skip to main content
10.1145/3450618.3469175acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagessiggraphConference Proceedingsconference-collections
poster

Holo-Box: Level-of-Detail Glanceable Interfaces for Augmented Reality

Published:06 August 2021Publication History

ABSTRACT

Glanceable interfaces are Augmented Reality (AR) User Interfaces (UIs) for information retrieval ”at a glance” relying on eye gaze for implicit input. While they provide rapid information retrieval, they often occlude a large part of the real-world. This is compounded as the amount of virtual information increases. Interacting with complex glanceable interfaces often results in unintentional eye gaze interaction and selections due to the Midas Touch problem. In this work, we present Holo-box, an innovative AR UI design that combines 2D compact glanceable interfaces with 3D virtual ”Holo-boxes”. We can utilize the glanceable 2D interface to provide compact information at a glance while using Holo-box for explicit input such as hand tracking activated when necessary, surpassing the Midas Touch problem and resulting in Level-of-Detail(LOD) for AR glanceable UIs. We test our proposed system inside a real-world machine shop to provide on-demand virtual information while minimizing unintentional real-world occlusion.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

3450618.3469175.mp4

References

  1. William Buxton. 1995. Integrating the periphery and context: A new taxonomy of telematics. In Proceedings of graphics interface, Vol. 95. Citeseer, 239–246.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Grigoris Daskalogrigorakis, Salva Kirakosian, Angelos Marinakis, Vaggelis Nikolidakis, Ioanna Pateraki, Aristomenis Antoniadis, and Katerina Mania. 2021. G-Code Machina: A Serious Game for G-code and CNC Machine Operation Training. IEEE EDUCON 2021 forthcoming, Games in Engineering Education Special Session (2021).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Stephen DiVerdi, Tobias Hollerer, and Richard Schreyer. 2004. Level of detail interfaces. In 3rd IEEE and ACM Intl. Symp. on Mixed and Augmented Reality. IEEE, 300–301.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Panagiotis Drakopoulos, George-alex Koulieris, and Katerina Mania. 2021. Eye Tracking Interaction on Unmodified Mobile VR Headsets Using the Selfie Camera. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception (TAP) 18, 3 (2021), 1–20.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Robert JK Jacob. 1990. What you look at is what you get: eye movement-based interaction techniques. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems. 11–18.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. George Alex Koulieris, Kaan Akşit, Michael Stengel, Rafał K Mantiuk, Katerina Mania, and Christian Richardt. 2019. Near-eye display and tracking technologies for virtual and augmented reality. In Computer Graphics Forum, Vol. 38. 493–519.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. David Lindlbauer, Anna Maria Feit, and Otmar Hilliges. 2019. Context-aware online adaptation of mixed reality interfaces. In Proceedings of the 32nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 147–160.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Feiyu Lu, Shakiba Davari, Lee Lisle, Yuan Li, and Doug A Bowman. 2020. Glanceable ar: Evaluating information access methods for head-worn augmented reality. In 2020 IEEE conference on virtual reality and 3D user interfaces (VR). IEEE, 930–939.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  9. Ann McNamara, Katherine Boyd, Joanne George, Weston Jones, Somyung Oh, and Annie Suther. 2019. Information placement in virtual reality. In 2019 IEEE Conference on Virtual Reality and 3D User Interfaces (VR). IEEE, 1765–1769.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. Ercan Oztemel and Samet Gursev. 2020. Literature review of Industry 4.0 and related technologies. Journal of Intelligent Manufacturing 31, 1 (2020), 127–182.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Ken Pfeuffer, Yasmeen Abdrabou, Augusto Esteves, Radiah Rivu, Yomna Abdelrahman, Stefanie Meitner, Amr Saadi, and Florian Alt. 2021. ARtention: A design space for gaze-adaptive UIs in augmented reality. Computers & Graphics 95(2021), 1–12.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Long Qian, Alexander Plopski, Nassir Navab, and Peter Kazanzides. 2018. Restoring the awareness in the occluded visual field for optical see-through head-mounted displays. IEEE trans. on visualization and computer graphics 24, 11 (2018), 2936–2946.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. Zhiqiang Zhao, Da Jun Toh, Xiaoming Ding, Keng Chong Ng, See Choon Sin, and Yuen Choe Wong. 2020. Immersive Gamification Platform for Manufacturing Shopfloor Training. (2020).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. J Zhu, Soh-Khim Ong, and Andrew YC Nee. 2015. A context-aware augmented reality assisted maintenance system. International Journal of Computer Integrated Manufacturing 28, 2(2015), 213–225.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Recommendations

Comments

Login options

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

Sign in
  • Published in

    cover image ACM Conferences
    SIGGRAPH '21: ACM SIGGRAPH 2021 Posters
    August 2021
    90 pages
    ISBN:9781450383714
    DOI:10.1145/3450618

    Copyright © 2021 Owner/Author

    Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    • Published: 6 August 2021

    Check for updates

    Qualifiers

    • poster
    • Research
    • Refereed limited

    Acceptance Rates

    Overall Acceptance Rate1,822of8,601submissions,21%

PDF Format

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

HTML Format

View this article in HTML Format .

View HTML Format