Can't Touch This: Rethinking Public Technology in a COVID-19 Era

Document Title

Can’t Touch This: Rethinking Public Technology in a COVID-19 Era

Document Information

• Subject Area: Human-Computer Interaction (HCI), Public Technology, Contactless Interaction
• Keywords: Public displays, field studies, prototype design, contactless technology, COVID-19, user behavior, public spaces, touchscreens, voice interaction, computer vision

Research Background and Issues

• Problems or Challenges Identified by the Authors:
  During the COVID-19 pandemic, public concerns about touching shared surfaces led many to avoid using interactive devices in public spaces (e.g., ATMs, elevators, pedestrian crossing buttons). Although studies on surface-based virus transmission suggest the actual infection risk is relatively low, psychological discomfort remains prevalent, posing new challenges for interaction technology design and behavior patterns.

• Significance:
  Many public technologies are foundational for providing essential services, such as pedestrian safety and wheelchair navigation. Therefore, it is crucial to ensure these technologies remain universally accessible while reducing physical contact, avoiding safety and equity issues caused by poor design.

• Research Motivation and Related Work:

  • The risk of virus transmission has driven public technologies to shift from tactile interaction to contactless interaction. While many studies have explored contactless control in medical contexts, research on usability and effectiveness in public settings remains limited.
  • Current adaptations for public facilities (e.g., disabling devices or relying on mobile app alternatives) have limitations, such as excluding non-smartphone users or those with limited technical knowledge.

Solution

• Proposed Methods or Solutions:
  This paper presents methods for retrofitting, adapting, or completely replacing existing public facilities with contactless technologies, designing and deploying various prototypes to explore feasibility:

  1. Retrofitting Existing Public Technologies:
     • Designed a contactless button prototype (based on optical sensors and motorized push rods) for devices such as elevators.
     • Explored mid-air haptic feedback applications (using ultrasonic technology) to simulate tactile feedback.
  2. Adapting COVID-Specific Devices:
     • Repurposed automatic sanitizers into public voting devices (SaniVoter) for collecting feedback.
  3. Replacing Existing Devices with New Contactless Technologies:
     • Used computer vision to detect user facial expressions (e.g., smiling or frowning) to indicate voting preferences.
     • Applied voice interaction technology to replace traditional touchscreen information query devices.

• Innovations:

  • Provided a comprehensive strategy ranging from rapid retrofitting of existing devices to replacing interaction paradigms.
  • Integrated multiple contactless interaction technologies, including infrared sensors, ultrasonic haptic feedback, computer vision, and voice recognition.
  • Conducted in-depth investigations into user behavior and social psychology impacts on contactless technology design.

• Implementation Steps and Key Technologies:

  • Designed and deployed multiple prototypes, including enhanced button interaction devices, automatic questionnaire feedback systems (SaniVoter), and visual and voice interaction devices, followed by evaluation through campus or public space experiments.
  • Data collection methods included user observation, anonymous surveys, and technical log analysis.

Research Outcomes

• Specific Outcomes:

  • Survey results revealed that the public remains cautious about shared surfaces, further emphasizing the need for contactless interaction.
  • User experiments and deployments of multiple prototypes broadly validated their feasibility in public spaces.
  • Findings demonstrated that different levels of contactless interaction design could meet various public facility application scenarios, including infrastructure retrofitting, mid-term adaptation, and long-term replacement.

• Advantages Compared to Existing Solutions:

  • The methods covered varying degrees of retrofitting, from simple upgrades of existing devices to complete system replacements, addressing coverage and flexibility issues.
  • Device designs emphasized compatibility with user behavior, such as operations without additional equipment or clear user instructions.

• Experimental or Evaluation Results:

  • Retrofitted devices (e.g., contactless elevator buttons): During usage, approximately 70% of users opted for the contactless mode, with user ratings averaging 8.2/10 and low learning costs.
  • SaniVoter: Over 12 weeks of deployment, 1180 interactions were collected, with clear differentiation in user responses.
  • Replacement devices (e.g., FaceVoter and SpeechBox): Users generally accepted facial interaction technology, while voice interaction presented a higher learning curve.

• Limitations and Future Directions:

  • In practical use, certain technologies (e.g., voice recognition) remained sensitive to environmental noise, reducing adaptation rates.
  • Device designs require further optimization for durability and effectiveness in long-term use.
  • Future research should explore user education, privacy protection, and cross-cultural adaptation to promote broader adoption of contactless public facilities.