skip to main content
research-article

Dynamic Decals: Pervasive Freeform Interfaces Using Constrained Deformable Graphical Elements

Published:05 November 2021Publication History
Skip Abstract Section

Abstract

Pervasive interfaces can present relevant information anywhere in our environment, and they are thus challenged by the non rectilinearity of the display surface (e.g. circular table) and by the presence of objects that can partially occlude the interface (e.g. a book or cup on the table). To tackle this problem, we propose a novel solution based on two core contributions: the decomposition of the interface into deformable graphical units, called Dynamic Decals, and the control of their position and behaviour by a constraint-based approach. Our approach dynamically deforms the interface when needed while minimizing the impact on its visibility and layout properties. To do so, we extend previous work on implicit deformations to propose and experimentally validate functions defining different decal shapes and new deformers modeling decal deformations when they collide. Then, we interactively optimize the decal placements according to the interface geometry and their interrelations. Relations are modeled as constraints and the interface evolution results from an easy and efficient to solve minimization problem. Our approach is validated by a user study showing that, compared to two baselines, Dynamic decals is an aesthetically pleasant interface that preserves visibility, layout and aesthetic properties.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

V5iss493sVF.mp4

Supplemental video

References

  1. Anand Agarawala and Ravin Balakrishnan. 2006. Keepin' It Real: Pushing the Desktop Metaphor with Physics, Piles and the Pen. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Montréal, Québec, Canada) (CHI '06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1283--1292. https://doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124965Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Greg J. Badros, Alan Borning, and Peter J. Stuckey. 2001. The Cassowary Linear Arithmetic Constraint Solving Algorithm. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. , Vol. 8, 4 (Dec. 2001), 267--306. https://doi.org/10.1145/504704.504705Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Xiaojun Bi, Tovi Grossman, Justin Matejka, and George Fitzmaurice. 2011. Magic Desk: Bringing Multi-Touch Surfaces into Desktop Work. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Vancouver, BC, Canada) (CHI '11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 2511--2520. https://doi.org/10.1145/1978942.1979309Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. James F. Blinn. 1982. A Generalization of Algebraic Surface Drawing. ACM Trans. Graph. , Vol. 1, 3 (July 1982), 235--256. https://doi.org/10.1145/357306.357310Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Alan Borning, Richard Lin, and Kim Marriott. 1997. Constraints for the Web. In Proceedings of the Fifth ACM International Conference on Multimedia (Seattle, Washington, USA) (MULTIMEDIA '97). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 173--182. https://doi.org/10.1145/266180.266361Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Ralph Allan Bradley and Milton E. Terry. 1952. Rank Analysis of Incomplete Block Designs: I. The Method of Paired Comparisons. Biometrika , Vol. 39, 3/4 (1952), 324--345. http://www.jstor.org/stable/2334029Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Kuan-Ta Chen, Chen-Chi Wu, Yu-Chun Chang, and Chin-Laung Lei. 2009. A Crowdsourceable QoE Evaluation Framework for Multimedia Content. In Proceedings of the 17th ACM International Conference on Multimedia (Beijing, China) (MM '09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 491--500. https://doi.org/10.1145/1631272.1631339Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Daniel Cotting, Markus Gross, and Markus Gross. 2006. Interactive Environment-aware Display Bubbles. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Montreux, Switzerland) (UIST '06). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 245--254. https://doi.org/10.1145/1166253.1166291Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Niraj Ramesh Dayama, Kashyap Todi, Taru Saarelainen, and Antti Oulasvirta. 2020. GRIDS: Interactive Layout Design with Integer Programming. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376553Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Erwin de Groot, Brian Wyvill, Lo"ic Barthe, Ahmad Nasri, and Paul Lalonde. 2014. Implicit Decals: Interactive Editing of Repetitive Patterns on Surfaces. Comput. Graph. Forum , Vol. 33, 1 (Feb. 2014), 141--151. https://doi.org/10.1111/cgf.12260Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Joost de Winter and Dimitra Dodou. 2010. Five-Point Likert Items: t Test Versus Mann--Whitney--Wilcoxon. Practical Assessment, Research and Evaluation , Vol. 15 (01 2010).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Peitong Duan, Casimir Wierzynski, and Lama Nachman. 2020. Optimizing User Interface Layouts via Gradient Descent. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--12. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376589Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Barrett Ens, Benjamin Bach, Maxime Cordeil, Ulrich Engelke, Marcos Serrano, Wesley Willett, Arnaud Prouzeau, Christoph Anthes, Wolfgang Büschel, Cody Dunne, Tim Dwyer, Jens Grubert, Jason H. Haga, Nurit Kirshenbaum, Dylan Kobayashi, Tica Lin, Monsurat Olaosebikan, Fabian Pointecker, David Saffo, Nazmus Saquib, Dieter Schmalstieg, Danielle Albers Szafir, Matt Whitlock, and Yalong Yang. 2021. Grand Challenges in Immersive Analytics. In Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Yokohama, Japan) (CHI '21). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, Article 459, bibinfonumpages17 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3446866Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Genki Furumi, Daisuke Sakamoto, and Takeo Igarashi. 2012. SnapRail: A Tabletop User Interface Widget for Addressing Occlusion by Physical Objects. In Proceedings of the 2012 ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces (Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA) (ITS '12). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 193--196. https://doi.org/10.1145/2396636.2396666Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Wilbert O. Galitz. 2007. The Essential Guide to User Interface Design: An Introduction to GUI Design Principles and Techniques .John Wiley & Sons, Inc., USA.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Michael Gleicher. 1992 a. Briar: A Constraint-Based Drawing Program. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Monterey, California, USA) (CHI '92). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 661--662. https://doi.org/10.1145/142750.143074Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Michael Gleicher. 1992 b. Integrating constraints and direct manipulation . In Proceedings of the 1992 symposium on Interactive 3D graphics - SI3D '92. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 171--174. https://doi.org/10.1145/147156.147194Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Gaël Guennebaud, Benoît Jacob, et almbox. 2010. Eigen v3. http://eigen.tuxfamily.org.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Alina Hang, Enrico Rukzio, and Andrew Greaves. 2008. Projector Phone: A Study of Using Mobile Phones with Integrated Projector for Interaction with Maps. In Proceedings of the 10th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (Amsterdam, The Netherlands) (MobileHCI '08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 207--216. https://doi.org/10.1145/1409240.1409263Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Hiroshi Hosobe. 2001. A modular geometric constraint solver for user interface applications. In Proceedings of the 14th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology - UIST '01. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 91. https://doi.org/10.1145/502348.502362Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Scott E. Hudson and Ian Smith. 1996. Ultra-Lightweight Constraints. In Proceedings of the 9th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Seattle, Washington, USA) (UIST '96). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 147--155. https://doi.org/10.1145/237091.237112Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Waqas Javed, KyungTae Kim, Sohaib Ghani, and Niklas Elmqvist. 2011. Evaluating Physical/Virtual Occlusion Management Techniques for Horizontal Displays. In Human-Computer Interaction -- INTERACT 2011 , , Pedro Campos, Nicholas Graham, Joaquim Jorge, Nuno Nunes, Philippe Palanque, and Marco Winckler (Eds.). Springer Berlin Heidelberg, Berlin, Heidelberg, 391--408.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Tyler Johnson and Henry Fuchs. 2007. Real-Time Projector Tracking on Complex Geometry Using Ordinary Imagery. In 2007 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition. 1--8. https://doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2007.383460Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Brett Jones, Hrvoje Benko, Eyal Ofek, and Andrew Wilson. 2013. IllumiRoom: peripheral projected illusions for interactive experiences. https://doi.org/10.1145/2503368.2503375Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Brett Jones, Rajinder Sodhi, Michael Murdock, Ravish Mehra, Hrvoje Benko, Andrew Wilson, Eyal Ofek, Blair MacIntyre, Nikunj Raghuvanshi, and Lior Shapira. 2014. RoomAlive: Magical Experiences Enabled by Scalable, Adaptive Projector-Camera Units. In Proceedings of the 27th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Honolulu, Hawaii, USA) (UIST '14). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 637--644. https://doi.org/10.1145/2642918.2647383Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Brett R. Jones, Rajinder Sodhi, Roy H. Campbell, Guy Garnett, and Brian P. Bailey. 2010. Build your world and play in it: Interacting with surface particles on complex objects. In 2010 IEEE International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality . 165--174. https://doi.org/10.1109/ISMAR.2010.5643566Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  27. Mohammadreza Khalilbeigi, Jürgen Steimle, Jan Riemann, Niloofar Dezfuli, Max Mühlh"auser, and James D. Hollan. 2013. ObjecTop: Occlusion Awareness of Physical Objects on Interactive Tabletops. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces (St. Andrews, Scotland, United Kingdom) (ITS '13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 255--264. https://doi.org/10.1145/2512349.2512806Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  28. Masaaki Kurosu and Kaori Kashimura. 1995. Apparent Usability vs. Inherent Usability: Experimental Analysis on the Determinants of the Apparent Usability. In Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Denver, Colorado, USA) (CHI '95). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 292--293. https://doi.org/10.1145/223355.223680Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Ricardo Langner, John Brosz, Raimund Dachselt, and Sheelagh Carpendale. 2010. PhysicsBox: Playful Educational Tabletop Games. In ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces (Saarbrücken, Germany) (ITS '10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 273--274. https://doi.org/10.1145/1936652.1936712Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Talia Lavie and Noam Tractinsky. 2004. Assessing dimensions of perceived visual aesthetics of web sites. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies , Vol. 60, 3 (2004), 269 -- 298. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2003.09.002Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Johnny C. Lee, Scott E. Hudson, Jay W. Summet, and Paul H. Dietz. 2005. Moveable Interactive Projected Displays Using Projector Based Tracking. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Seattle, WA, USA) (UIST '05). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 63--72. https://doi.org/10.1145/1095034.1095045Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Y. K. Leung and M. D. Apperley. 1994. A Review and Taxonomy of Distortion-Oriented Presentation Techniques. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. , Vol. 1, 2 (June 1994), 126--160. https://doi.org/10.1145/180171.180173Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Nicolas Mellado, David Vanderhaeghe, Charlotte Hoarau, Sidonie Christophe, Mathieu Brédif, and Loic Barthe. 2017. Constrained Palette-Space Exploration. ACM Trans. Graph. , Vol. 36, 4, Article 60 (July 2017), bibinfonumpages14 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3072959.3073650Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Jan Meskens, Jo Vermeulen, Kris Luyten, and Karin Coninx. 2008. Gummy for Multi-Platform User Interface Designs: Shape Me, Multiply Me, Fix Me, Use Me. In Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (Napoli, Italy) (AVI '08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 233--240. https://doi.org/10.1145/1385569.1385607Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. M. Müller. 2008. Hierarchical Position Based Dynamics. In VRIPHYS .Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  36. Miguel A. Nacenta, Satoshi Sakurai, Tokuo Yamaguchi, Yohei Miki, Yuichi Itoh, Yoshifumi Kitamura, Sriram Subramanian, and Carl Gutwin. 2007. E-Conic: A Perspective-Aware Interface for Multi-Display Environments. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Newport, Rhode Island, USA) (UIST '07). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 279--288. https://doi.org/10.1145/1294211.1294260Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. David Chek Ling Ngo, Lian Seng Teo, and John G. Byrne. 2003. Modelling Interface Aesthetics. Inf. Sci. , Vol. 152, 1 (June 2003), 25--46. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0020-0255(02)00404--8Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  38. Stephen Oney, Brad Myers, and Joel Brandt. 2012. ConstraintJS. In Proceedings of the 25th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology - UIST '12. ACM Press, New York, New York, USA, 229. https://doi.org/10.1145/2380116.2380146Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Ramesh Raskar, Michael S. Brown, Ruigang Yang, Wei-Chao Chen, Greg Welch, Herman Towles, Brent Seales, and Henry Fuchs. 1999. Multi-Projector Displays Using Camera-Based Registration. In Proceedings of the Conference on Visualization '99: Celebrating Ten Years (San Francisco, California, USA) (VIS '99). IEEE Computer Society Press, Washington, DC, USA, 161--168.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Ramesh Raskar, Greg Welch, Matt Cutts, Adam Lake, Lev Stesin, and Henry Fuchs. 1998. The Office of the Future: A Unified Approach to Image-Based Modeling and Spatially Immersive Displays. In Proceedings of the 25th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (SIGGRAPH '98). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 179--188. https://doi.org/10.1145/280814.280861Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Jan Riemann, Martin Schmitz, Alexander Hendrich, and Max Mühlh"auser. 2018. FlowPut: Environment-Aware Interactivity for Tangible 3D Objects. Proc. ACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. , Vol. 2, 1, Article 31 (March 2018), bibinfonumpages23 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3191763Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Marcos Serrano and Laurence Nigay. 2009. Temporal Aspects of CARE-Based Multimodal Fusion: From a Fusion Mechanism to Composition Components and WoZ Components. In Proceedings of the 2009 International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces (Cambridge, Massachusetts, USA) (ICMI-MLMI '09). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 177--184. https://doi.org/10.1145/1647314.1647346Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  43. Marcos Serrano and Laurence Nigay. 2010. A wizard of oz component-based approach for rapidly prototyping and testing input multimodal interfaces. Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces, Springer Publ. , Vol. 3, 3 (2010), 215--225. http://www.springerlink.com/content/f116502x844117t6Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  44. Marcos Serrano, Anne Roudaut, and Pourang Irani. 2016. Investigating Text Legibility on Non-Rectangular Displays. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (San Jose, California, USA) (CHI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 498--508. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858057Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  45. Marcos Serrano, Anne Roudaut, and Pourang Irani. 2017. Visual Composition of Graphical Elements on Non-Rectangular Displays. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Denver, Colorado, USA) (CHI '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 4405--4416. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025677Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  46. Florine Simon, Anne Roudaut, Pourang Irani, and Marcos Serrano. 2019. Finding Information on Non-Rectangular Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Glasgow, Scotland Uk) (CHI '19). ACM, New York, NY, USA, Article 102, bibinfonumpages8 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3290605.3300332Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  47. S. Sistare. 1991. Graphical Interaction Techniques in Constraint-Based Geometric Modeling. In Proceedings of Graphics Interface '91 (Calgary, Alberta, Canada) (GI '91). Canadian Man-Computer Communications Society, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, 85--92. http://graphicsinterface.org/wp-content/uploads/gi1991--12.pdfGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  48. Wolfgang Stuerzlinger, Olivier Chapuis, Dusty Phillips, and Nicolas Roussel. 2006. User Interface FaccAdes: Towards Fully Adaptable User Interfaces. In Proceedings of the 19th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Montreux, Switzerland) (UIST '06). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 309--318. https://doi.org/10.1145/1166253.1166301Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  49. Ivan E. Sutherland. 1964. Sketch Pad a Man-Machine Graphical Communication System. In Proceedings of the SHARE Design Automation Workshop (DAC '64). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 6.329--6.346. https://doi.org/10.1145/800265.810742Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  50. Amanda Swearngin, Chenglong Wang, Alannah Oleson, James Fogarty, and Amy J. Ko. 2020. Scout: Rapid Exploration of Interface Layout Alternatives through High-Level Design Constraints. In Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Honolulu, HI, USA) (CHI '20). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 1--13. https://doi.org/10.1145/3313831.3376593Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  51. Aurelien Tabard, Simon Gurn, Andreas Butz, and Jakob Bardram. 2013. A Case Study of Object and Occlusion Management on the ELabBench, a Mixed Physical/Digital Tabletop. In Proceedings of the 2013 ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces (St. Andrews, Scotland, United Kingdom) (ITS '13). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 251--254. https://doi.org/10.1145/2512349.2512794Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  52. Daniel Vogel and Ravin Balakrishnan. 2010. Occlusion-Aware Interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (Atlanta, Georgia, USA) (CHI '10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 263--272. https://doi.org/10.1145/1753326.1753365Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  53. Manuela Waldner, Raphael Grasset, Markus Steinberger, and Dieter Schmalstieg. 2011. Display-Adaptive Window Management for Irregular Surfaces. In Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces (Kobe, Japan) (ITS '11). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 222--231. https://doi.org/10.1145/2076354.2076394Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  54. Andrew D. Wilson, Shahram Izadi, Otmar Hilliges, Armando Garcia-Mendoza, and David Kirk. 2008. Bringing Physics to the Surface. In Proceedings of the 21st Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (Monterey, CA, USA) (UIST '08). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 67--76. https://doi.org/10.1145/1449715.1449728Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  55. Raphael Wimmer, Fabian Hennecke, Florian Schulz, Sebastian Boring, Andreas Butz, and Heinrich Hußmann. 2010. Curve: Revisiting the Digital Desk. In Proceedings of the 6th Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Extending Boundaries (Reykjavik, Iceland) (NordiCHI '10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 561--570. https://doi.org/10.1145/1868914.1868977Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  56. Geoff Wyvill, Craig McPheeters, and Brian Wyvill. 1986. Data Structure for Soft Objects . The Visual Computer , Vol. 2, 4 (February 1986), 227--234.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Dynamic Decals: Pervasive Freeform Interfaces Using Constrained Deformable Graphical Elements

    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

    Full Access

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader
    About Cookies On This Site

    We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website.

    Learn more

    Got it!