"Das Programm sieht ja nicht nur gut aus, es macht auch genau das was ich will!" - solche oder ähnliche Aussagen liest man oft, wenn Software-Programme von Anwendern beurteilt werden. Was Nutzer damit beschreiben ist weitestgehend als Look & Feel einer Anwendung bekannt. Der Begriff Look bezieht sich dabei auf die visuellen Bestandteile der Anwendung, wie die genutzten Medienelemente und deren Layout. Das Themenfeld Feel umfasst das interaktive Verhalten einer Anwendung, die auf Eingaben des Nutzers reagiert (Feedback) oder bereits vorher Hinweise auf die eigene Verwendbarkeit gibt (Feed-Forward). Allgemein gilt, je interaktiver eine Anwendung, desto wichtiger ist das "Gefühl" im Look & Feel. Als Beispiel dienen die sogenannten natürlichen Benutzerschnittstellen (NUI), wie die sich in den letzten Jahren enorm verbreitende Form des Multi-Touches. Bei dieser interagiert der Nutzer direkt mit der Anwendung ohne separate Eingabegeräte als Vermittler seiner Aktionen. Eine weitere Charakteristik dieser Benutzerschnittstellen ist deren intuitive Verwendbarkeit. Dies bedeutet, dass sich während der Interaktion mit den Programmen deren Strukturen und Funktionen von selbst erschließen. Um dies zu gewährleisten ist die sorgsame Gestaltung des Feels von Beginn der Entwicklung an bedeutsam. Umso überraschender ist das Ergebnis unseres Vergleichs aktueller Prototyping-Werkzeuge für Benutzeroberflächen, die den Aspekt Feel oftmals nicht oder nur unzureichend berücksichtigen und stattdessen das Aussehen (Look) einer Anwendung fokussieren. In unserer kürzlich erschienenen Arbeit "Look without Feel - A Basal Gap in the Multi-Touch Prototyping Process", die wir auf der Konferenz "Mensch und Computer 2013" in Bremen präsentierten und die mit dem Honorable Mention Paper Award ausgezeichnet wurde, untersuchten wir diesen Sachverhalt für den Prototyping-Prozess von Multi-Touch Anwendungen genauer.

3D is a popular topic as an increasing amount of media and technology begin to support 3D interaction.  With the rise of interest in 3D interaction, the question of why there is a demand and desire for 3D over 2D interaction becomes relevant. This thesis compares the differences between a 3D heads up display and a 2D heads up display for a touch free gesture based virtual keyboard.  The gesture interface used in the tests is a way of communicating with a system using gestures of the hands tracked by a motion sensor.  This thesis tested 16 users where half of the users used a 2D version of a heads up display and the other half used a 3D version of a heads up display.  Both user groups were tested with identical conditions and in an identical environment.  Raw statistical data was gathered from a logging mechanism in the interface and qualitative data was gathered from questionnaires and observation notes.  The results from the experiment showed that the 2D and 3D heads up display gave very similar results. However, results also showed slightly better qualitative results from the 3D heads up display observation and questionnaire data.  The conclusion indicated no clear advantage for the 2D version or the 3D version.  The discussion shows that many other factors in the design process and selection of users, play a large role in the comparison of 2D vs 3D visualizations.  Factors such as age and familiarity with different levels of technology are indicated to be contributing factors when comparing 2D vs 3D.  The results and discussion hope to provide a starting point for future comparison research in the field of 2D compared to 3D visualization.

‘Practices of tactility, remembering and performance’ is a practice-led inquiry in which performance-making and writing are equal partners. The thesis comprises a performance folio and a dissertation. The folio comprises two performance works. / the backs of things: This 35-minute work for two dancers had a public season mid-way through the candidature (September 8th – 11th 2005). A DVD documentation is submitted with the dissertation. / here, now: This 50-minute multi-modal performance was presented for assessment during a public season of six performances (March 22nd – 25th 2007). It is a solo piece in which I perform. The work was attended by the examiners and a DVD documentation is submitted with the dissertation. / The dissertation provides a ‘narrative of a practice’ focused on tactility, remembering and performance. It elucidates what has arisen through the dual modalities of performance-making and writing. The dissertation is not an exegesis of the performance folio. Rather, it is a critical and reflective account of the practice within which the performances reside. / The arc of emergent meaning in the narrative of practice comprises three phases: Precedents; Choreographic Tactility; and Intercorporeal Remembering. In the first phase, I discuss the precursors to my subsequent practice of tactility and remembering. I detail how I sought to diminish the effects of the objectifying gaze by staging a series of interventions into the visual field of the dance. In the second phase, I articulate my use of touch, naming it a practice of choreographic tactility. I outline the connectivity of touch and suggest that it fosters an understanding of the intercorporeal nature of selfhood. I posit practices of tactility as arenas for a relational ontology. / In the third phase, I take the notion of intercorporeality thus established and show how it engenders an embodied knowledge of remembering. I define a range of heuristic devices that I established so as to craft remembering in my performance practice. Finally, I draw the discussion of tactility and remembering towards what I term an ‘aesthetics of tactility’. I describe this as a performance domain where intercorporeal remembering is privileged. This is instantiated in the poetic remembering of here, now with which the dissertation closes.

Thesis (Ph.D.)--University of Wollongong, 2006. / Typescript. Includes bibliographical references: leaf 225-237.

Diss. (sammanfattning) Stockholm : Karolinska institutet, 2007. / Härtill 5 uppsatser.

Thesis (Ph. D.)--Auburn University. / Abstract. Vita. Includes bibliographical references (p. 129-139).

Thesis (M. S.)--Mechanical Engineering, Georgia Institute of Technology, 2009. / Committee Chair: Book, Wayne; Committee Member: Lipkin, Harvey; Committee Member: Paredis, Christiaan

Thesis (Ph. D.)--University of Washington, 1999. / Vita. Includes bibliographical references (leaves [126]-139).

Thesis (doctoral)--Göteborg University, 1998. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 293-301).

Thesis (doctoral)--Göteborg University, 1998. / Includes bibliographical references (p. 293-301).