| Literature DB >> 34785979 |
Shigeo Takahashi1, Akane Uchita1, Kazuho Watanabe2, Masatoshi Arikawa3.
Abstract
Recent advances in digital signage technology have improved the ability to visually select specific items within a group. Although this is due to the ability to dynamically update the display of items, the corresponding layout schemes remain a subject of research. This paper explores the sophisticated layout of items by respecting the underlying context of searching for favorite items. Our study begins by formulating the static placement of items as an optimization problem that incorporates aesthetic layout criteria as constraints. This is further extended to accommodate the dynamic placement of items for more proactive visual exploration based on the ongoing search context. Our animated layout is driven by analyzing the distribution of eye gaze through an eye-tracking device, by which we infer how the most attractive items lead to the finally wanted ones. We create a planar layout of items as a context map to establish association rules to dynamically replace existing items with new ones. For this purpose, we extract the set of important topics from a set of annotated texts associated with the items using matrix factorization. We also conduct user studies to evaluate the validity of the design criteria incorporated into both static and dynamic placement of items. After discussing the pros and cons of the proposed approach and possible themes for future research, we conclude this paper.Entities:
Keywords: Gaze-driven interaction; Optimization; Search context; User evaluation
Year: 2021 PMID: 34785979 PMCID: PMC8581132 DOI: 10.1007/s12650-021-00808-5
Source DB: PubMed Journal: J Vis (Tokyo) ISSN: 1343-8875 Impact factor: 1.974
Fig. 1a Gaze-driven placement of drinks in a virtual vending machine. The heatmap and gaze plot represent how visual attention is directed. b Context map for describing association rules among drinks. c Contemporary digital signage displays on a vending machine. d Information wall in a learning facility (courtesy of Sustaina Kyoto, Kyoto, Japan)
Fig. 2A grid placement of numbers ranging from 1 to 9
Fig. 3Optimizing the static placement of items. a Drinks of the same category are arranged next to each other. b Identical drinks are lined up in a row
Fig. 7System snapshots exploring landscape prints in the series of paintings, Thirty-Six Views of Mt. Fuji (from left to right and top to bottom). Each slot consists of the grid placement of images (left) and the context map (right)
Fig. 4A context map obtained using topic analysis based on a LDA and b NMF. The number of topics is 12 in both cases. The NMF-based analysis better elucidates the configuration among drink categories
Fig. 5Three scenarios for exploring drinks with a virtual vending machine. a The initial grid placement of drinks. b The context map with three scenarios for exploring drinks
Fig. 6Changes in the placement of drinks according to the three scenarios (from top to bottom in each column). a From orange juice to mineral water. b From cola to mineral water. c From oolong tea to mineral water
Fig. 8Static placements of drinks used in the user study. The placements were optimized (a) without (S1) (left) and with (S1) (right), (b) without (S2) (left) and with (S2) (right), and (c) without (S3) (left) and with (S3) (right). The two placements for each comparison differed due to the change in the selection of design criteria and their associated constraints. Other parameters, including the initial priority value and upper and lower limits on the number of appearances for each item, were the same
Fig. 9Static placements of paintings used in the user study. The placements were optimized (a) without (S2) (left) and with (S2) (right), and (b) without (S3) (left) and with (S3) (right). The two placements for each comparison differed due to the change in the selection of design criteria and their associated constraints. Other parameters, including the initial priority value and upper and lower limit on the number of appearances for each item, were the same
Side-by-side comparisons between static placements for the criteria (S1)–(S3). Also refer to Figs. 8 and 9
| Design criteria | Without criterion | With criterion | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(S1) in the | 6 (13.6%) | 38 (86.4%) | ||||
(S2) in the | 11 (25.0%) | 33 (75.0%) | ||||
(S3) in the | 6 (13.6%) | 38 (86.4%) | ||||
(S1) in the | 4 (9.1%) | 40 (90.9%) | ||||
(S2) in the | 5 (11.4%) | 39 (88.6%) | ||||
(S3) in the | 9 (20.5%) | 35 (79.5%) | ||||
(S2) in the | 17 (38.6%) | 27 (61.4%) | ||||
(S3) in the | 4 (9.1%) | 40 (90.9%) | ||||
Fig. 10Laboratory space for conducting the eye-tracking study
Side-by-side comparisons between dynamic placements for the criteria (D1)–(D4)
| Design criteria | Without criterion | With criterion | ||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(D1) in the | 0 (0.0%) | 8 (100.0%) | ||||
(D2) in the | 2 (25.0%) | 6 (75.0%) | ||||
(D3) in the | 1 (12.5%) | 7 (87.5%) | ||||
(D4) in the | 1 (12.5%) | 7 (87.5%) | ||||
Fig. 11The dynamic placement of drinks in the user study when the cola bottle is the most focused. The layouts are designed a without (D1) and with (D1), and b without (D4) and with (D4)
Side-by-side comparisons between recommended drinks using the matrix factorization and context map. The percentage to the right of each recommended drink represents the approval rating in the user study
| Focused item | Matrix factorization | Context map | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Cola | Energy drink (73.0%) | Energy drink (73.0%) | ||
Cola zero (94.6%) | Cola zero (94.6%) | |||
Sparkling water (40.5%) | Lemon black tea (0.0%) | |||
| Oolong tea | Green tea (75.7%) | Green tea (75.7%) | ||
Barley tea (86.5%) | Barley tea (86.5%) | |||
Lemon black tea (13.5%) | Black tea (43.2%) | |||
| Orange juice | Banana juice (56.8%) | Vegetable juice (51.4%) | ||
Oolong tea (0.0%) | Tomato juice (35.1%) | |||
Soy milk (0.0%) | Banana juice (56.8%) | |||
| Blend coffee | Black coffee (91.9%) | Black coffee (91.9%) | ||
Cafe au lait (94.6%) | Cafe au lait (94.6%) | |||
Green tea (2.7%) | Cultured milk soda (0.0%) | |||
| Mineral water | Sparkling water (94.6%) | Sparkling water (94.6%) | ||
Soy milk (0.0%) | Cola zero (0.0%) | |||
Cola zero (0.0%) | Lemon black tea (8.1%) | |||