Skip to main content

Advertisement

Springer Nature Link
Log in

Personalized presentation annotations using optical HMDs

  • Published:
Multimedia Tools and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

It is difficult to adjust the content of traditional slide presentations to the knowledge level, interest and role of individuals. This might force presenters to include content that is irrelevant for part of the audience, which negatively affects the knowledge transfer of the presentation. In this work, we present a prototype that is able to eliminate non-pertinent information from slides by presenting annotations for individual attendees on optical head-mounted displays. We first create guidelines for creating optimal annotations for HMDs by evaluating several types of annotations alongside different types of slides. Then we evaluate the knowledge acquisition of presentation attendees using the prototype versus traditional presentations. Our results show that annotations with a limited amount of information, such as text up to 5 words, can significantly increase the amount of knowledge gained from attending a group presentation. Additionally, presentations where part of the information is moved to annotations are judged more positively on attributes such as clarity and enjoyment.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3
Fig. 4
Fig. 5
Fig. 6
Fig. 7
Fig. 8
Fig. 9
Fig. 10
Fig. 11

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Bartsch RA, Cobern KM (2003) Effectiveness of powerpoint presentations in lectures. Comput Educ 41(1):77–86

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Brooke J (1996) Sus-a quick and dirty usability scale. Usab Eval Indus 189 (194):4–7

    Google Scholar 

  3. Cakmakci O, Rolland J (2006) Head-worn displays: a review. J Disp Technol 2(3):199–216

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Condorcet.Vote (2015) Condorcet Vote. Retrieved on 9/16/2015 from http://www.condorcet.vote/

  5. DBpedia (2015) DBpedia. Retrieved on 9/16/2015 from http://wiki.dbpedia.org/

  6. Edge D, Savage J, Yatani K (2013) Hyperslides: dynamic presentation prototyping. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 671–680

  7. Firebase (2015) Firebase. Retrieved on 9/16/2015 from https://www.firebase.com/

  8. GitHub User Hakimel (2015) reveal.js. Retrieved on 9/16/2015 from https://github.com/hakimel/reveal.js/

  9. Google (2015) Google developers: glass. Retrieved on 9/16/2015 from https://developers.google.com/glass/

  10. Google (2015) Google glass development kit. Retrieved on 9/16/2015 from https://developers.google.com/glass/develop/gdk/

  11. handlebars.js (2015) Handlebars.js semantic web templates. Retreived on 9/16/2015 from http://handlebarsjs.com/

  12. Hong J (2013) Considering privacy issues in the context of google glass. Commun ACM 56(11):10–11

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Jiang X, Tan AH (2009) Learning and inferencing in user ontology for personalized semantic web search. Inf Sci 179(16):2794–2808

    Article  MATH  Google Scholar 

  14. Kelley DH, Gorham J (1988) Effects of immediacy on recall of information. Commun Educ 37(3):198–207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kobsa A (2007) Generic user modeling systems. In: The adaptive web. Springer, pp 136–154

  16. Lai YS, Tsai HH, Yu PT (2011) Integrating annotations into a dual-slide powerpoint presentation for classroom learning. Educ Technol Soc 14(2):43–57

    Google Scholar 

  17. Lichtschlag L, Hess T, Karrer T, Borchers J (2012) Fly: studying recall, macrostructure understanding, and user experience of canvas presentations. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 1307–1310

  18. Mann S (1997) Wearable computing: a first step toward personal imaging. Computer 30(2):25–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  19. Mann S (2015) Wearable technology as a human right. MIT Technology Review

  20. Mayer RE, Heiser J, Lonn S (2001) Cognitive constraints on multimedia learning: when presenting more material results in less understanding. J Educ Psychol 93(1):187

    Article  Google Scholar 

  21. Mayer RE, Moreno R (2003) Nine ways to reduce cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educ Psychol 38(1):43–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Microsoft (2015) Microsoft Hololens. Retrieved on 9/16/2015 from http://www.microsoft.com/microsoft-hololens/en-us

  23. Microsoft (2015) Powerpoint. Retrieved on 9/16/2015 from http://products.office.com/en-us/powerpoint

  24. Norman G (2010) Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Adv Health Sci Educ 15(5):625–632

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. Pschetz L, Yatani K, Edge D (2014) Turningpoint: narrative-driven presentation planning. In: Proceedings of the 32nd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems. ACM, pp 1591–1594

  26. Qvarfordt P, Golovchinsky G, Dunnigan T, Agapie E (2013) Looking ahead: query preview in exploratory search. In: Proceedings of the 36th international ACM SIGIR conference on research and development in information retrieval. ACM, pp 243–252

  27. Rolland J, Cakmakci O (2009) Head-worn displays: the future through new eyes. Opt Photon News 20(4):20–27

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Rolland J, Hua H (2005) Head-mounted display systems. Encycloped Opt Eng:1–13

  29. Rolland JP, Fuchs H (2000) Optical versus video see-through head-mounted displays in medical visualization. Pres Teleoperat Virt Environ 9(3):287–309

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Savoy A, Proctor RW, Salvendy G (2009) Information retention from powerpoint and traditional lectures. Comput Educ 52(4):858–867

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Schulze M (2003) A new monotonic and clone-independent single-winner election method. Voting Matt 17(1):9–19

    MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  32. Tribe Te (2015) The Eye Tribe Tracker. Retrieved on 9/16/2015 from https://theeyetribe.com/products/

  33. Trinh H, Ring L, Bickmore T (2015) Dynamicduo: co-presenting with virtual agents. In: Proceedings of the 33rd annual ACM conference on human factors in computing systems, CHI ’15. doi:10.1145/2702123.2702584. ACM, New York, pp 1739–1748

  34. Tufte ER (2003) The cognitive style of PowerPoint, vol 2006. Graphics Press Cheshire, CT

  35. U.S. Department of Defense (1998) Design criteria for military systems, equipment, and facilities, MIL-STD-1472f. Department of defense design criteria standard human engineering

  36. Van Krevelen D, Poelman R (2010) A survey of augmented reality technologies, applications and limitations. Int J Virt Real 9(2):1

    Google Scholar 

  37. Wikipedia (2015) List of United States Cities by population. Retrieved on 9/16/2015 from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_cities_by_population

  38. Wikitude (2015) Wikitude augmented reality SDK. Retrieved on 9/16/2015 from http://www.wikitude.com/products/wikitude-sdk/

  39. Yates J, Orlikowski W (2007) The powerpoint presentation and its corollaries: how genres shape communicative action in organizations. In: Communicative practices in workplaces and the professions: cultural perspectives on the regulation of discourse and organizations, pp 67–91

  40. Youtube Account of Expedia.com (2015) Expedia travel guide for Dallas. Retrieved on 9/16/2015 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kt7lpqdbNgA

Download references

Acknowledgments

We would like to thank our study participants. We thank Pernilla Qvarfordt (FXPAL) and Frank Nack (University of Amsterdam) for their supervision and help with this research.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. FX Palo Alto Laboratory, 3174 Porter Drive, Palo Alto, CA, 94304, USA

    Sven Kratz

  2. University of Amsterdam, 1012, WX, Amsterdam, Netherlands

    Wyko Rijnsburger

Authors
  1. Wyko Rijnsburger
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

  2. Sven Kratz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author inPubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sven Kratz.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Rijnsburger, W., Kratz, S. Personalized presentation annotations using optical HMDs. Multimed Tools Appl 76, 5607–5629 (2017). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-016-4064-0

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-016-4064-0

Keywords