The “token+constraint” (T+C) paradigm for tangible interfaces was introduced almost twenty years ago. To what extent has this paradigm been engaged in practice? We conducted a systematic literature review of the articles citing the original T+C paper. Approximately 30% of these works actually implement a tangible constraint. We also observed that it was difficult to analyze the adequacy of a system with the T+C paradigm. Hence, we propose a heuristic grid that gathers, synthesizes, and simplifies the design guidelines and benefits mentioned in the original T+C article toward enabling others to design, develop and evaluate systems that take full advantage of the T+C concept. Tangible user interface; token+constraint interfaces In 2005, Ullmer, Ishii, and Jacob [1] classified tangible user interfaces (TUIs) into three main (non-exhaustive) types: “interactive surface” where users manipulate physical objects on digitally augmented flat surfaces; “constructive assembly” which uses modular elements for instance inspired by LEGO™-like objects; and “token+constraint” (T+C). Tokens are defined as “discrete physical objects which represent digital information”, and constraints as “confining regions that are mapped to digital operations”, and which are “frequently embodied as structures that mechanically channel how tokens can be manipulated, often limiting their movement to a single degree of freedom”. Further it is defined that “placing and manipulating tokens within systems of constraints can be used to invoke and control a variety of computational interpretations.” The first two categories are often used for geometric or spatial representations, while T+C particularly supports interaction with “abstract digital information that has no inherent physical representation nor any intrinsic physical language for its manipulation”. T+C interfaces have interesting properties such as engaging kinesthetic awareness and passive haptic feedback, thus prospectively reducing visual load of the person interacting with the system. This article attempts to engage two research questions: What is the impact of the token+constraint paradigm in the realization and experimentation of published tangible prototypes for the 15 years interim (2005 2020)? How can the structural and functional nature of a token+constraint prototype best be characterized, and how can one measure the degree to which systems engage the proposed benefits for such paradigm? ORCID: 0000-0002-2826-2489 (A. 1); 0000-0002-0017-396X (A. 2); 0000-0003-0925-2303 (A. 3); 0000-0001-7959-5227 (A. 4)
We conducted a systematic literature review (SLR) [2] toward understanding what published instantiations have explicitly employed the token+constraint interaction paradigm. For this purpose, we considered all articles citing
2022 Copyright for this paper by its authors. the original TOCHI article [1] in Google Scholar, as of June 29, 2020. We then filtered the articles not in English (24 articles), without peer review committees (40), with duplicated content (37), without tangible interactive system (theoretical model or not TUI-centric) (51) and 15 errors (no citation or not found). This reduced the number from 255 to 88 articles (see Appendix A1 for a complete list of references).
We then considered the 88 resulting systems from the perspective of the T+C interaction paradigm. 26 articles introduce prototypes which instantiate at least one tangible constraint in their examples. This 30% ratio stems from T+C article been mainly cited as a taxonomy of TUI, sometimes instead of or in combination with MCRit [3] and TAC [4]. Eleven articles describe technologies to implement TUI using toolkits [5]–[7], new sensing technologies [8]–[10], or by instantiating generic reusable tangible widgets [11]–[15]. The 15 remaining articles are application use cases for professional uses [16]–[19], teaching purposes [20]–[23], domestic uses [24]–[28], for children in a library [29] and for a group of visitors in a museum [30]. We classified the citations of the T+C article according to Girouard et al. [31] (high-level citation means the cited work has a direct influence; low-level citation helps lay a foundation of the work, but its omission would not be critical; see coding in the second column of the table in Appendix A2). We observed that technology-driven works made full use of the T+C concept, and sometimes even enhanced it: seven high-level citations modulated by the inclusion of two of Ullmer's subsequent articles, three medium level and one superficial citations (see A2). Altogether more than half of the use cases seemed to draw at least partial motivation from T+C (nine high-level, four medium level and two superficial). The original T+C article discussed constraints as prospectively realizing physical expressions of digital syntax. Regarding this, most prototypes (17 out of 26) allow the manipulation of abstract data, i.e. data which is neither geometric nor spatial. T+C interaction can be composed of two phases: the association phase, where the user places the token in the constraint; and the manipulation phase, where the user manipulates the token inside the constraint. The majority of prototypes used only the association phase of the T+C paradigm (17 out of 26, and even 13 out of 15 for concrete use cases), in contrast with the original article’s anticipations of a greater use of the manipulation phase [1]. Six prototypes use a single constraint [13], [16], [21], [25]–[27], and thus it could be argued that they employ a limited syntax of use. Five prototypes use loose constraints [7], [18], [21], [25], [26] and thus arguably make weaker use of the constraints concept. A large constraint size compared to the size of tokens results in less passive haptic feedback. Moreover, if constraints are much larger than tokens, it is harder for the users to identify which tokens and constraints match since compatibility of tokens and constraints is expressed through their shapes.
Since we observed an interest for T+C in the SLR, and given our optimism regarding the benefits listed below of T+C systems, we revisit the original article [1] as a heuristic grid. We believe existing and future prototypes employing this approach, and associated grid as guideline, can be enriched by this in-depth analysis of their relationship to the T+C paradigm.
To derive a heuristic design grid, we systematically identified the properties listed in the original article [1]. We focused on the sections describing the paradigm (ibid. section 2), the benefits (ibid. section 2.3) and the T+C approach from the perspective of the five questions of Bellotti et al. [32] (ibid. section 5).
Section 2 (ibid.) describes the different components of the T+C concept. From this, we can identify core and peripheral properties related to the general composition of the T+C systems (Table 1, “General composition” in yellow, properties pg1 to pg6). We have defined as core the properties stated without conditional terms such as “may”, “can” or “often” (marked with “*” in Table 1). We suggest that a prototype can be regarded as a T+C system if it fulfills all core properties.
Section 2.3 (ibid.) further lists a set of benefits related to the embodiment of numeric syntax (Table 1, "Syntax" in blue). The physical forms of constraints convey the compatibility between information (tokens) and digital operations (constraints) (ps1). They also restrict the possible placements of tokens to a limited number of configurations with defined meanings (ps2). Finally, the clear delineations of the constraints indicate the different algorithmic functions (ps3). Section 2.3 continues with a list of usage and implementational benefits, allowing us to supplement Table 1 with the sections “Interactions” (green), “Implementation” (orange) and “Use” (grey). In the “Human perception” section in [1], authors indicate that constraints facilitate the externalization of cognitive load. To rephrase this property, we refer to section 3.2.1, which explains the usefulness of exploratory actions (as opposed to performative actions) in human cognition (pc3). As this is not the only possible explanation, we also included the externalization of the cognitive load in the properties to be tested (pu3).
Section 5 then analyzes the benefits and drawbacks of the T+C approach according to Bellotti et al.’s framework (ibid. section 5, p.106). The conceptual and technological responses provided by the original paper [1] to Belloti et al.’s questions (“address”, “attention”, “action”, “alignment”, “accident”) [32] allow us to identify complementary properties (pc5 for “address”, pc6 and pi5 for “attention”). However, if a more complex result needs to be displayed, it is often done next to the T+C system, e.g., on a screen. This raises the issue of the distance between the place of action and the place of result display, common to TUI in general. We then propose to include a scale in the pc6 property expressing the distance between action and perception areas, based on Fishkin's “embodiment” scale [33]: 1) distant, 2) environmental, 3) nearby, 4) full.
Thanks to this analysis, we identified a heuristic grid of 24 core or optional items (Table 1) to guide the design of token+constraint systems. This work is a pragmatic and operational reformulation of the article [1].
We illustrate the use of the heuristic grid defined in the previous section with two prototypes issued from the SLR: PrimBox [21] and Tokens of Search [25]. We selected these works since they are concrete applications of the T+C paradigm, which cite it explicitly (descriptive or generative level) and have been tested in real conditions with several participants. The results are shown in Table 1, and discussed below.
PrimBox ([21], Figure 1 left) uses physical geometric shapes (pg1) that embody these artifacts in a virtual 3D environment (pg2). By placing a physical shape inside a box (pg3, pg5), it is added in the virtual environment (pg4). The user can then modify the properties of the shape by placing a card (position, size, color, rotation) on a RFID reader and manipulating sliders on the sides of the box [10]. The manipulation phase is not used (pg6), but could be considered to modify the position and rotation of 3D objects, rather than using sliders. The size and shape of the box do not allow identifying whether it is dedicated to 3D shapes instead of property cards (ps1), and whether it can accommodate one or more objects inside (ps2). All core properties are validated, allowing us to regard PrimBox as a T+C prototype. The heuristic grid also highlights usability issues and possible improvement through design guidelines, such as using manipulation phase to modify the 3D objects properties. Tokens of Search ([25], Figure 1 right) uses three kinds of objects (knot, rope and sticker) (pg1) to store URLs (pg2). The system also includes a wooden tray with a storage area and a circular RFID reader area (pg3). When an object is placed in the reader area (pg5), the URL associated to the object (pg4) is displayed on a touch screen [25]. The size of the constraint only allows one token at a time (ps2), as only one URL can be opened at the same time. All tokens are compatible with the constraint in terms of shape (ps1). The syntax of use is thus clearer than with PrimBox. The families taking part in the user study pointed out the lack of integration of the wooden tray in the house environment as a limitation (pi2). Users also had to develop strategies to separate tokens already associated with URLs from empty tokens. All core properties are validated, allowing us to regard Tokens of Search as a T+C prototype. Some design improvements can be identified from the heuristic grid analysis, for instance proposing additional containers for sorting the objects (pc3).
The examples PrimBox and Tokens of Search show potential uses of the heuristic grid. The notion of core criteria helps assess if a prototype can be classified as T+C. As demonstrated above, both examples can both be regarded as T+C. The general composition properties (pg1..pg6) and syntax properties (ps1..ps3) allow characterization of prototypes according to the T+C paradigm in a standardized way. They also allow to compare the prototypes and their interaction syntax. For example, the interaction syntax of Tokens of Search is more explicit than the one of PrimBox, as the constraint’s size allows only one token at a time. The interaction properties (pc1..pc6) assist reflecting about the uses and highlight prospective usability concerns. For example: affordance (pc5) and feedback (pc1, pc2), or distance between feedback and action areas (pc6). Not all properties “need” to be fulfilled, and some may even be contradictory (e.g., pc4: manipulation of several tokens at the same time and pc5: clear definition of the interaction zone). However, thinking explicitly about the most appropriate options allows informed design choices. The grid can also foster creativity: e.g., pc3 suggests using several untracked storage areas for the separation problem of Tokens of Search. This would match the example of the labeled plates of the Marble Answering Machine [34]. For PrimBox, pg6 could suggest using the manipulation phase to set the objects’ position and orientation. Implementation properties, in turn, guide the implementation phase to foster reliability and flexibility of the prototype (e.g., using RFID instead of image processing, pi1). Finally, use properties require experimental validation. Their addition may encourage researchers/designers working on T+C prototypes to empirically experiment with them and thus increase the general knowledge on this paradigm and its properties. We used Fishkin's taxonomy [33] to clarify the feedback embodiment in terms of distance between input and output (pc6, Table 1). This taxonomy has a second axis: the metaphor axis, ranging from “no metaphor” to “complete metaphor,” through the metaphors of “noun” (the form is similar to a real object), “verb” (the action is similar to an action in the real world) and “noun and verb” (the form and action are similar to those of a real-life object). The authors of the original T+C article [1] focused on abstract data without physical representations, so metaphors are weakly engaged in their examples. However, we note that many examples from the SLR use figurative tokens (geometric shapes, characters, stones, keys, etc.) and, less often, figurative constraints (doll’s house, human-shaped puzzle). It might therefore be interesting to also cross-check the properties of our heuristic grid with this additional axis. Property pg2 on embodying data in tokens could potentially be related to the “noun” metaphor, and property pg4 on embodying actions in constraints with the “verb” metaphor. Even if it goes beyond the initial concept of token+constraint, this direction seems promising.
In this article, we examined the token+constraint paradigm [1]. To better understand the impact of the T+C paradigm in the realization and experimentation of published tangible prototypes between 2005 and 2020, we conducted a systematic review of the literature. The SLR indicated that, although the TOCHI article was widely cited, few prototypes can be regarded as T+C (30%). We also noted that it was complex to decide based on the initial article whether a prototype matches the initial paradigm or takes full advantage of its prospective benefits. Thus, we proposed a heuristic grid of 24 properties divided into five categories, revisiting the original work, to investigate how the structural and functional nature of a prototype employing the T+C paradigm can best be characterized, and how one can measure the degree to which systems engage the proposed benefits for such paradigm. This grid supports description of prototypes according to a common T+C vocabulary, to assess their engagement with the concept, to compare prototypes, and to inform the design and development of T+C systems. The last part of the heuristic grid also encourages empirical experimentation of its theoretical benefits. We demonstrated this grid with two examples from the systematic literature review (PrimBox, Tokens of Search). We hope the reframing of the initial T+C paper [1] will enable others to design, develop and evaluate systems that engage the concept, and advance theoretical knowledge on this paradigm by supporting it with empirical work.
We would like to thank Mustapha Derras and Christophe Bortolaso for their collaboration on the PhD thesis funded by Berger-Levrault, and the authors of [25] for providing a photo of the prototype. 8. References [22] S. Mora, I. Di Loreto, et M. Divitini, « The Interactive-Token Approach to Board Games », in Ambient Intelligence. AmI 2015. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 9425, M. I. (eds) Ruyter B., Kameas A., Chatzimisios P., Éd. Springer, Cham, 2015, p. 138‑154. doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-26005-1_10. [23] T. Sapounidis, S. Demetriadis, et I. Stamelos, « Evaluating children performance with graphical and tangible robot programming tools », Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, vol. 19, no 1, p. 225‑237, janv. 2015, doi: 10.1007/s00779-014-0774-3. [24] N. Guo, « Melokey: Create Melody with Keys », in Proceedings of the Audio Mostly 2016 - AM ’16, 2016, p. 234‑239. doi: 10.1145/2986416.2986417. [25] J.-J. Lee, S. Lindley, S. Ylirisku, T. Regan, M. Nurminen, et G. Jacucci, « Domestic appropriations of tokens to the web », in Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems - DIS ’14, 2014, p. 53‑62. doi: 10.1145/2598510.2598542. [26] E. S. Martinussen, J. Knutsen, et T. Arnall, « Bowl: token-based media for children », in Proceedings of the 2007 conference on Designing for User eXperiences - DUX ’07, 2007, p. 3. doi: 10.1145/1389908.1389930. [27] M. Mosher, « If These Walls Could Speak: Tangible Memories », in Proceedings of the 12th International Audio Mostly Conference on Augmented and Participatory Sound and Music Experiences - AM ’17, 2017, p. 1‑4. doi: 10.1145/3123514.3123562. [28] D. Sellitsch et H. Tellioglu, « A Context Aware Music Player: A Tangible Approach », in IUI 2014
Workshop: Interacting with Smart Object, 2014, p. 56‑59. [29] K. Detken, C. Martinez, et A. Schrader, « The search wall: tangible information searching for children in public libraries », in Proceedings of the 3rd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction - TEI ’09, 2009, p. 289. doi: 10.1145/1517664.1517724. [30] S. Rey et al., « Build Your Own Hercules: Helping Visitors Personalize their Museum Experience », in Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction, févr. 2020, p. 495‑502. doi: 10.1145/3374920.3374978. [31] A. Girouard, O. Shaer, E. T. Solovey, G. M. Poor, et R. J. K. Jacob, « The Reality of Reality-Based Interaction: Understanding the Impact of a Framework as a Research Tool », ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, vol. 26, no 5, p. 1‑35, sept. 2019, doi: 10.1145/3319617. [32] V. Bellotti, M. Back, W. K. Edwards, R. E. Grinter, A. Henderson, et C. Lopes, « Making sense of sensing systems: Five Questions for Designers and Researchers », in Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI ’02, 2002, p. 415. doi: 10.1145/503376.503450. [33] K. P. Fishkin, « A taxonomy for and analysis of tangible interfaces », doi: 10.1007/s00779-004-0297-4. [34] D. Bishop, « Marble answering machine », Royal College of Art, Interaction Design, 1992. [35] D. Schmidt et al., « Kickables: tangibles for feet », in Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on
Human factors in computing systems - CHI ’14, 2014, p. 3143‑3152. doi: 10.1145/2556288.2557016.
APPENDICES A.1 Systematic Literature Review – references Articles included in the SLR citing Ullmer et al. (2005): in English, featuring a tangible prototype, and published in a conference or peer-reviewed journal (only one article per set of duplicates). T+C indicates whether the tangible prototype implements at least one physical constraint (1: yes, 0: no).
T+C? 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 1 0 1 1 1 Döring, Tanja, Axel Sylvester, and Albrecht Schmidt. "Exploring material-centered design concepts for tangible interaction." CHI'12 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2012.
Bonnard, Quentin, et al. "Paper interfaces for learning geometry." European Conference on Technology Enhanced Learning. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg, 2012.
Schmidt, Dominik, et al. "Kickables: tangibles for feet." Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2014.
Ullmer, Brygg, et al. "Cartouche: conventions for tangibles bridging diverse interactive systems." Proceedings of the fourth international conference on Tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction. ACM, 2010.
Riedenklau, Eckard, Thomas Hermann, and Helge Ritter. "An integrated multi-modal actuated tangible user interface for distributed collaborative planning." Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Tangible Embedded and Embodied Interaction.
ACM, 2012.
Gurevich, Michael, Adnan Marquez-Borbon, and Paul Stapleton. "Playing with constraints: Stylistic variation with a simple electronic instrument." Computer Music Journal 36.1 (2012): 23-41.
Büschel, Wolfgang, et al. "T4-transparent and translucent tangibles on tabletops." Proceedings of the 2014 International Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces. ACM, 2014.
Schoessler, Philipp, et al. "Kinetic blocks: Actuated constructive assembly for interaction and display." Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software & Technology. ACM, 2015.
Ullmer, Brygg, et al. "Casier: structures for composing tangibles and complementary interactors for use across diverse systems." Proceedings of the fifth international conference on Tangible, embedded, and embodied interaction. ACM, 2011.
Bellucci, Andrea, et al. "Extreme Co-design: Prototyping with and by the User for Appropriation of Web-connected Tags." International Symposium on End User Development. Springer, Cham, 2015.
Dünser, Andreas, et al. "Evaluation of tangible user interfaces for desktop AR." 2010 International Symposium on Ubiquitous Virtual Reality. IEEE, 2010.
Yeh, Ron B., et al. "Interactive gigapixel prints: Large, paper-based interfaces for visual context and collaboration." Proc. Ubicomp. Vol. 6. 2006.
Coutrix, Céline, and Laurence Nigay. "Balancing physical and digital properties in mixed objects." Proceedings of the working conference on Advanced visual interfaces. ACM, 2008.
Tobias, Eric, Valérie Maquil, and Thibaud Latour. "TULIP: a widget-based software framework for tangible tabletop interfaces." Proceedings of the 7th ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems. ACM, 2015.
Boussemart, Baptiste, and Sylvain Giroux. "Tangible user interfaces for cognitive assistance." 21st International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops (AINAW'07). Vol. 2. IEEE, 2007.
Le Goc, Mathieu, et al. "Smarttokens: Embedding motion and grip sensing in small tangible objects." Proceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software & Technology. ACM, 2015.
T+C? 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 Jensen, Mads Vedel, and Marcelle Stienstra. "Making sense: Interactive sculptures as tangible design material." Proceedings of the 2007 conference on Designing pleasurable products and interfaces. ACM, 2007.
Maquil, Valérie. "Towards understanding the design space of tangible user interfaces for collaborative urban planning." Interacting with Computers 28.3 (2015): 332-351.
Lee, Jung-Joo, et al. "Domestic appropriations of tokens to the web." Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems. ACM, 2014.
Fleck, Stéphanie, and Martin Hachet. "Making tangible the intangible: Hybridization of the real and the virtual to enhance learning of abstract phenomena." Frontiers in ICT 3 (2016): 30.
Martinussen, Einar Sneve, Jørn Knutsen, and Timo Arnall. "Bowl: token-based media for children." Proceedings of the 2007 conference on Designing for User eXperiences.
ACM, 2007.
Lin, Chih-Lung, et al. "Emotion Caster: Tangible emotion sharing device and multimedia display platform for intuitive interactions." 2009 IEEE 13th International Symposium on Consumer Electronics. IEEE, 2009.
Miller, Chreston, et al. "Interaction techniques for the analysis of complex data on high- 0 resolution displays." Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Multimodal interfaces. ACM, 2008. 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 1 0 0 1 0 0 Krause, Frank-lothar, et al. "Usability of hybrid, physical and virtual objects for basic manipulation tasks in virtual environments." 2007 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces. IEEE, 2007.
Maass, Wolfgang, and Tobias Kowatsch. "Let's get married: Adoption of interactive product information for bundle purchases by tangible user interfaces." (2009). 4th Mediterranean Conference on Information Systems (MCIS'09), Athens, Greece. pp 266277.
Poor, G. Michael, et al. "Applying the Norman 1986 user-centered model to post-WIMP UIs: Theoretical predictions and empirical outcomes." ACM Transactions on ComputerHuman Interaction (TOCHI) 23.5 (2016): 30.
Esteves, Augusto, and Ian Oakley. "Informing design by recording tangible interaction." CHI'11 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2011.
Jaffe, Elliot, Aviva Dayan, and Amnon Dekel. "Cube management system: a tangible interface for monitoring large scale systems." Proceedings of the 2007 symposium on Computer human interaction for the management of information technology. ACM, 2007.
Arif, Ahmed Sabbir, et al. "Extending the Design Space of Tangible Objects via LowResolution Edge Displays." Proceedings of the Eleventh International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction. ACM, 2017.
Christou, Georgios, Frank E. Ritter, and Robert JK Jacob. "Modeling prehensile actions for the evaluation of tangible user interfaces." ITI 2008-30th International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces. IEEE, 2008.
Coutrix, Céline, and Laurence Nigay. "An Integrating Framework for Mixed Systems." The Engineering of Mixed Reality Systems. Springer, London, 2010. 9-31.
Ehrenstrasser, Lisa, and Wolfgang Spreicer. "Personal Interaction through Individual Artifacts." Mensch & Computer 2012–Workshopband: interaktiv informiert– allgegenwärtig und allumfassend!? (2012).
Jofre, Ana, Steve Szigeti, and Sara Diamond. "Citizen engagement through tangible data representation." Foro de Educación 14.20 (2016): 305-325.
D’Amico, Gianpaolo, et al. "Natural Human–Computer Interaction." Multimedia Interaction and Intelligent User Interfaces. Springer, London, 2010. 85-106.
Kuo, Han-Chih, et al. "GaussMarbles: spherical magnetic tangibles for interacting with portable physical constraints." Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 2016.
Nakazawa, Jin, and Hideyuki Tokuda. "Phygital map: Accessing digital multimedia from physical map." 21st International Conference on Advanced Information Networking and Applications Workshops (AINAW'07). Vol. 2. IEEE, 2007.
Appert, Caroline, et al. "Custom-made tangible interfaces with touchtokens."
Proceedings of the 2018 International Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces.
Celentano, Augusto, and Emmanuel Dubois. "Evaluating metaphor reification in tangible interfaces." Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces 9.3 (2015): 231-252.
Pathak, Akanksha, and Itsuo Kumazawa. "Usability evaluation of touch panel-based
mobile device on user interface with multimodal feedback." IEEE-International
T+C?
0
1
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
1
1
Winder, James Ira, and Kent Larson. "Bits and Bricks." Future Technologie
Panchaphongsaphak, Bundit, Robert Riener, and Brygg Ullmer. "Contact-sensitive artefacts: implementing tangible interfaces through force-torque sensing." International Journal of Arts and Technology 1.3-4 (2008): 332-350.
Mosher, Matthew. "If These Walls Could Speak: Tangible Memories." Proceedings of
the 12th International Audio Mostly Conference on Augmented and Participatory Sound
and Mu
Maass, Wolfgang, et al. "Towards a transition to tangible commerce." 4th IEEE International Conference on Digital Ecosystems and Technologies. IEEE, 2010.
Bonillo, Clara, Javier Marco, and Eva Cerezo. "Developing pervasive games in interactive spaces: the JUGUEMOS toolkit." Multimedia Tools and Applications 78.22 (2019): 32261-32305.
DeLong, Sean, Ahmed Sabbir Arif, and Ali Mazalek. "Design and evaluation of graphical feedback on tangible interactions in a low-resolution edge display." Proceedings of the 8th ACM International Symposium on Pervasive Displays. 2019.
Xohua-Chacón, Antonio, et al. "Towards A Distributed Interactive Surface to Support Students with Hypoacusis in the Collaborative Learning of Relational Algebra." 2019 International Conference on Inclusive Technologies and Education (CONTIE). IEEE.
Rey, Stéphanie, et al. "Build Your Own Hercules: Helping Visitors Personalize their Museum Experience." Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction. 2020.
Veldhuis, Annemiek, Rong-Hao Liang, and Tilde Bekker. "CoDa: Collaborative Data Interpretation Through an Interactive Tangible Scatterplot." Proceedings of the Fourteenth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction. 2020. 1 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 1 0 A.2 Classification of the T+C prototypes of the SLR Classification of the 26 works citing the original work [1] and implementing at least one physical constraint. Citation type is based on the classification of Girouard et al. [31]; • • • • • • • • “cursory” or superficial quote, “descriptive” describing the methodology or the arguments, “term” using the term as a usual word, “supportive” supporting a fact, “justification” supporting an argument, “analysis” evaluating the citing work, “critique” discussing limitations of the cited work, “generative” where the cited work inspires or informs the design of the citing work.
We used the color code from the original article by Girouard et al. to show the impacts within the cited articles (in blue for superficial citations, in green for low-level citations, in red for high-level citations). Field is the field of application. Users indicates the target users. Nb indicates whether the system is multi (Mu), mono (Mo) or dual user (Du). Test indicates whether tests have been carried out in the laboratory (L) or in real conditions (R) with at least one tangible constraint and for how many users at the same time. Technology indicates the technology used for token detection. Stand-Alone/Integrated indicates whether the T+C system is integrated into another technical device. Data type indicates whether the data is geometric/spatial or abstract. A/M indicates whether the prototype uses the association phase alone (A) or along with the manipulation phase (AM). Nb C indicates the number of constraints (n = several, NxT = number per token). Concrete use cases AM n AM n AM n
AM 1
n M u D L,1 u uM R, 2 uM R, 2 oM R, 1 oM R, 1
Serious Game uM L, 4
All All A 2x,150
(constructiv (command e assembly) s and + Lego parameters robot )
Stand-Alone (memories A )
visit choice uM L, 3 printer and phidgets