Content uploaded by Jean-bernard Martens
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Jean-bernard Martens
Content may be subject to copyright.
Augmenting Mood Boards: Flexible and Intuitive Interaction in the Context
of the Design Studio
Andrés Lucero, Dima Aliakseyeu, Jean-Bernard Martens
Department of Industrial Design, Eindhoven University of Technology, the Netherlands
{a.a.lucero, d.aliakseyeu, j.b.o.s.martens}@tue.nl
Figure 1: Browsing images on a coffee table using hand movements in the design studio.
Abstract
In our studies aimed at understanding design
practice we have identified the creation of mood
boards as a relevant task for designers. In this paper
we introduce an interactive table that supports one
part of the mood-board making process (i.e. image
browsing) by providing flexible and intuitive
interaction for designers in the context of their design
studios. We propose an image browser that: 1) merges
with the real context allowing designers to work in the
comfort of their existing design studio environment, 2)
captures the current flexibility of interaction with
physical images by allowing designers to work using
hand movements, and 3) provides an alternative
solution to a cluttered desk and messy design studio by
using the space above the table for interaction.
Exploratory evaluations show that designers were able
to use the system with no prior training, and to see a
practical use of the proposed image browser in their
design studios.
1. Introduction
The use of mood boards in the early stages of the
design process is common practice for designers [6,
11]. Designers use mood boards to explore,
communicate, and discuss ideas together with their
clients. These boards can be created with different
types of media although designers usually use images
to say something about the target audience, product,
and/or company they are designing for. Designers
spend a great deal of time looking for such images in
magazines.
Browsing magazines in search for images is one of
the first steps of the mood-board making process.
Designers prefer going through their large collections
of magazines in a comfortable place where they can
freely start creating ad-hoc piles of magazines and
pictures, making a ‘soft’ pre-selection of images.
Designers end up with a large number of images
taking up all available usable space in their design
studios including tables, walls and floor (Figure 2).
Space is not only limited to spreading images in the
studio but also for storing magazines. Designers must
throw away magazines in order to grow their
collections with new material.
Desktop and digital systems provide solutions for
displaying and storing large amounts of images,
however they do not provide the conditions to browse
and select images in a flexible way and in comfortable
spaces for designers in their design studios.
In this paper we present an image browser (Figure
1) for designers that: 1) merges with the real context
allowing designers to work in the comfort of their
existing design studio environment, 2) captures the
current flexibility of interaction with physical images
by allowing designers to work using hand movements,
and 3) provides an alternative solution to a cluttered
desk and messy design studio by using the space above
the table for interaction.
Second Annual IEEE International Workshop on Horizontal Interactive Human-Computer System
0-7695-3013-3/07 $25.00 © 2007 IEEE
DOI 10.1109/TABLETOP.2007.17
147
Figure 2. A designer’s studio with images all
over the place including the wall behind her.
2. Background
The field of human-computer interaction (HCI) has
been investigating how people interact with computer
systems at work (and more recently at home), trying to
help them achieve their goals. Within HCI, researchers
have started to see the potential behind tables as a more
natural and familiar setting to design (collaborative)
interactions around them. Some notable examples of
interactive tables include the DigitalDesk [22],
DiamondTouch [4], Sensetable [16], Lumisight [14],
and more recently the Entertaible [9], and Microsoft’s
Surface [21]. Although initially research in this area
was mostly driven by technology, we have slowly
started to witness a user-perspective approach to
tabletop, studying the needs and aspirations of users [2,
13], as well as their limitations [18].
The ID-MIX project [13] tries to assess the
relevance and impact of augmented reality systems in
work practice. The question the project tries to answer
is if professional users (i.e. industrial designers) would
change their current work practice favoring the use of
an augmented reality system that supports their work.
Figure 3. A designer in her studio browsing
images, seating on a couch by a coffee table.
We aimed at understanding design practice by
systematically involving designers in user studies using
different methods. In the first user study with ten
industrial designers we used cultural probes [7] that
allowed us to identify a relevant task: making mood
boards. Since the probe study, we have conducted two
further studies to get a better understanding of why
designers use mood boards and how they create them.
We did contextual inquiries [10] with Dutch industrial
designers (n=4), and ‘mood board interviews’ with
Finnish fashion and textile designers (n=10).
3. Augmenting mood boards
In these studies we identified several opportunities
for ‘augmenting’ mood boards. The process of making
mood boards can be divided into these five stages: 1)
‘image collecting’, 2) ‘image browsing’, 3) ‘image
piling’, 4) ‘building mood boards’, and 5) ‘expanding
mood boards’.
3.1. Image collecting
Designers who use mood boards for their work are
constantly collecting images. If they see something
interesting, they collect it. They mostly use images
from large-sized magazines printed on glossy paper
that they find in magazine shops and bookstores, and
from the Internet. Occasionally they will also use
pictures from their private/personal collection or they
will especially make pictures for a mood board at hand.
Adding images from the Internet to a digital table
can be solved through different available options (i.e.
network drive, USB stick). The same holds for pictures
made with a digital camera that can be sent wirelessly
to the system. The Cabinet system [11] has addressed
the issue of adding images from physical magazines
onto a digital table, thus breaking the divide between
physical and digital. It photographs objects placed on
the workspace and replaces them with a digital
footprint in the same place.
3.2. Image browsing
Designers start looking for images that will help
them build a story or say something about the target
audience, product, or company they are designing for.
Designers browse magazines, cutting out pictures from
them and ending up with a large number of images, in
a process that can take a considerable amount of time.
Designers prefer going through their large collections
of magazines in a comfortable place (Figure 3) where
they can freely start creating ad-hoc piles of magazines
and pictures, making a ‘soft’ pre-selection of images.
148
Figure 4. After making a soft-selection,
designers end up with one large pile of images
that they carry around with them.
Designers end up with a large pile of pre-selected
images that they carry with them if they want to share
its contents with colleagues for discussion (Figure 4).
3.3. Image piling
Once designers have collected enough images, they
will ‘categorize’ their collections of images. For some
of them it is a very structured personal process keeping
images in boxes under labels (i.e. human, modern,
kitchen, etc.). For others, the categories are looser,
keeping the complete magazines arranged in a
bookshelf according to brand, topic or theme, ready for
later retrieval. In any case, be it a loose or structured
categorization, these categories are very personal and
make sense most of the time to the designer only.
Designers will start sorting their collection (Figure
5) by throwing images in categories (usually up to 30
images per concept). They will sometimes label the
piles with notes. They also like the easiness of piling
and arranging images within the pile. Growing piles
create smaller piles and sub-piles can be mixed
together in a simple way. Retrieving an image that they
have seen before is as simple as going to the pile and
getting the image. Once the piles are ready, they have
an overview where they can see what they have and
they can start thinking what they want to do (layout).
The creation as well as the handling of piles on
digital tables has already been explored in recent
systems such as Cabinet [11] where designers load
images into the system and maintain workbooks of
related images, with each workbook acting as a digital
pile. We have also explored interaction with digital
piles [1] identifying three basic tasks that must be
supported by a digital pile (navigation, reorganization,
and repositioning), and have proposed three interaction
techniques that meet these requirements (DragDeck,
HoverDeck, and ExpandPile).
Figure 5. Creating piles of images on a table.
Labels are also created at this stage. The final
selection of images is created.
3.4. Building mood boards
Once designers have found the right images, they
like cutting the images with scissors and dragging the
images to try different layouts.
Designers use different techniques to control the
overall expression of the mood board. For example,
they will add subtle effects such as blurring by adding
semi-transparent colored sheets of paper to give a more
uniform feel about the color of the mood board. They
may also include the logo and name of the company to
create a greater sense of identity with the company.
Color tablets can also be included on the mood boar d
to show the color schemes that are being used and to
make sure that the right Pantone colors are used in the
new designs that emerge from the mood boards. Text
with keywords can also be part of the mood board.
Placing the keywords is the last thing they do.
3.5. Expanding mood boards
In our interviews with designers participants shared
with us scenarios for possible future expansions of
mood boards. In some companies they already present
mood boards as part of PowerPoint presentation s,
sometimes including music to help create the
atmosphere. Other designers encouraged us to explore
creating mood boards with moving images.
4. Designing the ‘image browser’
In the previous section, we have identified and
described the five main parts of the mood-board
making process that we aim to provide support for with
augmented reality. As was previously mentioned, out
of these five parts, we have already conducted some
exploratory studies in relation to ‘image piling’ [1].
Based on the requirements we gathered from designers,
we have decided to now focus our work on supporting
149
the second part of this process, image browsing, by
designing an ‘image browser’ that: 1) merges with the
real context allowing designers to work in the comfort
of their existing design studio environment, 2) captures
the current flexibility and intuitiveness of interaction
with physical images, and 3) provides an alternative
solution to a cluttered desk and messy design studio by
using the space above the table to interact.
4.1. Merging with the real context: coffee table
From our contextual inquiries, we discovered that
the context of use is an essential part of supporting the
work of designers. We aim to design a space for
creativity where designers feel comfortable and keep a
good attitude. This space would create a positive effect
[15] that facilitates creative thinking in designers.
We envision a space that encourages designers to
move around their design studio pretty much as they
do now. Designers have their desks with their
computers on them but they prefer to look for images
away from large desks or computers. They will usually
prefer browsing for images while comfortably seated
on a couch, in a coffee corner or at the coffee table in a
living room (i.e. when working at home). As such, our
system should encourage breaking the rhythm and
doing activities away from their desks [11].
In this context, we have decided to design the
interaction using a coffee table to encourage image
search in a more relaxed environment within a design
studio. Designers can sit around the coffee table and sit
back comfortably on a couch. Designing interaction
around a coffee table (120x40x40 cm.) has its own
implications and challenges from an ergonomic point
of view. Looking at the Dreyfuss charts [5], we realize
there are aspects related to appropriate viewing angle,
posture, reach, and the time people would be sitting
around the table that need to be taken into account
when designing interactions around such elements.
4.2. Flexibility of interaction: hand movements
From our studies we have learned that for activities
involving creation designers prefer working with their
hands with tools that allow flexibility and intuitive
interaction (i.e. pencil and paper). Their current way to
browse, select (cut out), and create soft-piles of images
is a good example of flexible and intuitive interaction.
Inspired by this example, we decided to encourage
interaction through hand movements, allowing
designers to work with both hands towards achieving
the goal of pre-selecting images. Designers use their
hands collaboratively; each hand with a different
function, as when one is using a knife and fork.
4.3. Avoiding the mess: space above the table
When designers are looking for images in
magazines, they start cutting out pictures from them
and end up with a large number of images. Designers
will create soft-piles of images and thus create a great
amount of mess ar ound their design studios. Piles of
images and magazines will create cluttered desks and
take up all available usable space in their design
studios includin g tables, walls and floor.
To provide a solution for this problem, we have
decided to extend the available space for interacting
and displaying information by using the space above
the table [20]. The active area above the work-surface
is divided into multiple layers extending the design
space. In our case, this space can be used to interact
with soft-piles of images.
5. Interaction techniques
We now describe how the ‘image browser’ provides
support for navigating images and interacting with
soft-piles.
5.1. Browsing by flipping pages
We propose two ways to browse images. Th e first
one is similar to flipping pages of a magazine in the
sense that users must mimic with their dominant hand
the movement anywhere above the table to switch to
the next page (Figure 6). Three large-sized images are
displayed simultaneously to allow designers to be
captured by the atmosphere and contents of the image,
hence the 1:3 ratio of the chosen table. The next or
previous three images will be displayed depending on
the direction of the movement. The change of pages is
accompanied with a page-flipping sound.
5.2. Browsing by flicking
Augmenting the process of making mood boards
implies extending the current practices by providing
relevant support using the advantages of new
technologies. As such we extend image browsing by
introducing techniques that pertain to the digital world.
Figure 6. Browsing by mimicking a ‘flipping-
page’ movement anywhere above the table.
150
Figure 7. Browsing by doing a ‘flicking’
movement on the table.
We use a flicking movement to initiate continuous
scrolling. The flicking movement is similar to the
flipping movement only that it is longer (Figure 7) and
triggers a distinctive longer flipping-page sound. We
map the direction of flicking to the scrolling direction,
and the flicking speed to the rate at which the pictures
scroll. The approach is similar to the one used for
scrolling on the iPhone and on the ‘Cover Flow’ view
of iTunes (with a difference that we do not use inertia
or friction, so once scrolling starts it continues with
constant speed until the stop movement is performed).
Users can stop the scrolling by tapping on the table.
5.3. Soft piling
We propose the use of layers above the digital table
in order to create more space to store images and create
soft-piles. Once designers find an image that captures
their attention, they can place the image in a soft-pile.
Placing their dominant hand over an image at the table-
level, and then quickly moving the hand upwards
orthogonally with respect to the horizontal table
surface achieve piling (Figure 8). The image will be
placed into one of two locations at 30-50 cm. (soft-pile
‘A’) and 50-70 cm. (soft-pile ‘B’) above the table
surface, depending on the highest point reached by the
hand movement before it starts going down again to a
resting position. Based on our observations of
designers working with images at this stage of the
mood-board making process, we have deliber ately
limited the number of soft-piles supported by the
‘image browser’ (n=2) to meet the needs of designers.
5.4. Reviewing and arranging soft piles
Placing the non-dominant hand above the table
surface and changing height accordingly allows
navigating within layers of soft-piles. Placing the non-
dominant hand at the location of the previous
placement (Figure 9a), and then placing the dominant
hand at the desired new location (Figure 9b) achieve
removal of an image from a soft-pile or positioning an
image to another soft-pile. In this way, we are making
the interaction simpler by having designers use both
hands collaboratively where one hand has a different
function from the other.
Figure 8. Creating soft piles by orthogonally
moving a selected image.
Figure 9. (a) Reviewing piles (left);
(b) Placing an image on another layer (right).
6. Evaluation
The usability and usefulness of the Image Browser
prototype was tested in a short exploratory user study.
One of the main questions that we wanted to answer
was: will practicing designers see the prototype as a
relevant tool for creating mood boards? Moreover we
wanted to test the interaction techniques (hand
movements) in terms of naturalness, ease of learning
and use. The evaluation was conducted with 5
practicing designers with at least 8 years of experience.
The participants varied in gender (2 female, 3 male),
age (between 30 and 40), and hand choice (4 right, 1
left). The evaluations were conducted individually.
Figure 10. Experiment setup with the coffee
table, gloves and couch.
151
6.1. Implementation
A tabletop system was set up using a desktop PC,
which contr olled a top-down projector projecting an
image of size 120x40 cm (1272x424 pixels) on a white
IKEA table (120x40x40cm) (Figure 10), as well as an
ultrasonic tracking system – InterSense IS-600 used to
track hands. During the sessions participants wore
custom-designed interactive gloves that contained the
sensors. The gloves were made in Lycra to allow a
comfortable fit for different sizes of hands and were
hand sewn. Participants sat on a couch next to the
table. The application was written in C# and OpenGL
was used for visualization purposes.
6.2. Setup
Users were asked to focus on both the relevance of
the application for the creation of mood boards, and on
the interaction techniques. Following a description of
the interaction (approx. 5 minutes), participants were
allowed to freely explore the functionality and get
acquainted with the application (approx. 5 minutes).
Participants were later asked to perform simple
tasks (i.e. change pages, start and stop scrolling, create
piles, re-arrange a pile), starting with 30 different
images at the table-level. Finally, a short post interview
was conducted. All sessions were recorded in video.
The average time per participant was 25 minutes.
6.3. Findings
In the first part of our exploratory evaluations,
designers started trying out the interaction techniques
and as a general observation we can say that they were
all able to use the system with little or no prior
training. They especially liked the naturalness and
simplicity of the interaction and of the overall system
as can be observed from the following reactions:
- “I think the movements that you have to make in
order to browse are very natural. It really looks like
you are actually browsing a magazine.” [P1]
- “It’s beautiful! It’s very nice; it’s a very nice
interaction. (It is) what I intuitively do when I am just
organizing stuff, I have piles around me, I put some
things here and some things there.” [P2]
- “It’s so nice, I love it! (Reviewing layer contents
with your non-dominant hand) is so nice!” [P4]
- “I like the flipping movement a lot, it is very quick
and clear in combination with the sound.” [P5]
Regarding the interaction techniques, we observed
that flicking initially caused most difficulty to our
participants, followed by piling. It took two tries to get
flicking going for three participants while one
participant needed three tries to get piling working. In
the first case, the attempt to do a flicking movement
would result instead in flipping a page due to the fact
that only the length of the movement differentiates
both movements. After these initial difficulties
participants were able to continue with the interaction.
There was one conceptual interaction problem for
three participants who were trying to rearrange a pile
by moving an image from the middle layer to another
layer. All three participants were able to access the
middle layer with their non-dominant hand but upon
displaying the layer on the table, they tried to interact
with the elements using their dominant hand at a table-
level instead of at a middle layer-level. They all
overcame the problem upon further exploration
indicating it works fine once you know what to do.
Two participants expressed concern on fatigue:
- “I am a bit concerned about how much time I have
to hold my [left] hand in the air, however, the principle
behind it is quite logical…” [P1]
- “(Doing the flicking movement repetitively) can be
quite tiring for me…” [P5]
Regarding the relevance of the proposed
application, all participants saw a practical use of the
image browser in their design studios. They liked the
fact that they could dynamically browse images
(flicking) to make connections with images:
- “This kind of browsing gives you more opportunities
to select images.”[P1]
Regarding future applications of this table, some
participants speculated over possible uses of the table:
- “It looks very promising. You could create an
application in combination with the Microsoft table
(Surface).” [P1]
- “I think that for the household, you have a digital
camera with photographs from your family, children
and then you can select the pictures to print out.” [P3]
7. Related work
A considerable amount of related work has
influenced the design of this system. Most of this work
is connected to image browsing, tabletop systems, and
hand gesture/movement based interaction.
A number of tabletop systems h ave been designed
to support image browsing and sharing. The Personal
Digital Historian [19] is a tabletop, pen-based system
that helps people construct, organize, navigate and
share digital collections in an interactive multi-person
conversational setting.
Anoth er example of a tabletop-based system for
picture sharing and browsing is SharePic [3], which
was specifically developed for the elderly population.
The main distinctive property of the system is that it is
152
strongly influenced by the way physical photographs
are handled and placed on physical tables.
Cabinet [11] was developed to support image
collection in the context of a design studio. It has
specifically addressed the issue of adding images from
physical magazines onto a digital table, thus breaking
the divide between physical and digital.
There is also a considerable amount of work that
addresses gestur e-based interaction on tables, in open
spaces, or in 3D virtual environ ments. Tabletop
systems like Diamond Touch [4], Lumisight [14], and
Entertaible [9] use different hand gestures and
movements to interact on the table. [17, 12, 23] have
studied the general application of hand gestures and
movements to support human-computer interaction.
The use of la yers above the table for pen-based
systems was first explored in [8] using a single layer,
and later in [20] using multiple layers of interaction.
8. Discussion
8.1. Appropriateness of the (coffee) table
We believe that the choice of the IKEA table (and
couch) has affected how designers perceived the
prototype in a positive way. Designers realized that this
was not a “standard” coffee table, but a modern and
sleek one that they could perfectly see in their own
design studios. As such, the chosen coffee table helped
greatly in addressing the context of use issue.
Regarding how the interaction is affected by the
seating position around the coffee table, the system
currently allows browsing and piling images while
designers are sitting comfortably and resting their
back. However, for re-arranging piles, designers must
lean forward to view the images (due to their smaller
size), and to interact with them. We predict that
designers will spend a considerably larger amount of
time browsing images than re-arranging them so our
main concern at this point is what would happen with
the perception of the system over prolonged use.
8.2. Interaction based on hand movements
In our prototype we have used one-point ultrasonic
tracking (ISense). Alternative solutions such as vision-
based tracking can potentially support a richer set of
movements and can also add hand gestures, however,
as was pointed out above, the main motivation for
choosing hand movements to interact was to keep
interaction as light and simple as possible. In this
respect the tracking capabilities of the ISense were
enough for recognizing a small set of movements
implemented in the prototype. In relation to a design-
studio context, video-based recognition will probably
be more appropriate due to smaller size and price.
Designers favored not having additional interaction
devices (i.e. holding tangible objects). The gloves were
comfortable and unobtrusive and were perceived as a
mean to track hands and not as an interaction device.
8.3. Virtual space above vs. around the table
Some participants suggested a few gestures that
could be implemented in the prototype to also support
interaction around the table (i.e. at a table-height level,
adjacent to the table). We initially considered this
option for our prototype especially because it fits the
selection process (“I choose this image, so I bring it
towards me”), however we believe this type of
interaction mimics what happens on a normal desk but
does not support the ergonomics of seating on a couch.
On a normal desk, people sit (or stand) at a different
height with respect to the table, and can rest their
elbows on the table. Their reaching possibilities are
fundamentally different than when seated on a couch.
Reaching the vertical space above the table becomes
then easier to reach than the space around it.
8.4. Interaction on vs. above the table
During the evaluation we observed that users had no
problems with staying in one layer or moving between
layers, however they all had some difficulties with
arranging piles. While the movement itself was well
understood most users needed a few tries to perform it.
All hand movements including page flipping could
be performed in midair (it was not necessary to touch
the table surface), however all participants used the
table surface to start a hand movement and generally
had less errors performing this hand movement than
when performed in the air. This indicates that
interaction in mid air should be kept for simple actions
while interaction on the surface can be more complex
(this also is inline with findings reported in [20]).
8.5. Number of piles
We defined the number of piles (n=2) for two reasons.
First, our studies showed that when designers start
searching images for mood boards, they create a few
soft-piles (1-3) containing around 20 images each.
Second, to keep the interaction above the table
comfortable, we set the distance between the first layer
(table surface) and the second layer at 30 cm, and the
distance between the second and the third at 20 cm.
Adding more layers would imply either placing layers
on top in an area that is difficult to reach while sitting
153
on a couch, or reducing the distance between layers,
adding extra restrictions to the set of hand movements.
9. Conclusions
In this paper we present an interactive tabletop
system that supports image browsing as one part of the
process of making mood boar ds. The system provides
flexible and intuitive interaction around a coffee table
for designers in the context of their design studios.
Through a user study we explored the limitations of the
system in terms of placing the interaction above the
table, the proposed hand movements, and the image
browser itself. The evaluations showed that designers
were able to use the system with little or no prior
training, and to see a practical use of the proposed
image browser in their design studios. We have
additionally identified a number of issues related to our
system such as the importance of addressing the
context of use, reach, and using hand movements for
interaction, which could have an effect on future
interactive tabletop systems set around coffee tables.
10. References
[1] D. Aliakseyeu, S. Subramanian, A. Lucero, and C.
Gutwin, “Interacting with piles of artifacts on digital tables”,
Proceedings of AVI '06, ACM Press, pp. 159-162.
[2] T. H. Andersen, R. Huber, A. Kretz, and M. Fjeld, “Feel
the Beat: Direct Manipulation of Sound during Playback”,
Proceedings of Tabletop 2006, IEEE, pp. 123-124.
[3] T. Apted, J. Kay, and A. Quigley, “Tabletop Sharing of
Digital Photographs for the Elderly”, Proceedings of CHI’06,
ACM Press, pp. 781-790.
[4] P. Dietz, and D. Leigh, “DiamondTouch: a multi-user
touch technology”, Proceedings of UIST '01, ACM, 219-226.
[5] H. Dreyfuss, Designing for People, Allworth Press, New
York, 1967.
[6] S. Garner, and D. McDonagh-Philp, “Problem
Interpretation and Resolution via Visual Stimuli: The Use of
'Mood Boards' in Design Education”, International Journal
of Art & Design Education, 20(1), 2001, pp. 57–64.
[7] W. Gaver, T. Dunne, and E. Pacenti, “Cultural probes”,
In Interactions, 6(1), January 1999, ACM Press, pp. 21-29.
[8] T. Grossman, K. Hinckley, P. Baudisch, M. Agrawala,
and R. Balakrishnan, “Hover Widgets: Using the Tracking
State to Extend the Capabilities of Pen-Operated Devi ces”, In
Proceedings of CHI ’06, ACM Press, pp. 861-870.
[9] G. Hollemans, T. Bergman, V. Buil, K. Gelder, M.
Groten, J. Hoonhout, T. Lashina, E. Loenen, and S.
Wijdeven, “Entertaible: Multi-user multi-object concurrent
input”, Adjunct Proceedings of UIST '06, ACM, pp. 55-56.
[10] K. Holtzblatt, J. Burns Wendell, and S. Wood, Rapid
Contextual Design. Morgan Kaufmann, 2004.
[11] I. Keller, For Inspiration Only: Designer interaction
with informal collections of visual material, PhD thesis, Delft
University of Technology, 2005.
[12] S. Lenman, L. Bretzner, and B. Thuresson, “Using
marking menus to develop command sets for computer
vision based hand gesture interfaces”, Proceedings of
NordiCHI '02, vol. 31, ACM Press, pp. 239-242.
[13] A. Lucero, and J.-B. Martens, “Supporting the creation
of Mood Boards: Industrial Design in Mixed Reality”,
Proceedings of TableTop 2006, IEEE, pp. 127-128.
[14] M. Matsushita, M. Iida, T. Ohguro, Y. Shirai, Y.
Kakehi, and T. Naemura, “Lumisight table: a face-to-face
collaboration support system that optimizes direction of
projected information to each stakeholder”, Proceedings of
CSCW '04, ACM Press, pp. 274-283.
[15] D. Norman, Emotional Design. Why we love (or hate)
everyday things, Basic Books, 2004.
[16] J. Patten, H. Ishii, J. Hines, and G. Pangaro,
“Sensetable: a wireless object tracking platform for tangible
user interfaces”, Proceedings of CHI '01, ACM, pp. 253-260.
[17] F. Quek, D. McNeill, R. Bryll, S. Duncan, X. Ma, C.
Kirbas, K.E. McCullough, and R. Ansari, “Multimodal
human discourse: gesture and speech”, In TOCHI, 9(3),
September 2002, ACM Press, pp. 171-193.
[18] S.D. Scott, M. Sheelagh, T. Carpendale, and K.M.
Inkpen, “Territoriality in collaborative tabletop workspaces”,
Proceedings of CSCW '04, ACM Press, pp. 294-303.
[19] C. Shen, N. Lesh, F. Vernier, C. Frolines, and J. Frost,
“Shar ing and Building Digital Group Histories”, Proceedings
of CSCW’02, ACM Press, pp. 324-333.
[20] S. Subramanian, D. Aliakseyeu, and A. Lucero, “Multi-
layer interaction for digital tables”, Proceedings of UIST '06,
ACM Press, pp. 269-272.
[21] Surface (2007): http://www.microsoft.com/surface/
accessed 31.05.2007.
[22] P.Wellner, “Interacting with paper on the DigitalDesk”,
In Communications, 36(7), July 1993, ACM Press, pp. 87-96.
[23] A. Wexelblat, “An approach to natural gesture in virtual
environments”, In TOCHI, 2(3), Sept. 1995, ACM Press, pp.
179-200.
154
