## 4 Results  
### The Evaluation of the Gesture Types in the TV Environment  
In the TV environment, the results from the UEQ-S evaluation for the three gesture types reveal the following (see Figure 7 and Table 1). The Surface-Touch gesture was rated highest in terms of pragmatic quality (\"Above Average\") but lowest in terms of hedonic quality (\"Below Average\"). Nonetheless, it attained the highest overall satisfaction score (1.07, \"Above Average\"). The mid-air gesture was evaluated as lowest in terms of its pragmatic quality (\"Bad\") and also had the lowest average hedonic quality (0.70, \"Below Average\"), resulting in the lowest overall satisfaction score among all three gesture types. In contrast, the micro finger-touch gesture received a low pragmatic quality rating (\"Bad\") but the highest hedonic quality rating (\"Good\"). Also, this gesture type achieved the second highest overall satisfaction score (1.05, \"Above Average\").  
Also, we conducted statistical analyses to examine the differences among the three gesture types within the TV environment (Table 2). First, the Shapiro-Wilk test results indicated that none of the three UEQ-S scales met the assumption of normality for the TV conditions (all \(p\)-values \(<\) 0.05). Accordingly, the non-parametric Friedman test was applied. The results revealed a statistically significant difference among the three gesture types in their pragmatic quality (\(\chi^{2}(2)\) = 9.89, \(p\) = 0.0071) and hedonic quality (\(\chi^{2}(2)\) = 10.16, \(p\) = 0.0062). However, for overall satisfaction, the result was only marginally significant (\(\chi^{2}(2)\) = 4.78, \(p\) = 0.0918).  
Subsequent post hoc analyses were performed using the Wilcoxon signed-rank test with Bonferroni correction. Based on the marginal significance observed for the overall satisfaction result, we also included it in the post hoc comparisons to examine potential differences among gesture types further. The results showed that in terms of pragmatic quality, a significant difference was found between the mid-air and Surface-Touch gestures (Mean_diff (Mid-Air, Surface) = \(-\)0.98, W = 90, corrected \(p\) = 0.01). For hedonic quality, significant differences were found between the micro finger and mid-air gestures (Mean_diff (Micro-Finger, Mid-Air) = 0.42, W = 87, corrected \(p\) = 0.04) and between the micro finger and Surface-Touch gestures (Mean_diff (Micro Finger,  
\begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c c c c} \hline \hline
\begin{tabular}{c} Above Average \\ (Top 25–50\%) \\ \end{tabular} & - \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table}
Table 1: Statistics of the UEQ-S results for the three gesture types in the TV environment.  
Figure 7: A graph of the UEQ-S results for the three gesture types in the TV environment.  
Surface) = 0.67, W = 65.5, corrected \(p\) = 0.0086). Finally, for overall satisfaction, a significant difference was also observed between the mid-air and Surface-Touch gestures (Mean_diff (Mid-Air, Surface) = \(-\)0.35, W = 100, corrected \(p\) = 0.033).  
These results suggest that the Surface-Touch gesture is perceived as the most practical gesture type yet lacks elements of enjoyment in the interaction experience. In contrast, the micro finger-touch gesture received relatively negative evaluations in terms of its practicality but was recognized as providing a greater sense of enjoyment during its use. In terms of overall satisfaction, the mid-air gesture was evaluated most negatively in the TV environment, while the Surface-Touch and micro finger-touch gestures were rated more positively. Notably, these two gestures received the highest evaluations in terms of their pragmatic quality and hedonic quality, respectively, which appears to have contributed to their higher scores for overall satisfaction.