Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction With Mobile Devices and Services Companion 2012
DOI: 10.1145/2371664.2371718
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Zone of impulse

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1

Citation Types

0
0
0

Year Published

2013
2013
2022
2022

Publication Types

Select...
3
1

Relationship

1
3

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 4 publications
(1 citation statement)
references
References 1 publication
0
0
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Visual feedback evidently is the richest option, but it may have serious drawbacks in that it could be distracting and is potentially nondiscreet. Some feedback manifestations are designed to disrupt the natural environment as little as possible, such as those integrated in game mechanics (e.g., Nacke et al, 2011;Reitz, Stockhausen, & Krömker, 2012) or ambient light (Djajadiningrat, Geurts, Munniksma, Christiaansen, & De Bont, 2009;Snyder et al, 2015), whereas others are designed to increase feedback salience at the cost of increased obtrusiveness, such as an arousal meter (Astor et al, 2013), tangible avatar (Gervais et al, 2016), or butterfly bracelet (MacLean, Roseway, & Czerwinski, 2013). Overall, consideration of the situation and social context is extremely important while weighing pros and cons of different feedback delivery modalities, taking into consideration matters concerning feedback salience, (un)obtrusiveness, privacy, as well as light and noise conditions.…”
Section: Considerations For Feedback Type and Deliverymentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Visual feedback evidently is the richest option, but it may have serious drawbacks in that it could be distracting and is potentially nondiscreet. Some feedback manifestations are designed to disrupt the natural environment as little as possible, such as those integrated in game mechanics (e.g., Nacke et al, 2011;Reitz, Stockhausen, & Krömker, 2012) or ambient light (Djajadiningrat, Geurts, Munniksma, Christiaansen, & De Bont, 2009;Snyder et al, 2015), whereas others are designed to increase feedback salience at the cost of increased obtrusiveness, such as an arousal meter (Astor et al, 2013), tangible avatar (Gervais et al, 2016), or butterfly bracelet (MacLean, Roseway, & Czerwinski, 2013). Overall, consideration of the situation and social context is extremely important while weighing pros and cons of different feedback delivery modalities, taking into consideration matters concerning feedback salience, (un)obtrusiveness, privacy, as well as light and noise conditions.…”
Section: Considerations For Feedback Type and Deliverymentioning
confidence: 99%