Coordination Funds

摆在我们面前的核心研究问题是如何使交互的范例扩展到大型和复杂的普适计算环境。在上一节中，我们介绍了示例性应用领域，以说明在普适计算环境中交互范例的挑战，并设定了本优先级计划的主要目标。在本节中，我们将确定三个核心研究领域，我们的目标是追求这个计划。首先，我们的目标是研究交互范例，是可扩展的意义上的总体大合奏的交互设备在普适计算环境。我们需要研究如何设计和评估轻松跨越设备和物理实体的方法（1）。然而，为了评估新的交互模式和跨设置，我们需要调整我们的方法，在普适计算环境中进行用户研究，为我们在野外的实验提供可靠的结果（2），并定量评估新方法（3）。1.为普适计算环境设计有效和有意义的可扩展交互范例：现有的交互范例如何扩展到普适计算环境，即，分布式集成计算设备？可以跨设备和域使用的交互范例的特征是什么？我们如何确保交互范例可以独立于上下文使用，但仍然考虑上下文引起的限制？是否存在阻止采用单一普遍交互范例的基本限制？我们如何通过这些交互范例来解决效率问题以及更广泛的意义问题？2.普适计算环境中可扩展交互范例的严格和鲁棒评估：我们如何评估应该在一系列设备和域上工作的交互技术？有没有标准化的研究方法来评估普适计算环境中的交互范例？有哪些方法可以在现场评估交互范例？通过现代传感器技术，我们可以在多大程度上扩展无监督观察技术，以达到对普适计算环境使用情况的可靠理解？基于模型的用户交互仿真能否加快设计阶段的速度，并使我们能够在设计过程的早期选择有前途的交互设计？3.普适计算环境中交互范例成功的评估：在普适计算环境的大环境中，衡量和描述实际成功、有效性和满意度的指标是什么？我们根据什么分数和价值来评价一个设计是有效的和高效的，但对个人来说也是有意义的和愉快的？在传统的性能指标（如任务性能和错误率）与用户体验、使用乐趣和幸福感之间，什么是一个很好的平衡？什么是有意义的测试平台来验证结果

The core research question ahead of us is how to make the paradigms of interaction scale to large and complex pervasive computing environments. In the previous section, we introduced exemplary application domains to illustrate the challenges for interaction paradigms in pervasive computing environments and set the leading goal of this Priority Programme. In this section, we will identify three core research areas that we aim to pursue with this program. First and foremost, we aim to study interaction paradigms that are scalable in the sense of overarching large ensembles of interactive devices in pervasive computing environments. We need to investigate how we design and evaluate methods that span devices and physical entities easily (1). However, to evaluate novel interaction paradigms in and across settings, we need to adapt our methods for user studies in pervasive computing environments to give us robust results for experiments in the wild (2) and assess the newapproaches quantitatively (3). 1. Design of efficient and meaningful scalable interaction paradigms for pervasive computing environments: How do existing interaction paradigms scale to pervasive computing environments, i.e., distributed ensembles computational devices? What are the characteristics of interaction paradigms that can be used across devices and domains? How can we ensure that interaction paradigms can be used independently of the context but still consider the context-induced restrictions? Are there fundamental limitations that prevent the adoption of a single pervasive interaction paradigm? How do we address issues of efficiency as well as broader aspects of meaning through these interaction paradigms? 2. Rigorous and robust evaluation of scalable interaction paradigms in pervasive computing environments: How do we evaluate interaction techniques that are supposed to work across a range of devices and domains? Can there be standardized study methods to evaluate interaction paradigms for pervasive computing environments? What are the methods to evaluate interaction paradigms in-situ? How far can we extend unsupervised observation techniques by modern sensor technology to reach a reliable understanding of the usage of pervasive computing environments? Can model-based simulation of user interaction speed up the design phase and enable us to select promising interaction designs early in the design process? 3. Assessment of the success of interaction paradigms in pervasive computing environments: What are the metrics that measure and describe actual success, effectiveness, and satisfaction in large settings of pervasive computing environments? What are the score and value under which we rate a design effective and efficient but also meaningful and pleasant for an individual? What is a good balance between traditional performance metrics such as task performance and error rate versus user experience, joy of use, and well-being? What are meaningful testbeds to verify the results