15


[54]

Figure 16

Test Environment & Supplies

The environment will vary from private rooms in a university library as well as living rooms in various

houses. Total time for each test is approximately 5 minutes per test.

The supplies needed are

Handheld Camera

Leap Motion

Shortcut V2 Application

Windows Media Player

Researchers Role

As the researcher, it will involve me doing various tasks and it will be my sole responsibility to set up the

test for each of the volunteers. I will also have to ensure that I brief each of the volunteers before the

test and also debrief them once the test has been completed. During the test I will be observing and

recording the users.

Evaluation Measures

In order to analyse and evaluate my findings, I will transfer the audio and video recordings into written

transcripts. By constructing graphs it will enable me to gather all my findings and by using the results

from my experiment I will create a low fidelity solely dependent on the leap motion software.


[55]

Figure 17

Figure 18


[56]

Q1 Interviewer – Out of 10 how easy was the system to learn?

A. Interviewee – I would say the system was a 7/10 the device was able to capture a lot of the hand

gestures so just in terms of usability I would give it a 7/10

Q2 Interviewer – Out of 10 how effective was the system at carrying out tasks?

A. Interviewee – I would say a 6/10 just because I found it difficult to translate the hand movements

as in the system wasn’t so smooth with the different hand gestures, it had some problems with

latching onto things and freezing at times

Q3 Interviewer – Out of 10 how efficient was the usability of the system?

A. Interviewee – I would say 10/10 because the system itself was very simple to use it just has the

device and just seems to register my hand motions and translates that onto the computer

Q4 Interviewer – Out of 10 how enjoyable was the system to use?

A. Interviewee – 10/10 because it’s not following the whole conventional mouse and keyboard

system it’s more fun more interactive definitely a 10/10

Q5 Interviewer – Out of 10 how comfortable was the system to use?

A. Interviewee – I would say 4/10 because the system was quite uncomfortable, because you had to

set the device at an optimal height for it to register the hand gestures, I imagine although I used it

for a short period of time it would be difficult to maintain the hand gestures after using these hand

gestures for a long period of time

Q6 Interviewer – Out of 10 how safe do you think the system is?

A. Interviewee –the only issues I see would be kind of agronomical issues, using it for long term, I

imagine using this device in everyday computers for a replacement for mouse and keyboard

functions it would be uncomfortable to use so I would have to give it a 3/10

Q7 Interviewer – In your opinion what constraints do you think the system has?

A. Interviewee – just in terms of constraints there’s not many functions to it, when I used it there

was only changing the pages and changing the volume, so it hasn’t completely eliminated the need

for a mouse or a keyboard so it still needs a lot more functions and needs to be a lot smoother, at

some point I was getting frustrated with some of the hand motions it wasn’t registering it fully

Q8 Interviewer – In your opinion what advantages do you think the system has?

A. Interviewee – none that I can think of

Q9 Interviewer – Is there any features you think could improve this technology?

Transcript Rasan

Figure 19


[57]

A. Interviewee – just adding more functions to it perhaps because what I understand this could

potentially be a system to replace a mouse and keyboard therefore you need to incorporate a kind

of massive range of different hand gestures and movements, but there is that aspect of learning

these different hand gestures and movements for each different function and each different

purpose

Q10 Interviewer – Would you consider using the system permanently?

A. Interviewee - I would but the issue is right now the mouse and keyboard is quite comfortable to

use, this would be a fun way to use your everyday computer but I wouldn’t actually replace the

mouse and keyboard there’s just too much control and too much I can do with it at the moment, and

this was quite frustrating to use

Q11 Interviewer – Did you find the system allowed you the freedom to do what you’d like?

A. Interviewee – not really there was a lot of constraints there was only a few functions and to be

honest I would find it a lot easier to do it with the click of a button, as oppose to creating all these

hand gestures and movements to do a simple task

Q12 Interviewer – Did you find the system provided you with sufficient feedback?

A. Interviewee – yeah because it wouldn’t actually allow me to complete a gesture it would get stuck

mid-way, so I found if you didn’t perform the gesture correctly it wouldn’t do what you wanted it to

do it just wouldn’t respond, for example I tried to turn the page and I had issues with it because it

wasn’t fully registering my hand motion whereby you had to cuff your hand or you have to point at

times it wouldn’t fully register that I was doing that

Q13 Interviewer – Did you find the system informed you of errors and helped navigating said

errors?

A. Interviewee – I don’t think it really informed me of errors because it’s not too conclusive yet, it

defiantly needs more work that’s what I’d say

Q14 Interviewer –Did you like the overall design of the system?

A. Interviewee – in terms of the device I like the terms of the device I like the device itself and the

user interface the whole leap motion kind of very fun to use it shows your hand gestures and

movements and registers it in a fun way, it doesn’t constrain you and in terms of being fun,

definitely

Q15 Interviewer – Is there anything else you would consider notable such as design flaws in the

system?

A. Interviewee – as I say the user interface was fun, for example when you point you would need to

for example play music, pause music I found that very enjoyable that was probably my most

enjoyable aspect, it would register my movement I could easily change the volume just by sliding my

finger around it was very fun and very easy to use.


[58]


A. Interviewee – I think I would give it around an 8/10 because at first it looks confusing but once

you get the hang of it I would say you can get it spot on every time


A. Interviewee – id have to give it a 6/10 because even though it worked for me you could still get it

wrong if your hand was in the wrong place


A. Interviewee – I think a 7/10 because like the point I made earlier would be the way to use it, but

as I said once you get the hang of it the usability would be quite good


A. Interviewee – I would give it a 9/10 because it is quite fun to manoeuvre around the operating

system in a different manor


A. Interviewee – I would have to give it a 5/10 because having your hand up in the air is quite

uncomfortable


A. Interviewee – I guess but only if you take it to the extreme that you could hit someone with your

hand but I actually think it’s quite safe so I’d have to give it an 8/10


A. Interviewee – well actually I think the gestures will be the main concern because obviously you’ll

run out of gestures eventually and it would be hard to complete some tasks


A. Interviewee - I guess there are some people that have problems like carpel tunnel which would

make it easier for them to point at what they want and do the hand gestures instead


A. Interviewee – I think maybe it would be good if it allowed you to have more interaction with the

system, and make it easier to manoeuvre it because some gestures are hard to get right


A. Interviewee – if some changes were made then maybe I could but at the moment I could have it

permanently


Transcript Raphy

Figure 20


[59]

A. Interviewee – yeah I found that I did once I got to use it properly


A. Interviewee – yeah there was on screen icons telling you what you were doing


errors?

A. Interviewee – I don’t think there were any messages or anything I did nothing until you fixed it

yourself


A. Interviewee – the menus and icons are quite flat and modern looking


system?

A. Interviewee - as I said the gestures would have to be better improved, I don’t know if it’s the

actual sensor or the coding


A. Interviewee – it was 7/10 because there wasn’t many things for me to learn


A. Interviewee – id give it a 5/10 because it was very laggy and it took me a few tries to get what I

wanted


A. Interviewee – I would give it a 3/10 because it didn’t really do what I wanted it to do in the time I

wanted it to do


A. Interviewee – id give it an 8/10 because it was actually a lot of fun, something you wouldn’t

usually do with your laptop


A. Interviewee – it was about 4/10 because my hand was constantly up in the air which got quite

tiring


A. Interviewee – its 8/10 there’s nothing unsafe about it

Transcript Anushea

Figure 21


[60]


A. Interviewee – it doesn’t allow me to do the things, besides what is programmed to do, so I have

no way of doing anything else besides what it can do


A. Interviewee – I don’t really know of any advantages


A. Interviewee – if it added more usage, as in if you could do a lot more things I.e. the camera of the

laptop


A. Interviewee – I would if all the problems were ironed out then yes I would probably use it


A. Interviewee – no, not really


A. Interviewee – no it didn’t give any feedback actually


errors?

A. Interviewee – no which is why it was quite annoying because you would keep doing it and it

wasn’t telling you why it wasn’t doing it


A. Interviewee – yeah it was good


system?

A. Interviewee – no


A. Interviewee – 8/10, because I think it’s very useful and you just need a bit of practise, otherwise it

is very easy, easy gesture and hand motions


A. Interviewee – 9/10 again because it’s easy to use and I think it’s very useful

Transcript Mahamad

Figure 22


[61]


A. Interviewee – 9/10 again because it’s very easy to use and you can easily get used to it


A. Interviewee – quite enjoyable because you’ll use your hands without using anything else 9 or 8/10


A. Interviewee – it’s useful but sometimes when you can’t reach your laptop or computer you can

use your hand or hand gesture, and it might even be useful for disabled people 7/10


A. Interviewee – 100% safe I don’t see any health hazards or issues with health and safety 10/10


A. Interviewee – I don’t see any, with practise it’s very easy to use


A. Interviewee – as I mentioned earlier it might be useful for disabled people and sometimes if you

can’t reach your laptop or your computer then this can be used as a replacement for your mouse


A. Interviewee – I cannot think of anything


A. Interviewee – yes


A. Interviewee – yes the main functionalities for the mouse, this device is capable of doing all

functionalities a mouse can do


A. Interviewee – yes


errors?

A. Interviewee – I didn’t experience any errors so I don’t know If the system is capable of reporting

any errors or popping up with any error messages


A. Interviewee – yes very much so


system?

A. Interviewee – the design I think is perfect


[62]


A. Interviewee – I would give the system an 8/10 in terms of its easiness to learn, as it wasn’t too

complicated and had quite easy steps


A. Interviewee – I believe the system would get another 8/10 for carrying out tasks as it was easy to

switch between screens, press play, fast forward, rewind etc.


A. Interviewee – I believe I would give this a 6/10, although the usability was quite good at times the

responsiveness was not quite good at times I had to remove my hand from the screen and put it

back


A. Interviewee – I believe I would give this a 7/10 as it was quite enjoyable but quite simple at the

same time


A. Interviewee – I believe I would give it a 6/10 it’s quite comfortable to use but it’s obviously easier

to use other forms or other methods


A. Interviewee – id give it a 10/10 because there were no safety issues in relation to the system


A. Interviewee – I would say the responsiveness for some aspects of the system could be improved

but apart from that nothing


A. Interviewee – I would say the advantages are as it’s quite a new technology it is interesting to

those who haven’t used it before


A. Interviewee – I would say apart from the responsiveness maybe that could be altered but apart

from that no


A. Interviewee – yes I would say

Transcript Rhys

Figure 23


[63]


A. Interviewee – in terms of all the tasks that I wanted to do is say yes


A. Interviewee – there was no real feedback from the system so it’s not applicable


errors?

A. Interviewee – no there was none of that


A. Interviewee – yes I did like the design of the system


system?

A. Interviewee – as I said apart from what I previously mentioned about the responsiveness nothing

at all


A. Interviewee – I would say whilst the instructions are simplistic delivering them isn’t that easy to

do so on a scale of 1/10 I’d say 7


A. Interviewee – I thought that it is effective in carrying out the tasks but in terms of how user

friendly it is I can find that it is a bit frustrating that I can’t carry out the out the action or command

effectively which is something that I could have done manually in about 2 seconds I had to spend

more time, there is a level of physical activity involved, 7/10


A. Interviewee – I think it is usable but if I had time constraints and if I wasn’t open to learning how

to use it I probably wouldn’t use it, in some ways it wasn’t practical 6/10


A. Interviewee – I thought it was very enjoyable the experience for me was a new one, at some

moments it was very fun to play with and surreal, I was amazing and taken back by how the software

works and it was a good piece of software 10/10


A. Interviewee – I think I was over thinking it a bit and because of that I realised at some points I was

cramping my hand a little bit and that was uncomfortable, I imagine if somebody was using this for

Transcript Frmesk

Figure 24


[64]

hours on end I can understand how this could cause some stiffness and I think something like this

should be used with relative ease and not have to think too much about 5/10


A. Interviewee - I personally don’t see how it would affect safety, I would give it a 10 for safety


A. Interviewee – the obvious is people that do not have full mobility in their limbs or hands for

example somebody that has osteoarthritis in their fingers would have a great deal of difficulty when

using something like this, so it isn’t for everybody and people with medical conditions, it does

impose some time constraints and is not the most reliable in carrying out some functions


A. Interviewee – well it’s obviously a more advanced way of operating a system I would that it might

depend and it offers those people that do want to sort of want to be as glued to a monitor or screen

a chance to lay back and interact with the system in a more laid back way so using motions as

opposed to being glued to a screen and actually browsing and operating using controls


A. Interviewee – id say it just needs to be a bit more reliable, one thing that might make users more

comfortable is setting gestures and motions that it carries out. Some people might feel more

comfortable carrying out certain gestures so if it was a bit more adaptable to a user and a bit more

reliable and specific and more sensitive than it would be a better product


A. Interviewee – I think It would take me a while to get used to it but just my experience of using it

for 30 seconds I would rather use a touch keypad or the keyboard controller or even just a

touchscreen laptop, for me it’s a lot easier to navigate the system that way, if I had more of a chance

of getting to grips and be more comfortable with the product I might consider using it but I also

think where it’s not as sensitive as id like I was getting a bit frustrated with the commands


A. Interviewee – I think I tested around 4 commands so it allowed me to switch between pages

switch between a browser and iTunes and play music that’s the only functions I tested, in terms of

other things such as searching for something in a web browser I don’t know how the system would

allow me to do that. So I think that it was quite constrict in what I did offer me but it did allow me to

do a lot of things but it was constricted


A. Interviewee – some commands were more effective than others for example the pinching

ascending and descending, scrolling up and down that was very easy to do, allowing volume controls

with pointing actions switching between songs with pause and play that was easy to do, the only

thing I had difficulty with was switching between browsers I felt that if this was a simpler task then it

would be a lot easier to navigate through


errors?


[65]

A. Interviewee – no I don’t feel that it did


A. Interviewee – yes I felt like I was interacting with what I was doing more so than when I was

usually navigating the system so in that aspect I felt that because there was a practical application to

it I had to think a lot more about it and overall it was a more engaging process but not an easier one


system?

A. Interviewee – the only thing I’d say is sensitivity, the only thing I would change is the sensitivity

reliability of the product and also to be able to adapt the product to the user so they would be able

to implement their own motions for command


[66]


[67]

Figure 25

Figure 26

Figure 27

7, 50% 8, 50%

Q1: Out of 10 How Easy Was The System To Learn

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

5 16%

6 33%

7 17%

8 17%

9 17%

Q2: How Effective Was The System At Carrying Out Tasks

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


[68]

Figure 28

Figure 29

3 16%

6 33%

7 17%

9 17%

10 17%

Q3: Out of 10 How Efficent Was The Usability Of The System

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

7 17%

8 33%

9 17%

10 33%

Q4: Out of 10 How Enjoyable Was The System To Use

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


[69]

Figure 30

Figure 31

4 33%

5 33%

6 17%

7 17%

Q5: Out of 10 How Comfortable is The System To Use

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10

3 14%

8 43%

10 43%

Q6: Out of 10 How Safe Do You Think The System Is

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10


[70]

Figure 32

Figure 33


[71]

Figure 34

Figure 35


[72]

Figure 36

Figure 37


[73]

Table 8

Leap Motion Issues

Usability Basic in usability

Not complex enough to be considered

seriously applicable to modern

computing.

User Experience Frustrating within some aspects

No error reporting

Positives Fun to use

easily understandable

Documents

THE FUTURE OF OPERATING SYSTEMS WIELDING MOTION CAPTURE ... · THE FUTURE OF OPERATING SYSTEMS WIELDING MOTION CAPTURE TECHNOLOGY ... technology, specifically the Leap Motion