Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

Philipp Wacker

dblp:167/3689 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
7ranked-venue papers
4as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
0000-0001-8833-896XORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 7 · 4 first-author · 1 since 2021

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
4 papers
Interaction techniques and input · 28% Personal fabrication and tangible interfaces · 21% User interface design and tools · 21%

Topics — the 7 heaviest of 8, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Personal fabrication and tangible interfaces › smart textiles
textile interfaces
0.612022
Shaping Textile Sliders: An Evaluation of Form Factors and Tick Marks for Textile Sliders · CHI 2022
Immersive interaction
augmented reality interaction
0.522020
Heatmaps, Shadows, Bubbles, Rays: Comparing Mid-Air Pen Position Visualizations in Handheld AR · CHI 2020
ARPen: Mid-Air Object Manipulation Techniques for a Bimanual AR System with Pen & Smartphone · CHI 2019
Interaction techniques and input › bimanual interaction
bimanual input
0.412019
ARPen: Mid-Air Object Manipulation Techniques for a Bimanual AR System with Pen & Smartphone · CHI 2019
Interaction techniques and input
mobile interaction
0.212016
Maps and Location: Acceptance of Modern Interaction Techniques for Audio Guides · CHI 2016
Ubiquitous computing and smart environments › smart home
smart home control
0.212022
Shaping Textile Sliders: An Evaluation of Form Factors and Tick Marks for Textile Sliders · CHI 2022
Interaction techniques and input › target selection
pointing
0.112020
Heatmaps, Shadows, Bubbles, Rays: Comparing Mid-Air Pen Position Visualizations in Handheld AR · CHI 2020
Ubiquitous computing and smart environments
indoor localization
0.112016
Maps and Location: Acceptance of Modern Interaction Techniques for Audio Guides · CHI 2016

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

user study · 1.0performance measurement · 0.6subjective rating analysis · 0.4comparative user study · 0.4subjective preference analysis · 0.4field study · 0.2comparative interface evaluation · 0.2
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2022 Shaping Textile Sliders: An Evaluation of Form Factors and Tick Marks for Textile Sliders
abstract
Textile interfaces enable designers to integrate unobtrusive media and smart home controls into furniture such as sofas. While the technical aspects of such controllers have been the subject of numerous research projects, the physical form factor of these controls has received little attention so far. This work investigates how general design properties, such as overall slider shape, raised vs. recessed sliders, and number and layout of tick marks, affect users’ preferences and performance. Our first user study identified a preference for certain design combinations, such as recessed, closed-shaped sliders. Our second user study included performance measurements on variations of the preferred designs from study 1, and took a closer look at tick marks. Tick marks supported orientation better than slider shape. Sliders with at least three tick marks were preferred, and performed well. Non-uniform, equally distributed tick marks reduced the movements users needed to orient themselves on the slider.
Oliver Nowak 0002, René Schäfer, Anke Brocker, Philipp Wacker, Jan O. Borchers
CHI4
2020 Heatmaps, Shadows, Bubbles, Rays: Comparing Mid-Air Pen Position Visualizations in Handheld AR
abstract
In Handheld Augmented Reality, users look at AR scenes through the smartphone held in their hand. In this setting, having a mid-air pointing device like a pen in the other hand greatly expands the interaction possibilities. For example, it lets users create 3D sketches and models while on the go. However, perceptual issues in Handheld AR make it difficult to judge the distance of a virtual object, making it hard to align a pen to it. To address this, we designed and compared different visualizations of the pen's position in its virtual environment, measuring pointing precision, task time, activation patterns, and subjective ratings of helpfulness, confidence, and comprehensibility of each visualization. While all visualizations resulted in only minor differences in precision and task time, subjective ratings of perceived helpfulness and confidence favor a 'heatmap' technique that colors the objects in the scene based on their distance to the pen.
Philipp Wacker, Adrian Wagner 0002, Simon Voelker, Jan O. Borchers
CHI1
2020 Headbang: Using Head Gestures to Trigger Discrete Actions on Mobile Devices
abstract
We present Headbang, an interaction technique that enriches touch input on handheld devices through slight head movement gestures. This way, users can easily execute shortcuts, like Copy, Paste, or Share, to on-screen targets while touching them. Headbang utilizes the capabilities of commodity smartphones to track the user’s head with their front facing cameras. We evaluated Headbang in two studies and show that the system can be reliably used while sitting and walking and offers a similar accuracy and speed as touch interaction.
Sebastian Hueber, Christian Cherek, Philipp Wacker, Jan O. Borchers, Simon Voelker
MobileHCI3
2020 Evaluating Menu Techniques for Handheld AR with a Smartphone & Mid-Air Pen
abstract
Adding a mid-air pen to Handheld Augmented Reality creates a new kind of bimanual interaction for which many fundamental interaction design questions have not been answered yet. In particular, menus are an essential component in most visual interfaces, but it is unclear how to best interact with them in this setting: using the pen in mid-air or on a surface, using the touchscreen, or by moving the smartphone itself. We compared basic menus for these methods by analyzing success rates, selection times, device movement, and subjective ratings. Our results indicate that interacting with a mid-air menu using the pen, and operating a menu with the hand holding the smartphone, are sufficiently competitive to the current standard of two-handed touchscreen interaction, so that interaction designers can freely choose among them based on the interaction context of their application.
Philipp Wacker, Oliver Nowak 0002, Simon Voelker, Jan O. Borchers
MobileHCI1
2019 ARPen: Mid-Air Object Manipulation Techniques for a Bimanual AR System with Pen & Smartphone
abstract
Modeling in Augmented Reality (AR) lets users create and manipulate virtual objects in mid-air that are aligned to their real environment. We present ARPen, a bimanual input technique for AR modeling that combines a standard smartphone with a 3D-printed pen. Users sketch with the pen in mid-air, while holding their smartphone in the other hand to see the virtual pen traces in the live camera image. ARPen combines the pen's higher 3D input precision with the rich interactive capabilities of the smartphone touchscreen. We studied subjective preferences for this bimanual input technique, such as how people hold the smartphone while drawing, and analyzed the performance of different bimanual techniques for selecting and moving virtual objects. Users preferred a bimanual technique casting a ray through the pen tip for both selection and translation. We provide initial design guidelines for this new class of bimanual AR modeling systems.
Philipp Wacker, Oliver Nowak 0002, Simon Voelker, Jan O. Borchers
CHI1
2016 Maps and Location: Acceptance of Modern Interaction Techniques for Audio Guides
abstract
Traditional audio guides in museums and similar spaces typically require the visitor to locate a track number at each exhibit and enter it on a keypad. These guides, however, provide no information on the amount of content available. Current mobile devices provide rich output capabilities, and indoor location tracking technology can simplify the selection of content in modern audio guides. In this paper, we compare the keypad-based interface to a map-based interface with and without automatic localization. Through a field study in a local museum with 84 participants, we found that the usability of all versions is rated high, with the keypad interface coming out ahead. Nevertheless, visitors favored the overview of the map and thumbnails to find the right exhibit, while numbers were considered helpful indicators in the real world. Those who used the self-localizing guide preferred it over manually adjusting the map.
Philipp Wacker, Kerstin Kreutz, Florian Heller, Jan O. Borchers
CHI1
2015 The Presenter Experience of Canvas Presentations
Leonhard Lichtschlag, Philipp Wacker, Martina Ziefle, Jan O. Borchers
INTERACT (1)2