A taxonomy for and analysis of tangible interfaces

By Kenneth P. Fishkin. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 2004

472 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Human-Computer Interaction

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/03d30c2230c22c784b212903ac63c453a7b6b438

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

1. Paul Marshall
2. Hiroshi Ishii
3. Eva Hornecker
4. Robert J. K. Jacob
5. Jacob Buur

In Human-Computer Interaction

1. Paul Marshall
2. Hiroshi Ishii
3. Eva Hornecker
4. Robert J. K. Jacob
5. Jacob Buur
6. Andrew T. Duchowski

Citations in the corpus

• Do tangible interfaces enhance learning? (2007, background): “Most theoretical work on tangible interfaces has focused on the production of taxonomic frameworks [e.g. 19, 23, 32, 53].”
• Reality-based interaction: a framework for post-WIMP interfaces (2008, background): “RELATED TAXONOMIES AND FRAMEWORKS To date, work that attempts to explain or organize emerging styles of interaction has focused more on individual classes of interfaces than on ideas that unify several classes [15-17, 21, 35, 47].”
• Are tangibles more fun?: comparing children's enjoyment and engagement using physical, graphical and tangible user interfaces (2008, background): “They all share the same basic paradigm in which a user uses his/her hands to manipulate some physical object(s) through physical gestures, and a computing system detects the manipulation, alters its state and gives feedback accordingly (Fishkin, 2004).”
• Designing augmented reality for the classroom (2013, background): “In terms of ‘AR for learning’, some design principles have been proposed to optimize the first two circles of usability (e.g. Billinghurst, Kato, & Poupyrev, 2001; Fishkin, 2004; Fjeld, Bichsel, & Rauterberg, 1999; Hornecker & Buur, 2006).”
• Tangible bits: beyond pixels (2008, background): “Holmquist et al. [22] and Fishkin [ 14 ] provide categories and metrics for understanding tangibles, the MVC model was expanded in [49] and Hornecker proposes a framework for tangible interaction [23].”
• Getting a grip on tangible interaction: a framework on physical space and social interaction (2006, background): “... have focused mainly on defining terms, categorizing and characterizing systems, or on types of coupling: Ullmer and Ishii [34] provided the first attempt to categorize systems and representations; Holmquist et al [17] discussed a vocabulary of tangible interaction objects; Fishkin interprets tan”