Response to Vogel and Balakrishnan's Interactive Public Ambient Displays

Vogel and Balakrishnan's paper describes a framework of four discrete zones to explain various novel interactions in a proximity-based ambient display. They extend upon previous zones of the “hello.wall” system (Fraunhofer IPSI) -- ambient, notification, and interaction zones -- but neither Vogel or “hello.wall” provide a theoretical basis for creating such zones. The mismatch between a user`s model and designer`s model of these zones was reported by participants in Vogel`s preliminary user study. A research opportunity exists in defining the minimum, maximum, and ``ideal`` proximity for interacting with a wall-based ambient display, especially given that the display size, display resolution, user`s height, and installation context are possible variables. Prior research in ``ideal`` proximity has been explored in other fields for interacting with people (in anthropology and sociology, I presume) and humanoid robots, but there is a lack of research to show that it will apply to ambient displays. Another question that arises is if there should be multiple zone designations to be defined in the first place. Perhaps there should be only one continuous ``interaction`` zone rather than having multiple states as Vogel promotes.