Slides of our presentation at EICS 2016, Brussels, Belgium. Large interactive displays and surfaces are useful modalities for visualizing big multi-dimensional data sets. They can offer simultaneous views on different facets of the data which lead to an efficient and effective environment for data exploration and analysis. While every data analyst and enthusiast can benefit from these advantages, large interactive systems are not yet available to everyone. Meanwhile, tablets have become ubiquitous and relatively cheap. Combining multiple tablets to replicate a single, large display has therefore become an affordable option. This paper compares the difference in search performance and user perception of a faceted search system for Cultural Heritage data on a single large interactive tabletop with a system composed of multiple coordinated tablet devices. We conclude that, while users generally prefer the tabletop system, there is no negative impact on search performance using tablets. This makes coordinated tablets a viable and portable solution in the absence of interactive tabletops.

1. Faceted Search on Coordinated Tablets
and Tabletop: a Comparison
Sven Charleer
@svencharleer
Human-Computer Interaction Group
Joris Klerkx
Tinne De Laet
Erik Duval †
Katrien Verbert
ABLE project

2. http://www.europeana.eu/portal/
Faceted Search

3. http://www.europeana.eu/portal/
Faceted Search

4. Thudt, A., Hinrichs, U., & Carpendale, S. (2012, May). The bohemian bookshelf: supporting serendipitous
book discoveries through information visualization. In Proc. SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in
Computing Systems (pp. 1461-1470). ACM.
Coordinated Multiple Views

5. Max Planck Research Networks
http://max-planck-research-networks.net/

6. cheap
ubiquitous
CMV

7. visual field discontiguity
impact depends
James R. Wallace, Daniel Vogel, and Edward Lank. 2014. Effect of Bezel Presence and Width on Visual
Search. In Proc. of The Int. Symposium on Pervasive Displays (PerDis ’14). ACM, New York, NY, USA,
Article 118, 6 pages.

8. RQ2: Is there a difference in user’s perceived experience
of the coordinated tablets versus large display faceted
search CMV systems?
RQ1: Is there a measurable difference in user search
performance on coordinated tablets versus large display
faceted search CMV systems?

9. Newspaper Exploration Environment

10. aggregated data
aggregated data
aggregated data
socket.io
mongodb
filterstack
cache
Country
Country
Year
Newspaper
Country Newspaper
SERVERCLIENTDEVICES
Node.js
Setup: Technology

11. 22 subjects, age 20-62
Tabletops
Tablets
Touch
1 2 3 4 5
Familiarity (Not at all - Extremely)
+Tabletop Tablets Mean
+
+
+
user perception
usability
interview
Setup: Evaluation

12. Setup: Evaluation
within-subject
counterbalanced
5 tasks
8681 digitized
newspapers

13. RQ2: Is there a difference in user’s perceived experience
of the coordinated tablets versus large display faceted
search CMV systems?
RQ1: Is there a measurable difference in user search
performance on coordinated tablets versus large display
faceted search CMV systems?

14. Task
Completion Time (seconds)
Task 1 (TT)
Task 1 (TB)
Task 2 (TT)
Task 2 (TB)
Task 3 (TT)
Task 3 (TB)
Task 4 (TT)
Task 4 (TB)
Task 5 (TT)
Task 5 (TB)
0 20 40 60 80 100 120
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+
+Tabletop Tablets Mean
no indication of a difference
RQ1: Measurable difference in user search performance?

15. Tablets
Tabletop
Tablets
Tabletop
Seconds per Search Step
Search Path Length
+Tabletop Tablets Mean
0 5 10 15 20 25
+
+
0 5 10 15
+
+
do not search less
efficiently on the tablets
RQ1: Measurable difference in user search performance?

16. RQ2: Is there a difference in user’s perceived experience
of the coordinated tablets versus large display faceted
search CMV systems?
RQ1: Is there a measurable difference in user search
performance on coordinated tablets versus large display
faceted search CMV systems?

17. M=82.36,SD=11.83
RQ2: A difference in user’s perceived experience
M=80.25,SD=12.87
SUS

18. + Mean
Awareness
Speed
+
+
Perceived comparison
1 2 3 4 5
RQ2: A difference in user’s perceived experience
perceived search performance
better on the tabletop

19. Awareness of changes
across widgets
Search performance
RQ2: A difference in user’s perceived experience
Worse sense of
overview
Bezels
Preference in general

20. “they facilitate working on individual
facets better”
“I could pick one up to dig deeper
in one facet”
“I am more tempted to focus on
one facet”
RQ2: A difference in user’s perceived experience

21. “I can set this up at
home”
“I can take this
with me”
“I can move more freely around
the workspace”
RQ2: A difference in user’s perceived experience
“I could expand and reduce depending
on my current needs”

22. RQ1: Measurable difference in user search performance?
RQ2: A difference in user’s perceived experience
No
Overview -> perceived satisfaction
ROI regarding performance?
Focussed tasks
Kevin F Bury, Michael J Darnell, and Susan E Davies. 1985. Window management: A review of issues and
some results from user testing. General Products Division
Kasper Hornbæk and Morten Hertzum. 2011. The notion of overview in information visualization.
International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 69, 7 (2011), 509–525.
Yes Overview -> Task performance?
Solve perception problems

23. Faceted Search on Coordinated
Tablets and Tabletop: a Comparison
Sven Charleer
@svencharleer
svencharleer.com
ABLE project