Towards Understanding People’s Experiences of AI Computer Vision Fitness Instructor Apps
This paper explores people's experiences of using existing AI computer vision Fitness Instructor mobile applications and presents a series of design guidelines for this space. The recent rise in on-device AI computer vision and dialogue systems has facilitated a growing number of fitness related instructional apps. However these technologies have yet to be explored within the HCI community. To investigate this domain we recruited 12 participants and asked them to engage with five recently launched AI fitness instructor apps. We interviewed participants and thematically analysed transcripts to understand their experience and expectations of these technologies. We contribute five main themes from our findings; Limitations of Computer Vision, Visual Feedback, Dialogue with the AI, Adapting to the User, and Workout with the Instructor. Based upon our findings we present five design considerations for designers that relate to three key areas: feedback and motivation, personalising the experience, and building a relationship with the AI. Our design considerations extend beyond existing research focus specifically on what participants expect and desire from an AI instructor experience in order to inform designers when creating AI experiences in this domain.
Research Questions / Practical Problems
Question signals indexed for this paper.
- 60%
Activity Tracking in vivo
CHI '18· Fitness Tracking & Physical Activity Monitoring
- 60%
Understanding People’s Experience for Physical Activity Planning and Exploring the Impact of Historical Records on Plan Creation and Execution
CHI '22· Fitness Tracking & Physical Activity Monitoring
- 60%
Designing Reflective Derived Metrics for Fitness Trackers
UbiComp '23· Fitness Tracking & Physical Activity Monitoring
- 60%
ProxiFit: Proximity Magnetic Sensing Using a Single Commodity Mobile toward Holistic Weight Exercise Monitoring
UbiComp '23· Fitness Tracking & Physical Activity Monitoring
Based on Jaccard similarity of research subtopics & professions (≥60%)