Abstract
The main goal of this paper is to compare how different commercial systems with tangible user interfaces (TUIs) [11, 12] impact the user’s experience when targeting the same application. Two commercial systems were compared. The first one uses the littlebits Synth Kit [3] and the second one uses Scratch [18] and Makey Makey [5, 14] together, connected to a computer. The tested application was a MIDI keyboard that was implemented using both systems. The applications were designed with the same functions even with different interfaces provided by both systems. Usability was tested with the intent of assuring that both systems had similar functionalities and, with this aspect in mind, focus primarily on the UX itself. To test the Usability, we used the System Usability Score [2], while the UX was tested using Attrakdiff [8]. As a result of the case study, it was possible to realize that, considering the user’s point of view, the Littlebits Synth Kit is better than the combination of Makey Makey with Scratch. To prove so, the usability was analyzed and, since they were similar, it was possible to compare the UX, which lead to better results by the littlebits than its counterpart, the system with Makey Makey.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Agostini, L.B., Tavares, T.A.: Designing and developing architectures to tangible user interfaces: a “Softwareless” approach. In: Stephanidis, C. (ed.) HCII 2019. CCIS, vol. 1033, pp. 469–475. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23528-4_64
Brooke, J., et al.: Sus-a quick and dirty usability scale. In: Jordan, P.W., Thomas, B., McClelland, I.L., Weerdmeester, B. (eds.) Usability Evaluation in Industry, vol. 189, no. 194, pp. 4–7. CRC Press, Boca Raton (1996)
Brown, S.: Big impact with littlebits. Library Technol. Rep. 54(4), 28–31 (2018)
Bruun, A., Jensen, K., Kristensen, D.: Usability of single- and multi-factor authentication methods on tabletops: a comparative study. In: Sauer, S., Bogdan, C., Forbrig, P., Bernhaupt, R., Winckler, M. (eds.) HCSE 2014. LNCS, vol. 8742, pp. 299–306. Springer, Heidelberg (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-662-44811-3_22
Collective, B.M., Shaw, D.: Makey makey: improvising tangible and nature-based user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the Sixth International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction, pp. 367–370 (2012)
da Costa, V.K., et al.: The potential of user experience (UX) as an approach of evaluation in tangible user interfaces (TUI). In: Marcus, A., Wang, W. (eds.) HCII 2019. LNCS, vol. 11586, pp. 30–48. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23535-2_3
Darin, T., Coelho, B., Borges, B.: Which instrument should i use? Supporting decision-making about the evaluation of user experience. In: Marcus, A., Wang, W. (eds.) HCII 2019. LNCS, vol. 11586, pp. 49–67. Springer, Cham (2019). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-23535-2_4
Hassenzahl M., Burmester M., Koller F.: AttrakDiff: Ein Fragebogen zur Messung wahrgenommener hedonischer und pragmatischer Qualität. In: Szwillus, G., Ziegler, J. (eds.) Mensch & Computer 2003. Berichte des German Chapter of the ACM, vol. 57. Springer Vieweg, Berlin (2003). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-322-80058-9_19
Hornecker, E., Buur, J.: Getting a grip on tangible interaction: a framework on physical space and social interaction. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems, pp. 437–446 (2006). https://doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124838
Ishii, H.: Tangible bits: beyond pixels. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction, pp. xv–xxv (2008)
Ishii, H., Lakatos, D., Bonanni, L., Labrune, J.B.: Radical atoms: beyond tangible bits, toward transformable materials. Interactions 19(1), 38–51 (2012)
Ishii, H., Ullmer, B.: Tangible bits: towards seamless interfaces between people, bits and atoms. In: Proceedings of the ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 234–241 (1997)
Jacob, R.J., et al.: Reality-based interaction: a framework for post-wimp interfaces. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 201–210 (2008)
Lee, E., Kafai, Y.B., Vasudevan, V., Davis, R.L.: Playing in the arcade: designing tangible interfaces with MaKey MaKey for scratch games. In: Nijholt, A. (ed.) Playful User Interfaces. GMSE, pp. 277–292. Springer, Singapore (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/978-981-4560-96-2_13
Marsh, S.: Human computer interaction: an operational definition. SIGCHI Bull. 22(1), 16–22 (1990). https://doi.org/10.1145/101288.101291. https://doi.org/10.1145/101288.101291
Nielsen, J.: Usability Engineering. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1994)
Nielsen, J.: Why you only need to test with 5 users (2000)
Resnick, M., et al.: Scratch: programming for all. Commun. ACM 52(11), 60–67 (2009)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2020 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
About this paper
Cite this paper
Agostini, L.B., Tavares, T.A. (2020). Littlebits Versus Makey Makey with Scratch: An User Perception for Tangible User Interfaces. In: Stephanidis, C., Antona, M., Ntoa, S. (eds) HCI International 2020 – Late Breaking Posters. HCII 2020. Communications in Computer and Information Science, vol 1293. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60700-5_14
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-60700-5_14
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Cham
Print ISBN: 978-3-030-60699-2
Online ISBN: 978-3-030-60700-5
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)