single-jc.php

JACIII Vol.10 No.6 pp. 838-849
doi: 10.20965/jaciii.2006.p0838
(2006)

Paper:

A Human Interface Based on Linguistic Metaphor and Intention Reasoning

Koichi Yamada*, Mutsumi Tamai**, and Muneyuki Unehara*

*Department of Management and Information Systems Science, Nagaoka University of Technology, 1603-1 Kami-tomioka, Nagaoka, Niigata 940-2188, Japan

**Department of Management and Information Systems Engineering, Nagaoka University of Technology

Received:
December 15, 2005
Accepted:
March 7, 2006
Published:
November 20, 2006
Keywords:
human interface, human-computer interaction, intention reasoning, linguistic metaphor
Abstract

The human interface design for household appliances is becoming far more difficult than that in the past, because they have so many functions that the users could not remember all of their operations as well as the size is so compact that enough buttons, switches, and/or displays could not be placed on the control panel. The paper proposes a novel idea of human interface named Push like talking for such appliances, which could be a new design paradigm for the human interface of future electronic/information appliances. The PLT is applied to a human interface of a multi-functional telephone. Then, the evaluation shows the possibility that the PLT paradigm would provide a manualless human interface for appliances in the future.

Cite this article as:
K. Yamada, M. Tamai, and M. Unehara, “A Human Interface Based on Linguistic Metaphor and Intention Reasoning,” J. Adv. Comput. Intell. Intell. Inform., Vol.10, No.6, pp. 838-849, 2006.
Data files:
References
  1. [1] D. A. Norman, “The Psychology of Everyday Things,” Basic Books Inc., 1988.
  2. [2] D. A. Norman, “Things That Make Us Smart,” Addison-Wesley Pub. Co., 1993.
  3. [3] H. Tamura, “Human Interface at a Turning Point (2),” Journal of Human Interface Society, Vol.3, No.1, pp. 19-26, 2001 (in Japanese).
  4. [4] D. A. Norman, “The Invisible Computer,” MIT Press, 1998.
  5. [5] Monterey Technologies, Inc., “Resource Guide for Accessible Design of Consumer Electronics,” A Joint Venture of the Electronic Industries Association and the Electronic Industries Foundation, 1996.
    http://www.tiaonline.org/access/guide.html
  6. [6] B. Shneiderman, “Designing the User Interface 2nd edition,” Addison-Wesley Pub., 1992.
  7. [7] R. A. Bolt, “Put-That-There: Voice and Gesture at the Graphics Interface,” Proc. Int. Conf. on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques, pp. 262-270, 1980.
  8. [8] K. Yamada and M. Ueta, “Push Like Talking: A Novel Human Interface Based on Linguistic Metaphor and Intention Reasoning,” Proc. 18th Fuzzy System Symposium, pp. 487-490, 2002 (in Japanese).
  9. [9] K. Yamada and M. Yagi, “Push Like Talking: An Intelligent Interface with Linguistic Metaphor and Intention Reasoning,” Proc.17th Annual Conference of the Japanese Society for Artificial Intelligence, 3B1-07, 2003 (in Japanese).
  10. [10] K. Yamada and M. Mukaidono, “Recognizing Intentions by Fuzzy Abductive Reasoning,” Proc. IFSA World Congress 93, pp. 187-190, 1993.
  11. [11] K. Yamada, R. Mizoguchi, et al., “Model of Utterance and Its Use in Cooperative Response Generation,” Lecture Notes in Computer Science 753, Human-Computer Interaction (Eds. L. J. Bass, J. Gornostaev, C. Unger), Springer-Verlag, pp. 260-271, 1993.
  12. [12] K. Yamada, “Causal Reasoning Using Conditional Causal Possibilities to Express Uncertainty of Causalities,” IFSA World Congress 99, Vol.2, pp. 665-668, 1999.
  13. [13] K. Yamada, “Possibilistic causality consistency problem based on asymmetrically-valued causal model,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol.132, pp. 33-48, 2002.
  14. [14] L. A. Zadeh, “Fuzzy sets as a basis for a theory of possibility,” Fuzzy Sets and Systems, Vol.1, pp. 3-28, 1978.
  15. [15] D. Dubois and H. Prade, “Possibility Theory,” Plenum press, 1988.
  16. [16] D. Dubois and H. Prade, “Epistemic entrenchment and possibilistic logic,” Artificial Intelligence, Vol.50, pp. 223-239, 1991.
  17. [17] K. Yamada, “Possibility as An Alternative of Uncertainty Expression – Practical Advantage of Possibility over Probability,” SCIS & ISIS2002, 25A2-IT5, 2002.
  18. [18] Y. Peng and J. A. Reggia, “Abductive inference Models for Diagnostic Problem-Solving,” Springer-Verlag, 1990.

*This site is desgined based on HTML5 and CSS3 for modern browsers, e.g. Chrome, Firefox, Safari, Edge, Opera.

Last updated on Dec. 02, 2020