Insights on Interactive Tabletops:
A Survey of Researchers and Developers

Hrvoje Benko, Meredith Ringel Morris,
A.J. Bernheim Brush, and Andrew D. Wilson

Microsoft Research
One Microsoft Way
Redmond, WA 98052, USA{benko, merrie, ajbrush, awilson}@microsoft.com

March 2009
Technical Report
MSR-TR-2009-22

ABSTRACT

Recently, interest in tabletop computing has surged, both within the researchcommunity and within the commercial sector. However, given the early stage ofinteractive tabletop adoption and current low availability, it is difficult to findend users with extended experience in using such devices. We conducted asurvey of 58 tabletop researchers and developers, the only available population
with longer-term tabletop use experience, to find out how they use their devices,
what they use them for, and what features they consider important for novice,single-user, and collaborative scenarios. While not without inherent biases, theiranswers suggest important directions for further research in designing andevaluating interactive tabletop systems, including identification of obstacles tomainstream adoption, and input and ergonomic challenges.

Keywords

Surface computing, interactive tabletops, digital desks.

1

INTRODUCTION

HCI researchers have been experimenting with horizontal computing formfactors for many years; Wellner’s DigitalDesk [12] explored this direction in theearly 1990s. More recently, hardware has debuted that can reliably sense rich
input from multiple simultaneous contacts, such as DiamondTouch [2], FTIR[5], and PlayAnywhere [14]. Benefits ascribed to horizontal interactive surfaces
include ease of use and intuitiveness due to multi-touch direct manipulation,quick learning time for novice users, and support for collaborative work.
However, despite the popularity of interactive tabletops in the researchcommunity, and the media excitement surrounding the announcement ofcommercial tabletop systems (e.g., the Microsoft Surface and the PhilipsEntertaible), there is little data available on their use in practice (as opposed tobrief use experiences during lab studies). Wigdor et al. [13] and Mazalek et al.
[7] each provide case-study data on a single user’s longer term experience with atabletop technology, and Morris et al. [9] report on eight office workers’ use ofinteractive desks. Examining people who regularly use interactive tabletops
could address questions such as:





How extensively are tabletop systems being used, and what are they usedfor?
What features are most important for collaborative use? Individual use? Fornovice users?
What features make tabletops better than standard computer interfaces?
What features are still needed, but lacking?
What features define an “interactive tabletop”?

We sought to answer these questions by surveying people who interact withtabletop systems on a regular basis. In December 2007, we conducted a webbased survey consisting of 33 multiple-choice and free-response questions.
Participants were recruited via e-mail sent to researchers who publish tabletop
research in venues such as CHI, CSCW, and IEEE TableTop, as well as todesigners and developers on tabletop product teams at companies such as
Microsoft, Mitsubishi Electric, Perceptive Pixel, Philips, SMART Technologies,and Sony.
We are aware that the chosen population does not represent the target end usersof tabletop technology. However, given the early stage of interactive tabletop
adoption and current low availability, there are few, if any, actual end users, andthe only population with longer-term tabletop use experience are tabletop
researchers, developers, and designers. Surveying tabletop innovators has somelimitations, such as the risk of biases toward excessive optimism regarding thepotential of tabletops, and it is important to bear these limitations in mind wheninterpreting our results. Once there is a significant population of end-users whointeract with tabletop technology on a regular basis (and thus would not bebiased by novelty effects or overly focused on particular, individualapplications), conducting an end-user survey would offer an interesting
complement to our current findings. We hope to be able to conduct such asurvey soon.
58 respondents completed the survey (12% female). 46% were from universities
and 44% were from industry; the remaining 10% had other affiliations such as“between-positions” or “self-employed.” Most respondents reported having
between two and five years of experience using interactive tabletops, with 7%
reporting more than ten years of tabletop experience and 14% reporting one year2

or less. Respondents used a variety of tabletop hardware: most used well-known
systems such as MERL’s DiamondTouch or Microsoft’s Surface, while 33%
reported using custom, self-made technologies.
Our complete, anonymized data set can be downloaded fromhttp://research.microsoft.com/~benko/projects/tabletop_survey/.
In
theremainder of this paper, we present data and analysis regarding use patterns,
valued features, and impediments to adoption. We conclude by identifying key
directions for further research suggested by our findings.

USE PATTERNS

We were surprised how infrequently tabletop developers and researchers used
tabletop computers. Only 27% of respondents reported using interactive
tabletops several times a day, while 33% reported using tabletops at most once
per month. Respondents reported typical tabletop use sessions of between fifteen
minutes and one hour.
Given our population, it was no surprise to find out that the most common tasks
were the development of novel interactive tabletop applications and usability
studies of tabletop software (78% and 56% of respondents, respectively). 36%
of respondents reported using their tabletops for viewing entertainment media
such as videos or photos, and 31% reported using them for collaborative
activities such as brainstorming. 17% used their tables for visualization
applications. Only 5% reported using their tabletop systems to accomplish“productivity” tasks (e.g., word processing, spreadsheets, e-mail, Internet
activities, etc.), and only a single respondent reported using an interactive
tabletop as an all-purpose, primary computing device.
In addition to reporting their own use patterns, respondents gave Likert-scale
ratings (1 = unsuitable, 5 = extremely suitable) to task categories to indicate how
appropriate they felt such tasks were for the tabletop form factor. These ratingsfollowed the same trends as self-reported use patterns, with entertainment(µ=4.5), visualization (µ=4.4), and collaborative activities (µ=4.3) rated as
extremely suitable, and presentations (µ=3.1) and productivity applications(µ=2.4) judged unsuitable.

IMPORTANCE OF TABLETOP FEATURES

To understand the importance of different features of tabletops, we asked
respondents to rank a list of features commonly associated with interactivetabletops (see labels in Figure 1) in three likely scenarios: (1) collaborative use,(2) long-term, individual (single-user) use, and (3) attracting and appealing tonovice users. For each scenario respondents were asked to rank the top fivemost-desirable features. Figure 1 shows, for each scenario, how many times
each feature from the set was given a top-five ranking, and Figure 2 summarizes
the features most-frequently ranked among the top five most valuable for eachof these three scenarios. Note that for these questions, we asked participants todisregard the fact that some features might not be available on the systems theyowned, but to instead imagine the features that would be desirable in an “ideal”
tabletop system.

3

Figure 1. Side-by-side comparison of votes for top-five rankings for each of
the three usage scenarios.

Figure 2. Aggregated top-five rankings for each of the three usage scenarios.

We also collected free-form responses to the question: “What single feature ofinteractive tabletops do you miss most when using a standard desktop
computer?” Responses were independently classified by three of the authors,
who then reconciled these classifications to reach agreement on categories ofsimilar responses (Figure 3).

Figure 3. Category counts for free-form responses on most-missed tabletop
features when using desktop computers.

Looking at the responses, direct touch and multi-touch input appear to be thetwo most-agreed-upon high-value features, both landing in the top five for all
three of the sample scenarios (Figure 2). The free-form responses shown in4

Figure 3 echoed the trends of the feature-ranking, with touch input theoverwhelmingly most popular response.
Having a large display size was also considered a high-value feature – large
displays were considered important for collaborative scenarios, but were also
desired for solo use; however, large display size did not rank in the top five fornovice appeal. Large display size was the second most popular answer to thefree-response question. When asked about the diagonal size of their current
tabletop, respondents reported sizes ranged from 5” to 108” with a mean size of42” (σ=20”).
One of the most obvious features of tabletops is their orientation; however, it
was ranked in the top five only for collaborative work. Horizontal orientation
per se was rarely cited in response to the free-form question, althoughcollaboration support was one of the most popular free-form answers. Tangibleinteractions made the top five only for novices, while respondents also felt thatthe novelty of interactive tabletops was an important part of novice appeal.
Multi-user support was also considered important for generating excitement
among novices about tabletop computing, but was not as highly ranked for theother two scenarios.

FEATURES NEEDING IMPROVEMENT

We gathered information about the challenges associated with using interactive
tabletops through several questions, including “What single feature of standard
desktop computers do you miss most when using an interactive tabletop?”(Figure 4 shows responses categorized, once again, by a review process of threeof the authors). We also asked about the biggest frustrations faced when using
tabletops displays, and solicited free-form explanations regarding whether theywould consider using an interactive tabletop as their primary computer (24%answered “yes”, 33% “maybe”, and 41% “no).

Figure 4. Category counts for free-form responses on mostmissed desktop features when using interactive tabletops.

Text Entry Issues

The keyboard was the desktop feature most-missed when using an interactive
tabletop (Figure 4). Comments on respondents’ greatest frustrations highlighted
the difficulty of text entry including: “lack of decent keyboards”, “virtual ones
don't work well”, “physical ones may occlude” and “typing, soft keyboard
works poorly, no feedback.” Improved text entry method was also cited by four
respondents as the main improvement needed in order to consider using atabletop as a primary computer (out of 19 who responded “maybe”).

5Support for standard applications (email, the Web, etc.) on tabletops was thesecond most-missed feature, closely followed by precise pointing (Figure 4). It
is not surprising that the difficulty of text input without a keyboard and the lackof precise pointing make it very challenging to adapt standard applications
designed for mouse and keyboard to tabletop displays. What is surprising is thatmost of the tabletop research so far has featured interactive tabletops without
considering the possibility of them being used with a standard keyboard andmouse as well as touch. Judging from the responses in our survey, we believethat a closer look should be taken at integrating standard input devices andmulti-touch interactions into a rich input palette. In fact, we suggest that theabilities of some tabletops to sense objects on the surface should be used tofurther enhance the existing functionality of the standard mouse and keyboard,for example, by providing context-sensitive modes, additional tracking, etc.

Ergonomic Issues with Horizontal Orientation

Another theme was the poor ergonomics of using a horizontal form-factor. For
example, explanations of why respondents would not use a tabletop computer as
their primary device included comments such as: “I would need a verticaldisplay for a primary computer, as horizontal causes a fair amount of neckstrain,” “It is not ergonomic – neck muscle strain occurs after looking down(even just a few degrees) after about an hour of computer use,” and “Long-term
use of a horizontal tabletop … is not good for your back.” Figure 4 also showsthat ergonomics was highlighted as an aspect of desktop PC use that people
missed when using tabletop computers.
The desire to adjust the angle of the tabletop surface was mentioned by sevenrespondents. Their remarks included: “I would like it to … offer me thepossibility to choose the angle and the screen surface on which I want to work”
and “Must have angled surface, or even better adjustable surface angle.” We
believe that allowing angle adjustment might help alleviate some of theergonomic issues mentioned above. One respondent suggested that adjusting thetabletop angle might also ease transitioning between single-person andcollaborative use. The respondent wanted a tabletop that “is not purely
horizontal and that can be easily changed to a horizontal table for collaborativetasks.”

DISCUSSION

Our survey population consisted of tabletop researchers and developers, a groupthat one would expect to use interactive tabletops frequently; however, only
27% reported using tabletops on a daily basis. We speculate that the reported
lack of standard applications for performing productivity tasks and the lack ofsupport for standard input devices resulted in low overall use beyond
development and evaluation tasks. Respondents’ relatively low use of theirinteractive tabletop systems may also indicate that tabletop systems’ true role is
as a special-purpose device, to be used only during brief intervals for specialized
tasks, such as during collaborative meetings.
Identification of appropriate applications for interactive tabletops was identified
as a research challenge by Scott et al. in 2003 [10]. Our findings indicate that
this challenge remains unresolved, with little agreement among respondents on
the specific tasks accomplished using their tables, beyond the general notion that6

tabletops are more suited for collaborative activities than for standard officeproductivity applications.
Responses to questions about features in need of improvement suggest thatseveral shortcomings of interactive tabletop technology need to be addressed
before these devices can truly live up to their potential. Text entry, support for avariety of applications, precise selection techniques, and ergonomics areparticularly important areas of improvement.

What is an Interactive Tabletop?

Based on the features our respondents rated as most important, we can define aninteractive tabletop as “a large surface that affords direct, multi-touch, multiuser interaction.” While horizontal orientation is seen as promoting face-to-facecollaboration, it poses challenges related to the ergonomics of long-term use.
The ergonomics of tabletop displays are not typically discussed in tabletop
research literature, perhaps because most evaluations of such systems involve
relatively brief periods of use. Morris et al.’s studies of the suitability surfaces
for active reading [8] and office tasks [9] are exceptions; they reported thatseveral subjects in their studies complained of neck strain after reading andwriting on horizontal displays. Designers of tabletop systems should consider
form factors with adjustable height and angle, perhaps enabling the transition
between a horizontal “collaboration” configuration and a vertical or angled“personal use” configuration.

Input Solutions NeededThus far, studies of which input techniques are most suitable for tabletops
systems, e.g., comparisons of styli vs. direct touch, as in [4], did not yield clear
prescriptions for what is best. However, the respondents in our survey placed
utmost importance on touch input, despite the acknowledged problems ofimprecision. That respondents considered tangibles valuable only for initial
appeal is surprising since one of the oft-cited benefits of interactive tabletops isthat, like traditional horizontal surfaces, they can support object placement andenable the natural use of tangible props [10].
Although text entry and precise pointing were both cited as limitations oftabletop systems, technologies that might alleviate these challenges, such as
speech input for text entry or stylus input for more accurate pointing, wereranked extremely low on the list of valued features. Even standard mice andkeyboards were only cited for long term single user scenario. Understanding
why stylus input is unpopular and investigating other means of enhancing
pointing precision on touch surfaces are important areas of further research; [1],[3], and [11] provide good examples of initial forays in this direction. Hinrichs
et al. [6] analyze the suitability of common text entry techniques for tabletops;
the invention and evaluation of novel methods for text-entry on interactive
tables remains an open and critical area for further research.
Also, it is our recommendation that serious consideration be given toincorporating standard mouse and keyboard devices into the tabletop interaction
workflow in addition to multi-touch interactions. Pursuing this mixed input
metaphor might provide a solution to the most pressing interactive tabletop
issues.

7

CONCLUSION

We have presented results from a survey of 58 tabletop researchers anddevelopers. We have contributed data on the respondents’ use patterns, on themost- and least-valued features of tabletops, and on obstacles preventing furtheradoption. Based on these findings, the challenges of text input, pointing
precision, and the ergonomics of horizontal surfaces stand out as particularly
crucial issues to address before interactive tabletops can see success as
instruments for productivity and collaboration.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

We would like to thank our survey participants.
REFERENCES

1. Benko, H., Wilson, A., and Baudisch, P. Precise Selection Techniques for MultiTouch Screens. CHI 2006, 1263-1272.
2. Dietz, P. and Leigh, D. DiamondTouch: A Multi-User Touch Technology. UIST
2001, 219-226.
3. Forlines, C., Wigdor, D., Shen, C., and Balakrishnan, R. Direct-Touch vs. Mouse
Input for Tabletop Displays. CHI 2007, 647-656.
4. Ha, V., Inkpen, K., Whalen, T., and Mandryk, R. Direct Intentions: The Effectsof Input Devices on Collaboration around a Tabletop Display. IEEE Tabletop
2006, 177-184.
5. Han, J. Low-Cost Multi-Touch Sensing Through Frustrated Total Internal
Reflection. UIST 2005, 115-118.
6. Hinrichs, U., Hancock, M., Carpendale, S., and Collins, C. Examination of TextEntry Methods for Tabletop Displays. IEEE Tabletop 2007, 105-112.
7. Mazalek, A., Reynolds, M., Davenport, G. The TViews Table in the Home. IEEE
Tabletop 2007, 52-59.
8. Morris, M.R., Brush, A.J.B., and Meyers, B. Reading Revisited: Evaluating theUsability of Digital Display Surfaces for Active Reading Tasks. IEEE Tabletop
2007, 79-86.
9. Morris, M.R., Brush, A.J.B., and Meyers, B. A Field Study of Knowledge
Workers’ Use of Interactive Horizontal Displays. IEEE Tabletop 2008, 113-120.
10. Scott, S.D., Grant, K., and Mandryk, R. System Guidelines for Co-locatedCollaborative Work on a Tabletop Display. ECSCW 2003, 159-178.
11. Vogel, D. and Baudisch, P. Shift: A Technique for Operating Pen-BasedInterfaces Using Touch. CHI 2007, 657-666.
12. Wellner, P. Interacting with Paper on the DigitalDesk. Communications of theACM, vol. 36, pp. 87-96, 1993.
13. Wigdor, D., Penn, G., Ryall, K., Esenther, A., and Shen, C. Living with aTabletop: Analysis and Observations of Long Term Office Use of a Multi-Touch
Table. IEEE Tabletop 2007, 60-67.
14. Wilson, A. PlayAnywhere: A Compact Tabletop Computer Vision System. UIST2005, 83-92.

8