Drone Near Me: Exploring Touch-Based Human-Drone Interaction
我身边的无人机探索基于触摸的人机交互

CCS Concepts: Human-centered computing Empirical studies in interaction design;
CCS 概念：以人为本的计算 交互设计实证研究；
Additional Key Words and Phrases: Drone, UAV, quadcopter, human-drone interaction, touch interaction, elicitation study
其他关键词和短语：无人机、无人驾驶飞行器、四旋翼飞行器、人机交互、触摸交互、诱导研究
ACM Reference format: ACM 参考格式：
Parastoo Abtahi, David Y. Zhao, Jane L. E, and James A. Landay. 2017. Drone Near Me: Exploring Touch-Based Human-Drone Interaction. PACM Interact. Mob. Wearable Ubiquitous Technol. 1, 3, Article 34 (September 2017), 8 pages.
Parastoo Abtahi、David Y. Zhao、Jane L. E 和 James A. Landay。2017.Drone Near Me：探索基于触摸的人机交互。PACM Interact.Mob.Wearable Ubiquitous Technol.1, 3, Article 34 (September 2017), 8 pages.
DOI: http://doi.org/10.1145/3130899

Personal drones are used for many applications, such as photography [18], video recording [1], search and rescue [6], and package delivery [2, 20]. As drones become more popular, designing reliable and safe drones is critical. To mitigate failure and increase reliability, researchers have designed drones that can maintain flight when some propellers are lost . However, drone failure is not the only threat; the exposed propellers in conventional drones also raise safety concerns, as coming into contact with rotating blades may result in serious injuries. To address this, some drone manufacturers have created safe-to-touch drones [1, 7, 18], and others have increased safety by adding propeller guards to previous designs [4, 6, 17]. These safe-to-touch drones not only increase safety, but also enable new applications based on touch interactions, such as hovering programmable matter [8], augmented sports [15], and haptic feedback in virtual reality [10, 21]. These applications are only possible through direct touch and manipulation; however, it is unclear whether or not individuals feel comfortable touching these drones.
个人无人机应用广泛，如摄影[18]、录像[1]、搜救[6]和包裹递送[2, 20]。随着无人机越来越普及，设计可靠安全的无人机至关重要。为了减少故障和提高可靠性，研究人员设计出了能够在某些螺旋桨丢失 时保持飞行的无人机。然而，无人机故障并不是唯一的威胁；传统无人机中外露的螺旋桨也引发了安全问题，因为接触到旋转的叶片可能会导致严重伤害。为了解决这个问题，一些无人机制造商制造出了可安全触摸的无人机[1, 7, 18]，还有一些制造商在以前的设计中增加了螺旋桨防护装置，从而提高了安全性[4, 6, 17]。这些安全触控无人机不仅提高了安全性，还实现了基于触控交互的新应用，如悬停可编程物质[8]、增强运动[15]和虚拟现实中的触觉反馈[10, 21]。这些应用只有通过直接触摸和操纵才有可能实现；然而，目前还不清楚个人是否愿意触摸这些无人机。

As drones become more present in our environment, it is important to understand how people naturally interact with them. In some scenarios, direct interaction with drones, whether using touch or other types of interaction, is advantageous. For example, if an autonomous drone delivers a package to the wrong address, direct interaction enables the residents to inform the drone about this problem, regardless of their familiarity
随着无人机越来越多地出现在我们的生活环境中，了解人们如何自然地与无人机互动就显得尤为重要。在某些情况下，与无人机直接互动，无论是使用触摸还是其他类型的互动，都是有利的。例如，如果自动无人机将包裹送到了错误的地址，那么无论居民是否熟悉无人机，他们都可以通过直接交互将这一问题告知无人机。

Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, Vol. 1, No. 3, Article 34. Publication date: September 2017 .
ACM 交互、移动、可穿戴和泛在技术论文集》，第 1 卷，第 3 期，第 34 条。出版日期：2017 年 9 月 。
with this technology. In public spaces, people may also need to interact with drones that are controlled by others. For example, in the case of a drone equipped with cameras flying in a park, parents may want to ask the drone to stay further away from their children, for privacy or safety reasons. In other situations, such as search and rescue, direct interaction is necessary as victims may not have access to a remote control device or a smartphone.
这种技术。在公共场所，人们可能还需要与他人控制的无人机进行互动。例如，如果一架装有摄像头的无人机在公园里飞行，出于隐私或安全考虑，家长可能会要求无人机离自己的孩子远一些。在搜救等其他情况下，由于受害者可能无法使用遥控装置或智能手机，因此有必要进行直接互动。
In a previous Wizard-of-Oz (WoZ) elicitation study, Cauchard et al. [3] showed that gestures and voice commands are used by users to interact with drones, with gestures being the most common modality. E et al. [5] replicated this study in China to gain insight into the variation of these user-defined interactions across cultures. We built a safe-to-touch drone and replicated the study with a few modifications, to better understand how people interact with safe drones. We designed a between-subjects study with 24 participants; one group using the safe-to-touch drone and the other using the unsafe drone without the protective cage. We found that of participants chose to use touch as a means of interacting with the safe-to-touch drone and indicated that they would feel comfortable touching it. In this paper, we present findings from this study that can inform the design of touch-based human-drone interactions.
在之前的一项 WoZ（Wizard-of-Oz）激发研究中，Cauchard 等人[3]发现，用户使用手势和语音命令与无人机进行交互，其中手势是最常见的方式。E等人[5]在中国复制了这项研究，以深入了解这些用户定义的交互方式在不同文化中的差异。为了更好地了解人们是如何与安全的无人机进行交互的，我们制作了一架可以安全触摸的无人机，并对该研究进行了一些修改。我们设计了一项有 24 名参与者参加的主体间研究，其中一组使用安全触摸无人机，另一组使用不安全的无人机，但不带保护罩。我们发现， 的参与者选择使用触摸作为与安全可触控无人机互动的方式， 的参与者表示触摸无人机会让他们感到舒适。在本文中，我们将介绍这项研究的发现，这些发现可为基于触控的人机交互设计提供参考。

In recent years, various safe-to-touch commercial drones have been proposed or released. Aerotain is a heliumfilled spherical "soft drone" used for engaging audience in live entertainment [1]. The propulsion system is enclosed in the inflated balloon, making this drone completely safe-to-touch. Fleye is another spherical safe-totouch drone concept that is not yet commercially available [7]. Hover Camera is a foldable flying camera with enclosed propellers [18]. The physical form of Hover Camera is such that it can be held in a user's hand and is designed with two interactions in mind: "release and hover" or "throw and balance". Note that we chose not to use any of these safe-to-touch commercial drones and instead built a removable protective cage. This allowed us to use identical drones in both conditions by removing the protective cage from the safe drone. Moreover, the physical form of these commercial drones is suggestive of the limited range of interactions that the manufacturers had in mind when designing them. Having a custom safe-to-touch drone allowed us to explore a broader range of touch-based interactions.
近年来，各种可安全触摸的商用无人机被提出或发布。Aerotain 是一种充氦的球形 "软无人机"，用于吸引观众参与现场娱乐活动[1]。推进系统被封闭在充气的气球中，因此这种无人机完全可以安全触摸。Fleye 是另一种球形安全触控无人机概念，但尚未商业化[7]。Hover Camera 是一种带有封闭螺旋桨的可折叠飞行相机[18]。Hover Camera 的物理形态是可以握在用户手中的，其设计考虑到了两种交互方式："释放并悬停 "或 "释放并悬停"："释放并悬停 "或 "投掷并平衡"。请注意，我们选择不使用这些可安全触摸的商用无人机，而是建造了一个可拆卸的保护笼。这样，我们就可以在两种条件下使用相同的无人机，只需将保护笼从安全无人机上取下即可。此外，这些商用无人机的外形表明，制造商在设计这些无人机时所考虑的互动范围有限。有了定制的安全触摸无人机，我们就可以探索更广泛的触摸互动。

Gesture-based human-drone interaction techniques have been explored in the past [11, 14, 16]. Safe-to-touch drones, however, motivate the exploration of new forms of human-drone interaction that involve direct touch and manipulation. For example, HoverBall is a ball-shaped quadcopter that can hover and change its behavior and location as needed [15]. Drones have also been considered as ungrounded encountered-type haptic feedback devices in virtual reality . BitDrones are nano-quadcopters that are used as a form of programmable matter [8]. Gomes et al. present various input techniques for BitDrones, such as touching, dragging, throwing, and resizing [8]. These applications use direct touch as a means of interacting with drones; however, due to the absence of an evaluation, it is unclear if users feel comfortable touching the drones and whether touch is a viable interaction modality.
过去曾探索过基于手势的人机交互技术[11, 14, 16]。然而，可安全触摸的无人机促使人们探索涉及直接触摸和操纵的新型人机交互方式。例如，HoverBall 是一种球形四旋翼飞行器，可以悬停并根据需要改变其行为和位置 [15]。在虚拟现实 中，无人机也被视为非接地的遭遇型触觉反馈设备。BitDrones 是一种纳米四旋翼飞行器，被用作一种可编程物质 [8]。Gomes 等人介绍了 BitDrones 的各种输入技术，如触摸、拖动、投掷和调整大小 [8]。这些应用使用直接触摸作为与无人机交互的手段；然而，由于缺乏评估，目前尚不清楚用户触摸无人机是否感到舒适，也不清楚触摸是否是一种可行的交互方式。

To find out whether or not users choose to touch safe drones and to realize how users naturally interact with them, we replicated, with few modifications, the WoZ elicitation study suggested by Cauchard et al. [3]. Participants were told that the drone is autonomous and that they can utilize any interaction method they choose to complete a set of tasks. No suggestions were given on how to inform the drone to complete these tasks. Throughout the study, the experimenter controlled the drone with a remote, while standing behind the participant. This WoZ technique enabled the simulation of the drone's reaction to user-defined interaction methods. We designed a between-subjects study, with one group interacting with an unsafe drone (control condition) and the other group interacting with a safe-to-touch done. Each participant was presented with 12 tasks: take off, land, fly higher, fly lower, fly closer, fly further away, fly sideways, follow me, stop following, stop by me, get attention, and take
为了弄清用户是否选择触摸安全无人机，并了解用户与无人机的自然交互方式，我们复制了 Cauchard 等人[3]提出的 WoZ 激发研究，并做了一些修改。参与者被告知无人机是自主的，他们可以使用自己选择的任何交互方式来完成一系列任务。至于如何通知无人机完成这些任务，实验人员没有给出任何建议。在整个研究过程中，实验者站在被试者身后，用遥控器控制无人机。这种 WoZ 技术可以模拟无人机对用户定义的交互方式的反应。我们设计了一项受试者之间的研究，其中一组与不安全的无人机进行交互（对照组），另一组与可安全触摸的无人机进行交互。每个参与者都会面临 12 项任务：起飞、着陆、飞高、飞低、飞近、飞远、侧飞、跟随我、停止跟随、停在我身边、引起注意、起飞。

Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive, Mobile, Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies, Vol. 1, No. 3, Article 34. Publication date: September 2017 .
ACM 交互、移动、可穿戴和泛在技术论文集》，第 1 卷，第 3 期，第 34 条。出版日期：2017 年 9 月 。

Fig. 1. Two sample cards for the "Take Off" task. Left: the safe-to-touch version. Right: the control version.
图 1.起飞 "任务的两张样卡。左：安全触摸版。右：控制版本。
selfie. The tasks were presented on a set of cards, with visuals depicting the state of the drone before and after completing the task, as shown in Figure 1. For all tasks, except take off, stop following, and stop by me, the drone started in a hovering position. Balanced Latin Square was used to randomize the order of tasks to minimize the effects of learning and fatigue.
自拍。如图 1 所示，任务显示在一组卡片上，并配有无人机在完成任务前后的视觉状态。在所有任务中，除了起飞、停止跟随和停在我身边之外，无人机一开始都处于悬停状态。平衡拉丁方阵用于随机安排任务顺序，以尽量减少学习和疲劳的影响。

24 participants were recruited ( 13 female, 10 male, 1 non-binary), ages 17 to from our institution and nearby companies. They were randomly placed in two groups of 12 , one group interacting with the safe-to-touch drone and the other with the unsafe drone. Participants had various levels of experience with drone control. Each person received a gift card for 45 minutes of their time.
我们从本机构和附近的公司招募了 24 名参与者（13 名女性、10 名男性、1 名非二元），年龄在 17 岁到 之间。他们被随机分为两组，每组 12 人，一组与安全触摸无人机互动，另一组与不安全无人机互动。参与者拥有不同程度的无人机控制经验。每个人都获得了一张 礼品卡，以换取45分钟的时间。

We used two Parrot AR Drones. For the safe-to-touch drone, we built a light-weight wooden (balsa, bamboo, and basswood) frame and used a clear Polypropylene mesh to prevent direct contact with the blades, as shown in Figure 2. To be consistent with previous studies, we conducted the experiment in a semi-secluded outdoor space.
我们使用了两架 Parrot AR 无人机。如图 2 所示，我们制作了一个轻质木制（轻木、竹子和椴木）无人机框架，并使用透明聚丙烯网来防止与叶片直接接触。为了与之前的研究保持一致，我们在半隐蔽的室外空间进行了实验。

Fig. 2. Left: the original AR Drone 2.0 used in the control condition. Right: the modified AR Drone 2.0 that is safe-to-touch.
图 2.左图：对照条件下使用的原始 AR 无人机 2.0。右图：可安全触摸的改良版 AR 无人机 2.0。

Three modifications were made to the original study (Drone & Me) conducted by Cauchard et al. [3]:
对 Cauchard 等人[3]进行的原始研究（无人机与我）进行了三处修改：
(1) The Drone & Me study consisted of 18 tasks with various levels of proximity. 5 of those tasks are categorized as "outside body frame", in which the drone is far from the user throughout the interaction. Similarly, in the "stop when flying" task the drone is not within arm's reach. We eliminated these 6 tasks from our study, as we did not expect to see any differences between the two conditions.
(1) "无人机与我 "研究包括 18 项不同接近程度的任务。其中 5 项任务被归类为 "体外框架"，即无人机在整个交互过程中远离用户。同样，在 "飞行时停止 "任务中，无人机也不在用户手臂可及的范围内。我们在研究中剔除了这 6 项任务，因为我们并不期望在两种条件下看到任何差异。
(2) In the study conducted by Cauchard et al., participants were informed about the WoZ and they found that this information did not affect the results. During our pilot studies, we found that in the safe-to-touch condition people were hesitant to touch the drone, because they were not certain if the experimenter could understand their intent when touching the drone. Therefore, we chose not to inform the participants about the WoZ. Similar to Drone & Me, we asked participants not to make any assumptions about the technical capabilities of the drone and to act in the manner that felt most natural.
(2）在 Cauchard 等人的研究中，参与者被告知了 WoZ 的信息，他们发现这一信息并没有影响研究结果。在我们的试验研究中，我们发现在安全触摸条件下，人们在触摸无人机时会犹豫不决，因为他们不确定实验者是否能够理解他们触摸无人机的意图。因此，我们选择不告知参与者有关 WoZ 的信息。与 "无人机与我 "类似，我们要求参与者不要对无人机的技术能力做出任何假设，并以感觉最自然的方式行事。

Table 1. Percentages of use of common interaction modalities.
表 1.使用常见互动模式的百分比。

(3) In the previous study, each task was presented on a card that included the title of the task as well as two sentences describing the before and after condition. In our study, we used visuals to represent the before and after state, as shown in Figure 1, to avoid verbally biasing the users' actions and to eliminate the effects of language barriers when performing the tasks.
(3) 在之前的研究中，每项任务都呈现在一张卡片上，卡片上包括任务标题以及描述前后状态的两句话。在我们的研究中，我们使用了视觉效果来表示前后状态，如图 1 所示，以避免用户在执行任务时出现语言偏差，并消除语言障碍的影响。

The data collected consisted of videos from two angles (one for measuring the distance between the participants and the drone, and the other for capturing interactions), transcripts and footage from post-task and post-experiment semi-structured interviews, and answers to the post-study questionnaires.
收集的数据包括两个角度的视频（一个角度用于测量参与者与无人机之间的距离，另一个角度用于捕捉互动）、任务后和实验后半结构式访谈的记录和片段，以及对研究后调查问卷的回答。

In total, 288 tasks were completed. We identified three common modalities: touch, gesture, and sound, as well as multi-modal interactions that combined these three. 11 tasks were completed with other modalities, such as body movements and facial expressions. Table 1 presents the percentage of use of common interaction modalities. Note that multi-modal interactions are counted in all corresponding columns; for example an interaction that used both touch and gesture is counted in "Touch", "Gesture", and "Touch & Gesture".
总共完成了 288 项任务。我们确定了三种常见的模式：触摸、手势和声音，以及结合这三种模式的多模式互动。有 11 项任务是通过其他方式完成的，如肢体动作和面部表情。表 1 列出了常用交互模式的使用比例。请注意，多模态交互被计入所有相应的栏目；例如，同时使用触摸和手势的交互被计入 "触摸"、"手势 "和 "触摸与手势"。

In the safe-to-touch condition, of interactions were touch-based; however, similar to the control condition, gesture was the most common modality. For touch, gesture, and sound, we found the proportion of modalities used in the safe-to-touch condition to be significantly different from the control condition using the G-test ( ). Compared to the control condition, participants in the safe-to-touch condition used touch-based interactions significantly more and gestures significantly less 0.01 ). Between the two conditions, there was no significant difference in the percentage of use for sound.
在 "安全接触 "条件下， 的互动是以触摸为基础的；然而，与对照组条件类似，手势是最常见的互动方式。通过 G 检验（ ），我们发现在 "安全接触 "条件下，触摸、手势和声音的使用比例与对照条件下有显著差异。与对照组条件相比，安全接触条件下的参与者使用触摸互动的比例明显更高 ，使用手势的比例明显更低 0.01 ）。在两种条件下，声音的使用比例没有显著差异。

The agreement scores for each task were calculated using the agreement rate equation for between-subjects elicitation studies [19], and the results are shown in Table 2. The agreement scores (in bold) indicate tasks in which the types of interactions were less varied within each modality. Note that cases in which only one participant used a modality resulted in an agreement score of 1.0, but those have not been bolded. In the safe-to-touch condition of touch-based interactions were in agreement and the average agreement score across all tasks was for touch interactions .
使用主体间诱导研究的一致率方程[19]计算了每项任务的一致得分，结果如表 2 所示。协议得分 （粗体）表示每种模态中互动类型差异较小的任务。请注意，在只有一名参与者使用一种模式的情况下，一致得分为 1.0，但这些情况没有用粗体表示。在 "安全触摸 "条件下， 的触摸互动是一致的，而所有任务中触摸互动 的平均一致分数为 。

In this section we discuss and compare touch-based interactions that occurred in the safe-to-touch and control conditions. We also identify a set of user-defined touch inputs based on our observations during the study.
在本节中，我们将讨论并比较在安全触摸和控制条件下发生的触摸互动。我们还将根据研究期间的观察结果，确定一组用户定义的触摸输入。
4.3.1 Safe-To-Touch Condition: of participants used touch as a means of interacting with the safe-to-touch drone and 61 touch interactions were performed across all tasks. We asked participants who touched the drone, why they chose touch as a means of interacting with the drone. Some stated that touch felt more natural to them: "Seemed more natural for me to just help the drone... sort of lift it up or push it down" [P4], while others said they thought touch interactions would be more clear: "Showing a hand movement is kind of ambiguous but if
4.3.1 安全触控条件： 的参与者使用触控作为与安全触控无人机互动的方式，在所有任务中进行了 61 次触控互动。我们询问了触摸无人机的参与者为何选择触摸作为与无人机互动的方式。一些人表示，触摸对他们来说感觉更自然：对我来说，帮助无人机......把它举起来或把它推下去似乎更自然"[P4]，而其他人则表示，他们认为触控交互会更清晰："显示手部动作有点模糊，但如果显示手部动作，就会更清晰"[P5]。

Drone Near Me: Exploring Touch-Based Human-Drone Interaction 34:5
我身边的无人机探索基于触摸的人机交互 34:5

Table 2. Agreement scores per modality for the safe-to-touch drone and the control condition.
表 2.安全触摸无人机和对照条件下每种模式的协议得分。

you have... a physical intervention with something... I can teach it... what I want it to do" [P12]. Clarity is an important advantage of touch-based interactions. Cultural differences influence gestures, as shown by E et al. [5], and voice commands are affected by language barriers; however, using direct touch and manipulation could be less ambiguous when instructing the drone. In the post-experiment interviews, of participants in the safe-to-touch condition indicated that they would feel comfortable touching the drone. From those who felt safe but chose not to touch the drone, some said that they were concerned about damaging the protective cage: "I didn't want to touch it cause I didn't wanna break it" [P7], and some stated that they had made assumptions about the capabilities of the drone: "I didn't know whether or not it would react to that! I didn't know if it had touch sensors" [P2].
你有......物理干预的东西......我可以教它......我想让它做什么"[P12]。清晰是触摸式互动的一个重要优势。正如 E 等人[5]所指出的，文化差异会影响手势，语音指令也会受到语言障碍的影响；但是，在指导无人机时，使用直接触摸和操作可以减少歧义。在实验后的访谈中， 安全触摸条件下的参与者表示，他们会对触摸无人机感到舒适。在那些感到安全但选择不触摸无人机的人中，有些人说他们担心会损坏保护笼："我不想碰它，因为我不想弄坏它"[P7]，还有一些人表示，他们对无人机的性能有所假设："我不知道它是否会有反应！我不知道它是否有触摸传感器"[P2]。
4.3.2 Control Condition: Two touch interactions were performed by two different participants ( ) in the control condition. Both interactions were during the "Take Off" task (the blades were not rotating in the before condition) and for safety reasons, the experimenter controlling the drone chose not to take off. This may have discouraged the two participants from using touch-based interactions in the following tasks. Note that Touch interactions with unsafe drones were also observed by Cauchard et al. [3] and E et al. [5]. When asked why they touched the drone, one participant said: "I tried to pick it up because I just wasn't entirely sure what the task was asking for" [P13]. This uncertainty about how to interact with the unsafe drone also manifested itself in the results of the post-study questionnaire (5-point Likert scale). The participants in the control condition found interacting with the drone significantly more mentally demanding (Mann-Whitney ). of the participants in the control condition indicated that the task was mentally demanding, compared to in the safe-to-touch condition.
4.3.2 对照条件：在控制条件下，两名不同的参与者（ ）进行了两次触摸交互。这两次互动都是在 "起飞 "任务中进行的（起飞前状态下叶片没有旋转），出于安全考虑，控制无人机的实验人员选择了不起飞。这可能会影响这两名参与者在接下来的任务中使用触摸互动。请注意，Cauchard 等人[3]和 E 等人[5]也观察到了与不安全无人机的触摸互动。当被问及为何触摸无人机时，一名参与者说"我试着把它捡起来，因为我不太确定任务的要求是什么"[P13]。这种对如何与不安全的无人机进行互动的不确定性也体现在研究后问卷调查（5 点李克特量表）的结果中。在对照组条件下，参与者发现与无人机互动对精神的要求明显更高（Mann-Whitney ）。在对照组条件下， 的参与者表示这项任务对精神的要求很高，而在安全触摸条件下， 的参与者则表示这项任务对精神的要求很高。
4.3.3 User-Defined Touch Inputs: By analyzing all touch interactions, we identified 8 different types of userdefined touch inputs, as shown in Figure 3: 2-handed frame side grasp ( 31 interactions), 1-handed core grasp (10), 1-handed frame side grasp (8), 2-handed top pinch (6), 1-handed core push (3), 1-handed frame top push (1), 2-handed frame side push (1), and 2-handed frame top push (1). Note that the affordances of the safe-to-touch drone inform the types of user-defined interactions and the touch inputs listed here are just provided as an example. A safe-to-touch drone with a different form, such as a sphere or a cube, would have led to a different set of touch interactions.
4.3.3 用户定义的触摸输入：通过分析所有触控交互，我们确定了 8 种不同类型的用户定义触控输入，如图 3 所示：双手框架侧面抓取（31 次交互）、单手核心抓取（10 次）、单手框架侧面抓取（8 次）、双手顶部夹持（6 次）、单手核心推动（3 次）、单手框架顶部推动（1 次）、双手框架侧面推动（1 次）和双手框架顶部推动（1 次）。请注意，安全触控无人机的承受能力决定了用户定义的交互类型，这里列出的触控输入只是一个示例。如果安全触控无人机的形状不同，如球体或立方体，则会产生不同的触控交互。

Fig. 3. Examples of different touch interactions observed during the study. Top row showing one-handed interactions (from left to right): core grasp, frame top push, frame top grasp, and core push. Bottom row showing two-handed interactions (from left to right): frame side push, top pinch, frame side grasp, frame top push.
图 3.研究过程中观察到的不同触摸互动示例。上排显示单手互动（从左到右）：核心抓取、框架顶推、框架顶抓和核心推。下一行显示双手互动（从左到右）：框架侧推、顶捏、框架侧抓、框架顶推。

Across all tasks, on average the minimum distance between the participants and the safe-to-touch drone ( ) was less than the minimum distance in the control condition ; we found this difference to be significant . Moreover, in the safe-to-touch condition all participants interacted with the drone in their intimate space ( ) [9], compared to in the control condition.
在所有任务中，参与者与安全接触无人机之间的最小距离（ ）平均小于对照组条件下的最小距离（ ）；我们发现这一差异显著（ ）。此外，在安全触摸条件下，所有参与者都在自己的私密空间与无人机进行了互动（ ）[9]，而在对照条件下则为 。

When asked about safety, on a 5-point Likert scale, of participants in the safe-to-touch condition and in the control condition indicated that they felt safe when interacting with the drone (Mann-Whitney : 97.0, ns). In the post-study interviews for the safe-to-touch condition, participants also said that they felt safe around the drone: "There wasn't anything the drone could have really like done to me" [P1]. One participant drew an analogy between the safe-to-touch drone and a cardboard box: "It was somewhat like handling a cardboard box around the edges, so it definitely felt very safe" [P11]. Even those who did not choose to touch the safe drone said that they felt safe because of the protective cage: "The meshing, I didn't worry about the drone getting too close to me" [P7].
当被问及安全问题时，在 5 点李克特量表上，安全触摸条件下的 参与者和对照条件下的 参与者表示，他们在与无人机互动时感到安全（Mann-Whitney : 97.0, ns）。在安全触摸条件下的研究后访谈中，参与者也表示他们在无人机周围感到安全："无人机不会对我做任何事情"[P1]。一位参与者将 "安全触摸 "无人机与纸箱进行了类比："它的边缘有点像纸箱，所以绝对感觉非常安全"[P11]。即使那些没有选择触摸安全无人机的人也说，由于有保护笼，他们感觉很安全："我不担心无人机离我太近"[P7]。

Similar to previous studies , interaction metaphors were observed. Some participants compared the drone to a pet or a dog: "I used my hands like I would with a dog or something!" [P2], "I used a lot of hand and arm gestures that I would normally use I think with a pet" [P15]. Others drew an analogy to interacting with a person: "I just figured I would do whatever I would do to... tell a person what to do" [P14]. Participants also complimented the drone by saying "nice" or "good job". When asked why they did so, they said: "To complement it. You know? It did it! It was kind of cute, so I thought I'll tell it good job" [P3].
与之前的研究 类似，我们也观察到了交互隐喻。一些参与者将无人机比作宠物或狗：我就像对待狗或其他东西一样使用我的双手！"[P2]，"我使用了很多平常使用的手势和臂势。[P2]，"我用了很多手和手臂的动作，我想我通常会用这些动作来和宠物互动"[P15]。其他人则将其比喻为与人互动："我只是想，我会做我要做的......告诉一个人该做什么"[P14]。与会者还用 "不错 "或 "干得好 "来称赞无人机。当被问及为什么这样做时，他们说"补充一下。你知道吗？它做到了！它有点可爱，所以我想我要对它说'干得好'"[P3]。

The goal of this study was to learn whether or not users feel comfortable touching safe drones and if they naturally choose touch as a means of interacting with these drones. The form of the safe-to-touch drone that we built had an impact on the user-defined touch interactions that we observed. A more thorough analysis, with different safe-to-touch drone designs, is needed to identify the most suitable form factor as well as the preferred type of touch-based interactions. Moreover, in our study, the custom-built cage of the safe-to-touch drone may have contributed to a lower number of touch-based interactions. We observed that some participants were hesitant to touch the drone, as they felt they might break or damage the protective cage. In future studies, a well constructed cage with a different material, such as carbon fiber, may lead to more accurate results.
本研究的目的是了解用户在触摸安全无人机时是否感到舒适，以及他们是否会自然选择触摸作为与这些无人机互动的方式。我们制作的安全触摸无人机的形式对我们观察到的用户定义的触摸互动有影响。我们需要对不同的安全触控无人机设计进行更深入的分析，以确定最合适的外形尺寸以及首选的触控交互类型。此外，在我们的研究中，"安全触控 "无人机的定制笼子可能也是导致触控交互次数减少的原因之一。我们注意到，一些参与者在触摸无人机时有些犹豫，因为他们觉得自己可能会弄坏或损坏保护笼。在今后的研究中，使用不同材料（如碳纤维）的精心制作的笼子可能会得到更准确的结果。

As personal drones have gained in popularity, public safety has become a serious concern. To address this, commercial drones have been moving towards a safe-to-touch design. These safe drones afford new forms of touch-based human-drone interactions. However, it is unclear if users would touch these drones and what the most natural way of interacting with them is. We replicated a WoZ elicitation study with a few modifications, to understand how people naturally interact with safe-to-touch drones. We built a safe-to-touch drone and ran a between-subjects study with 24 participants. We found that in the safe-to-touch condition, of participants touched the drone and of all interactions were touch-based. Interacting with the safe-to-touch drone was reported to be significantly less mentally demanding than the unsafe drone, and majority of users ( ) reported that they felt safe while interacting with it.
随着个人无人机的普及，公共安全已成为一个严重问题。为了解决这个问题，商用无人机已经开始采用安全触摸设计。这些安全无人机提供了基于触摸的人机交互新形式。然而，目前还不清楚用户是否会触摸这些无人机，以及与无人机互动的最自然方式是什么。我们复制了 WoZ 诱导研究，并做了一些修改，以了解人们如何与安全触控无人机进行自然互动。我们制作了一架 "安全触摸 "无人机，并对 24 名参与者进行了主体间研究。我们发现，在安全触摸条件下， 的参与者触摸了无人机， 的所有互动都是基于触摸的。据报告，与 "安全触摸 "无人机进行互动对精神的要求明显低于不安全的无人机，大多数用户（ ）表示，他们在与无人机互动时感到安全。

[1] Aerotain.Com. 2017. AEROTAIN: World's Safest Drone for Live Entertainment. (2017). Retrieved May 15, 2017 from http://www. aerotain.com/
[1] Aerotain.Com。2017.AEROTAIN：世界上最安全的现场娱乐无人机。(2017).2017 年 5 月 15 日从 http://www 检索。aerotain.com/.
[2] Amazon. 2017. Amazon Prime Air. (2017). Retrieved May 15, 2017 from https://www.amazon.com/primeair
[2] Amazon.2017.Amazon Prime Air.(2017).2017年5月15日检索自https://www.amazon.com/primeair
[3] Jessica R. Cauchard, Jane L. E, Kevin Y. Zhai, and James A. Landay. 2015. Drone & Me: An Exploration into Natural Human-drone Interaction. In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International foint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp '15). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 361-365. https://doi.org/10.1145/2750858.2805823
[3] Jessica R. Cauchard、Jane L. E、Kevin Y. Zhai 和 James A. Landay。2015.Drone & Me: An Exploration into Natural Human-drone Interaction.In Proceedings of the 2015 ACM International foint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing (UbiComp '15).ACM, New York, NY, USA, 361-365.https://doi.org/10.1145/2750858.2805823
[4] DJI. 2017. DJI Mavic Pro. (2017). Retrieved May 15, 2017 from http://www.dji.com/
[4] 大疆创新。2017.DJI Mavic Pro.(2017).2017年5月15日检索自http://www.dji.com/
[5] Jane L. E, Ilene L. E, James A. Landay, and Jessica R. Cauchard. 2017. Drone & Wo: Cultural Influences on Human-Drone Interaction Techniques. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '17). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 6794-6799. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025755
[5] Jane L. E、Ilene L. E、James A. Landay 和 Jessica R. Cauchard.2017.Drone & Wo：人机交互技术的文化影响》。In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '17).ACM, New York, NY, USA, 6794-6799.https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025755
[6] Flyability.Com. 2017. Flyability: Safe Drones for Inaccessible Places. (2017). Retrieved May 15, 2017 from http://www.flyability.com/
[6] Flyability.Com。2017.Flyability：为无法到达的地方提供安全的无人机。(2017).从 http://www.flyability.com/ 检索，2017 年 5 月 15 日。
[7] Gofleye.Com. 2017. Fleye: Your Personal Flying Robot. (2017). Retrieved May 15, 2017 from http://gofleye.com/
[7] Gofleye.Com。2017.Fleye：您的私人飞行机器人。(2017).2017年5月15日检索自http://gofleye.com/.
[8] Antonio Gomes, Calvin Rubens, Sean Braley, and Roel Vertegaal. 2016. BitDrones: Towards Using 3D Nanocopter Displays As Interactive Self-Levitating Programmable Matter. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 770-780. https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858519
[8] Antonio Gomes、Calvin Rubens、Sean Braley 和 Roel Vertegaal。2016.BitDrones：将三维纳米直升机显示器作为交互式自浮动可编程物质。In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16).ACM, New York, NY, USA, 770-780.https://doi.org/10.1145/2858036.2858519
[9] Edward T. Hall. 1966. The Hidden Dimension. Anchor, Garden City, NY.
[9] Edward T. Hall.1966.The Hidden Dimension.Anchor, Garden City, NY.
[10] Pascal Knierim, Thomas Kosch, Valentin Schwind, Markus Funk, Francisco Kiss, Stefan Schneegass, and Niels Henze. 2017. Tactile Drones - Providing Immersive Tactile Feedback in Virtual Reality Through Quadcopters. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference
[10] Pascal Knierim、Thomas Kosch、Valentin Schwind、Markus Funk、Francisco Kiss、Stefan Schneegass 和 Niels Henze。2017.触觉无人机--通过四旋翼飞行器在虚拟现实中提供身临其境的触觉反馈。2017年CHI大会论文集