HELLOARROW

Navigation System for Smooth Rendezvous using Compass Interface

Ryutaro Motora

Graduate School of Media and Governance, Keio University, Minato, Tokyo, Japan

Fumito Higuchi, Michiaki Yasumura

Faculty of Environment and Information Studies, Keio University, Minato, Tokyo, Japan

Keywords:

Location-based service, Navigation, Mobile, Rendezvous, Compass.

Abstract:

In the days before cellphones, we have to wait at a ﬁxed point for the partner till he or she comes. But now it

does not matter where we spend a time till he or she comes, thanks for cellphones. Moreover we can leave a

friend who is late, because cellphones helps their catching us up. Therefore it saves our frustration for waiting

the partner and decreases a messy search for landmarks. But a new problem comes up. It is bothersome that

looking for the partner, who is in unknown position, using only by cellphone. In this research, we propose and

prototype a dynamic navigation system which leads directly from a movable user’s point to another movable

user’s point using HelloArrow, the intuitive compass interface for comfortable smooth meeting.

1 INTRODUCTION

Cellphones have been indispensable for our ren-

dezvous today. Thanks for them, we do not have to

wait a partner at a ﬁxed point. We can spend a time

wherever we want till he or she comes or depart little

earlier without waiting. Therefore it saves our frus-

tration for waiting and decreases a messy search for

landmarks (Hirano, 2004). However, it is tough to

ﬁnd a partner by cellphone call. In this paper we

explain HelloArrow, a navigation system for smooth

rendezvous.

2 HELLOARROW

In this chapter, we explain the dynamic navigation

system and the compass interface that are the char-

acteristic of this system, with comparing our system

with existing system.

2.1 The Dynamic Navigation

Most of existing systems lead users toward a ﬁxed

point(Soga and Kakumoto, 2008). We call them the

indirectly navigation system. On the other hand, our

system leads users toward each users. We call this the

dynamic navigation system. It is possible to move

without depending on landmarks with this system.

Moreover, it is not necessary to make a database of

point.

2.2 The Compass Interface

Most of existing system uses a map (Machi Pittan).

However it is difﬁcult to read a map while looking

for a rendezvous partner and landmarks, and telling a

partner his or her own point. Especially in an unfamil-

iar place, it is tough to ﬁgure out the current position,

direction and distance. Therefore we propose the in-

terface consists of the compass which always points a

rendezvous partner.

3 PROTOTYPING

We explain the prototyping of HelloArrow in the

chapter.

3.1 Device

We use Nexus One which is a smartphone powered

by Google Android. We developed the system on the

Android SDK2.1 with JAVA1.6 and PHP5.2.

273

Motora R., Higuchi F. and Yasumura M. (2011).

HELLOARROW - A Navigation System for Smooth Rendezvous using Compass Interface.

In Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Pervasive and Embedded Computing and Communication Systems, pages 273-276

DOI: 10.5220/0003366202730276

 SciTePress

3.2 System Architecture

Each users have a smartphone for this system. Each

device gets the location and orientation. Then they

exchange data through the data server. After getting

the both own data and partner’s data, the system com-

putes the distance and angle for the target. Finally, it

shows the compass interface on the display.

3.3 User Interface

Figure 1 shows the interface of this system. There is

the compass on the center of the display and there is

the numerical value of distance above the compass. In

addition while the device is turning in a correct direc-

tion, the device vibrates.

Hello

Figure 1: User Interface

4 EXPERIMENT

In this chapter, we explain about the two experiments

that we have done. We focused on the compass in-

terface in the Experiment 1. Then we focused on the

dynamic navigation in the Experiment 2.

4.1 Experiment 1: About Compass

Interface

Experiment Objective and Experimental Outline:

The goal of the Experiment 1 is ﬁguring out the

effectiveness of the compass interface. In the ﬁrst

part of the experiment, experimenter led examinee by

cellphone call, as the current rendezvous style. Then

in the latter part of the experiment experimenter led

him or her with our system HelloArrow, the style

we propose. After that we compared both result. In

addition we have done preliminary experiments and

questionary investigation to ﬁgure out locality and

a sense of direction of examinees. Details of each

experiment are described as follows.

Experimental Period: 12/5/2009 (Tue.) - 12/22/2009

(Fri.) (All days ﬁne)

Experimental Area: The Shonaidai station,

Fujisawa-shi, Kanagawa, Japan

Examinee: 20-years-old from 23 twenty-four univer-

sity students (male:12 female:12)

Details:

(1) Experiment 1

: The goal of the Experiment 1

is ﬁguring out the effectiveness of the compass

interface. In the ﬁrst part of Experiment 1, the

experimenter led examinee by cellphone call, as the

current rendezvous style. While navigating examine

we show examinee only landmarks. If we were asked

the way, we tell him or her only landmarks to the

target. For the sake of expedience, after telling how

the experimenter walked behind the examinee to do

various measurements and the action observations. In

the latter part of Experiment 1 the experimenter led

examinee with HelloArrow, as the style we propose.

(2) Preliminary Experiments for Locality

: Every

examinee draws a map, range of 300m around the

Shonandai station, by surprise before starting the

main experiment to ﬁgure out his or her locality. We

count the number of road, landmark and mistake

on the map examinee had drawn in a 4 minute. We

considered that the examinee had sense of locality

with a good grade.

(3) Sub Experiments for Sense of Direction

: We did

sub experiments between the ﬁrst part of experiment

and the latter part of experiment to ﬁgure out him or

her sense of direction. First we showed examinee

a white map of Shonandai(1/1500) and tell him or

her to point the current position on the map. Then

we showed him or her the display of HelloArrow

of which compass interface points the point and

tells him or her to point the point on the map. We

measured time and correction. We considered that the

examinee had sense of direction with a good grade.

(4) Questionary Investigation

: We did questionary

investigation after the experiments to ﬁgure out how

they felt about both navigation. The question was

prepared for each item and answers were collected

by ﬁve stage evaluation of ”Do not think very so” (1)

to ”Think very so” (5).

4.2 Result of the Experiment 1

In the navigation experiment of experiment 1, all of

the 24 examinee succeeded in the navigation by the

cellphone and the navigation by HelloArrow.In the

item of ”Were you able to walk a natural speed?”,

PECCS 2011 - International Conference on Pervasive and Embedded Computing and Communication Systems

274

examinees who had answered as ”Thought very so”

and ”Think so” was 7% more abundant in the navi-

gation by HelloArrow. Then examinees who had an-

swered as ”Did not think very so” and ”Do not think

so” was 6% more abundant in the navigation by cell-

phone call.

Moreover, in the item of ”Did it become uneasy

in the direction on the way?”, examinees who had an-

swered as ”Did not think so” and ”Do not think very

so” exceeded 58% and the majorities by in the navi-

gation by HelloArrow. On the other hand, it was 46%

in the navigation by the cellphone call.

Figure 2: Were you able to walk a natural speed? (Top) Did

it become uneasy in the direction on the way? (Bottom).

4.3 Discussions of the Experiment 1

All 24 people succeed in walking, and we found that

the compass interface has potential. Though the navi-

gation by the cellphone call tends to be a little superior

in the walking rate and the item of ”Were you able to

walk a natural speed?” and ”Did it become uneasy

the direction?”, there are no signiﬁcant differences.

The result of t-test (signiﬁcance level 5%) were 0.17,

0.4 and 0.3. Therefore we compared the result of the

navigation by cellphone with the result of the navi-

gation by HelloArrow, in all result we had got, with

grouping sex, locality and sense of direction.

4.3.1 Comparison on Gender

At ﬁrst, we calculated average value by Gender.

It has been understood that male’s walking rates

were faster in the navigation both by cellphone call

and HelloArrow. Female felt more uneasiness in

the navigation by the cellphone call compared with

male. In addition, among female examinees, the

average of the answer to ﬁve stage of ”Did it become

uneasy the direction?” was 3.71 by cellphone and

2.86 by HelloArrow, ”Were you able to walk a

natural speed?” was 3.7 by cellphone and 3.86 by

HelloArrow. Navigation by HelloArrow was more

popular among the woman.

4.3.2 Comparison on Locality

Then we focused on a locality. We classiﬁed exami-

nees into higher group and lower group by using the

score of the preliminary experiment. Then we com-

pared the navigation by cellphone call and by Hel-

loArrow. However there are no signiﬁcant differences

in t-test (signiﬁcance level 5%). Therefore it has been

understood that locality does not inﬂuence walking.

According to the record of conversation in the

navigation by cellphone call, averages of the fre-

quency with the question are 2.8 times of the man,

and 4.3 times of female from the examinee side. And

averages of the number of landmarks, that appeared in

the conversation besides the experimenter prepared,

were 1.2 (males) and 2.1 (females). In the experi-

ment, the experimenter was perfect for the experimen-

tal area and lead examinees accurately. If both users

in a rendezvous do not have a locality, they can not

lead them each other and it may be smooth that using

HelloArrow.

4.3.3 Comparison on Sense of Direction

Lastly, we focused on a sense of direction. We clas-

siﬁed examinees into higher group and lower group

by using the score of the sub experiment. Then com-

pare the them as preceding clause. As a result, it has

been understood that the higher group leaves a good

record and a popular value either in the navigation by

cellphone and HelloArrow.

4.4 The Experiment 2: About the

Dynamic Navigation System

Experiment Objective and Experimental Outline:

The goal of the Experiment 2 is ﬁguring out the

effectiveness of the dynamic navigation system. We

have done experiments in 14 differently-structured

towns. In each town, two examinee had a rendezvous

using HelloArrow. While examinee tried to ﬁnd a

rendezvous partner, we record their walking speed,

route, behavior, frequency and length in which screen

is seen. In addition we have done interview and

questionary investigation after each experiment.

Experimental Period: 6/28/2010(Fri.) 9.00 - 20:00

(It rained from afternoon to the evening)

Experimental Area: We took place experiments in

14 differently-structured towns in Tokyo. All experi-

mental areas are 500m range.

Examinee: It has been understood that a locality does

not inﬂuence the navigation by HelloArrow and ex-

HELLOARROW - A Navigation System for Smooth Rendezvous using Compass Interface

275

aminees who are in higher group of a sense of di-

rection or male examinees tend to leave higher score

both in the navigation by cellphone and HelloArrow.

Therefore we picked up two female examinees in the

lower group of a sense of direction.

4.5 Result of the Experiment 2

In the navigation experiment of Experiment 2, exam-

inee succeeded their rendezvous in all of the 14 areas.

4.6 Discussion on Second Experiment

4.6.1 About the Upskilling

We classiﬁed the results into the ﬁrst half places and

the latter half places in order of the experiment. Then

we compare them with t-test (signiﬁcance level 5%).

It has been understood that the ratio in which screen

was seen at walking time decrease 35.5% to16% (0.03

of signiﬁcant difference) and time to put screen on

seeing once decrease 2.94 seconds to 1.75 seconds

(0.008 of signiﬁcant difference) And, we got com-

ments: ”To take shortest route it is better to keep

walking straight till the angle of the compass indi-

cates 90.”, ”The best way is to see compass ﬁrst then

see the value number to the target.” We could see ex-

aminees gripped the knack of the system, and the ap-

pearance in which it was skilled.

4.6.2 About the Length in which Screen is Seen

Then we focused on the length in which screen is

seen. We classiﬁed the results of the second experi-

ment into the times felt uneasy and the times felt easy

by using the questionary investigation.

The average of the halt frequency has increased

from 0.4 times to 1.6 times. And the average of the

frequency of turning back increased from 0.1 times

to 1.1 times. Then the average of the frequency in

which the screen is seen has increased from 17.7 to

24.6 times. However, it has been understood that the

time spent to see the screen once is both 2.7 seconds

and it doesn’t change. Ratio in which screen was seen

while walking is 34% examinee A and 18% examinee

B. However time to put screen once on seeing was

2.5 seconds examinee A and 2.3 seconds examinee B.

This shows that the examinees is instantaneously ob-

taining information from the HelloArrow in any case.

Using HelloArrow, we do not have to consider the

route as a map.

5 CONCLUSIONS

In this research, we propose and prototype a dynamic

Navigation System called HelloArrow for smooth

rendezvous using compass Interface. It is bothersome

to have a rendezvous with partner only by cellphone

call. Therefore, we propose HelloArrow which has

two characteristic way. The ﬁrst is the dynamic nav-

igation system that leads users toward a rendezvous

partner directly. The second is the compass inter-

face that consists of the compass which always point

a rendezvous partner. As the result of two experiment,

we conclude that HelloArrow is effective for our ren-

dezvous.

By the Experiment 1, we found two facts about

HelloArrow. The ﬁrst one is that HelloArrow is supe-

rior in terms of a sense of ease than current style es-

pecially for female or examinees who does not have

sense of direction very much. the one second is that

HelloArrow does not need locality. By the Experi-

ment 2, we found three facts about HelloArrow. The

ﬁrst one is that is possible to lead users in differently-

structured towns. The second one is that examinee

gain skills to ﬁnd a rendezvouspartner. The last one is

that examinees understand information on the screen

instantaneously that they can walk smoothly.

We are now developing system for rendezvous

with three or more people with improving algorithm

and user interface. And we also contended with the

way not to make unease users where GPS is insensi-

tive. Now, we would like to release HelloArrow as

an Android application to get many feedbacks to im-

prove the system.

REFERENCES

Hirano T., Ohmori N. and Harada N., 2004. Effects of Mo-

bile Phone Use on Meeting Appointment and Waiting

Behavior, JCSE vol.29

Soga M. and Kakumoto K., 2008. Proposal of Collaborative

Human Navigation for Support of Meeting, UBI

Machi Pittan. http://www.analog12.co.jp/news/

pr091005.php

PECCS 2011 - International Conference on Pervasive and Embedded Computing and Communication Systems

276