Keyboard before Head Tracking Depresses User Success in Remote Camera Control

  • Authors:

  • Dingyun Zhu;Tom Gedeon;Ken Taylor

  • Affiliations:

  • CSIRO ICT Centre, Acton, Canberra, Australia 0200 and School of Computer Science, College of Engineering and Computer Science, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia 0200;School of Computer Science, College of Engineering and Computer Science, The Australian National University, Canberra, Australia 0200;CSIRO ICT Centre, Acton, Canberra, Australia 0200

  • Venue:
  • INTERACT '09 Proceedings of the 12th IFIP TC 13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Part II
  • Year:
  • 2009

Quantified Score

Hi-index 0.00

Visualization

Abstract

In remote mining, operators of complex machinery have more tasks or devices to control than they have hands. For example, operating a rock breaker requires two handed joystick control to position and fire the jackhammer, leaving the camera control to either automatic control or require the operator to switch between controls. We modelled such a teleoperated setting by performing experiments using a simple physical game analogue, being a half size table soccer game with two handles. The complex camera angles of the mining application were modelled by obscuring the direct view of the play area and the use of a Pan-Tilt-Zoom (PTZ) camera. The camera control was via either a keyboard or via head tracking using two different sets of head gestures called "head motion" and "head flicking" for turning camera motion on/off. Our results show that the head motion control was able to provide a comparable performance to using a keyboard, while head flicking was significantly worse. In addition, the sequence of use of the three control methods is highly significant. It appears that use of the keyboard first depresses successful use of the head tracking methods, with significantly better results when one of the head tracking methods was used first. Analysis of the qualitative survey data collected supports that the worst (by performance) method was disliked by participants. Surprisingly, use of that worst method as the first control method significantly enhanced performance using the other two control methods.