designed to fit
Post on 18-Dec-2014
529 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Designed to FitDesigned to FitChallenges of Interaction Design for Challenges of Interaction Design for Clothes Fitting Room TechnologiesClothes Fitting Room Technologies
Bo Begole, parc
Takashi Matsumoto, Keio University
Wei Zhang, Oregon State University
Nicholas Yee, parc
Juan Liu, parc
Maurice Chu, parc
HCI International, July 2009
Implicit InteractionImplicit Interaction Conventional systems: User
initiates interaction and drives the system
Implicit Interaction: System perceives state of user and situation and acts on users’ inferred goals
– Simplifies user experience– Little or no training required
ResponsiveMirror
Responsive Technologies InformationRecommendation
ClothingRecognition
Psychographic Profiling
[ICDSC 2008][IUI 2008, HCII 2009][CHI 2008]Magitti
Related PARC Research:also:Human-Robot Interaction
Multi-party conversations
Camera-based tracking
MIT Media Lab
Xbox Natal
Clothes ShoppingClothes Shoppingas an Information Seeking Activityas an Information Seeking Activity
Browse
Filter
Evaluate
Decide,Buy
Decide,Buy
In-StoreIn-Store OnlineOnline
Availability, cost, size, colors, texture, feel, fit, style trends, etc.
Related WorkRelated WorkApparel Fitting TechnologiesApparel Fitting Technologies
Virtual fitting technologies– Project image of clothing on image
of shopper or 3D model
– Helps pre-filter but ultimately clothing must be tried on
Fitting room technologies– Detect clothing items and retrieve
information – price, colors, in stock– Record videos of fitting– Send to friends for comments– Project virtual clothing on mirror
– Don’t provide access to prior trials– Don’t show social context of fashion
Responsive Mirror Responsive Mirror Implicitly controlled vision-based system providing Implicitly controlled vision-based system providing information for “self” comparison and “social” contextinformation for “self” comparison and “social” context
The Future of … Dressing Rooms, BNet, Sumi Das
video (min1:25-2:02)
Privacy ConsiderationsPrivacy Considerations
What are the implications of introducing a camera to this semi-private setting?
Altman’s three boundaries– Disclosure – clothes fittings are typically only shared with
co-present shoppers, friends, family– Identity – Apparel trials are a time when a person is
experimenting with their “presentation of self”– Temporal – fitting sessions are usually ephemeral, not
preserved for future scrutiny
Social aspects– What image do I project when wearing these clothes?– What do other people who wear these clothes look like?
Formative Formative StudyStudy
Quick examination of privacy concerns
Participants– 12 males, 28-52 years
» Limited population» Clothes matching
algorithm only worked on men’s shirts
Within subjects analysis Three Conditions
– Mirror alone– Mirror with Previous Outfit– Mirror with Other people in similar outfits
Task– Select one out of 6 shirts for each condition (18 shirts total)
Results - OverallResults - Overall
Buying decisions were not different across conditions– The characteristics of the clothing mattered more than the
technology
Which condition did you prefer? (1=highest, 5=lowest)
– Previous Outfit plus Other People (M = 1.92) (not experienced)
– Previous Outfit (M = 2.00)
– Other People (M = 2.83)
– Plain Mirror (M = 3.25) (2 = 9.10, p = .03)
Which condition was more helpful?– Previous Outfit (M = 3.00)
– Other People (M = 2.5)
Results - DisclosureResults - Disclosure How bothered by people in the following groups seeing
images from the fittings?– (5=bothers me a great deal, 1=doesn’t bother me at all)
– Family (M=1.08) – Friends (M=1.50)– Stranger (M=2.08)– Co-worker (M=2.25)
– No significant effect regarding gender– Level of concern was significantly higher for bad shirts (M=3.0)
versus good shirts (M=1.42) (p = .001)
Implication: Access control at just two levels:– Friends and Family– Co-workers and Strangers
not sig. diff’t
not sig. diff’t
sig. diff’t
Results - IdentityResults - Identity
How often do you think about– (5=Always, Often, Sometimes, Seldom, Never=1)– Someone you know who might like these clothes (M=2.67,
SD=0.98)– How similar to what other people you know are wearing
(M=2.92, SD=0.9) – How similar to what other people you don’t know are
wearing (M=2.33, SD=0.98)
Implication: Providing information on what other people are wearing would be useful sometimes
Results – TemporalityResults – Temporality
Would you want to remove images in the future if your tastes change? (5=Definitely, 1=Definitely Not)– (M=3.08, SD=1.16) (closest to Possibly)
Preferred periods of time– within 3 months (5 participants)– within 1 year (5 participants)– never (2 participants)
Implication: systems can remind users at 3 month and 1 year period to review their image record
Summary &Summary &ConclusionsConclusions
Physical apparel shopping requires different information than online shopping
– Apparel fit, feel, drape, texture, translucency, etc.
Privacy is a concern but not a block – understanding user concerns in Altman’s three
boundaries can help system designers
Future Directions– Countertop version for eyeglasses, jewelry,
hats, makeup, hair, …– Front-camera tracking algorithms– Adding sales support to the system
Contacts welcome!– bo@parc.com
Counter-top Responsive Mirror
The end
top related