Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 8 minor 55 references

Tangi: a Tool to Create Tangible Artifacts for Sharing Insights from 360$^\circ$ Video

T0 review · 3 major / 8 minor · reviewed 2026-08-12 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read A web tool converts 360° video frames into printable paper artifacts that support collaborative sense-making in design workshops, adding spatial orientation and detail-to-context linking.

desk verdict Useful tool paper with an overclaimed abstract: one-on-one reflection sessions are not evidence of collaborative workshops. read the letter →

arxiv 2411.10192 v1 pith:S4ISLRVW submitted 2024-11-15 cs.HC

Wo Meijer , Jacky Bourgeois , Tilman Dingler , Gerd Kortuem This is my paper · ORCID
classification cs.HC
keywords 360°VideoTangibleInteractionDesignEthnographyContextualInquiryBoundaryObjectsCollaborativeSense-MakingPaperArtifacts
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper argues that 360° video can be moved from the screen into collaborative design workshops by turning single frames into printable paper artifacts. The authors built Tangi, a web tool that converts equirectangular 360° frames into two classes of artifact: flat prints pairing an undistorted perspective view with a context mini-map, and sphere-ish cube or cuboctahedron cut-and-fold models that show the full spherical scene with modest distortion. In sessions with nine designers experienced with 360° video, the artifacts supported the pointing, rotating, annotating, and rearranging interactions that prior work identifies as essential to collaborative video analysis. The paper's new claims are two capabilities specific to 360°: artifacts give groups a shared spatial orientation in the spherical scene, and they let designers link a specific detail to the surrounding context. The authors present Tangi as an open-source starting point rather than a finished solution.

What carries the argument

The central object is the Tangible 360° Frame artifact, generated by Tangi from a single equirectangular 360° frame, the standard flat format that maps the spherical image onto a rectangle. It comes in two classes: the flat artifact, which combines an undistorted perspective screenshot of the area of interest with a mini-map showing the full spherical context and cartographic graticules (a grid of lines that gives coordinate information) to orient the crop within the sphere, and the sphere-ish artifact, a cut-and-fold template of a cube or cuboctahedron (a polyhedron with square and triangular faces) onto which the full frame is projected. The mechanism that carries the argument is the projection onto a polyhedral net: it moves spherical visual information into the tangible domain without the severe distortion of a flat equirectangular print, and its facets give collaborators a shared set of sides for orienting discussion.

What would settle it

Run real collaborative workshops with groups of three or more designers analyzing the same 360° video, half using Tangi artifacts and half using conventional flat screenshots or a shared VR view. If the Tangi teams show no systematic improvement in agreeing on spatial orientation and in linking details to the whole scene, or if groups ignore the facets and mini-map and treat the artifacts as flat images, the central claim fails.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

Tangi demonstrates that the spherical format of 360° video does not have to be abandoned when designers leave the screen. By projecting a frame onto either a flat composite print or a foldable polyhedron, the tool produces tangible artifacts that retain the full visual context of the 360° scene while keeping distortion low enough to work with. The evaluation with nine experienced designers found that the artifacts enable the tangible interactions used in collaborative video analysis, and two new functions unique to 360° content: orientation, using the facets and mini-map to agree on spatial relations and direction, and context-detail linking, connecting a specific element to the wider scene. Participants also modified the paper artifacts into meta-frame booklets, multi-cube timelines, and motion-overlay models, which the authors read as evidence that paper-based 360° artifacts act as emergent boundary objects that adapt to a team's needs.

Load-bearing premise

The load-bearing premise is that one-on-one reflection sessions with the lead researcher can stand in for real multi-person design workshops, so the interactions observed with nine designers predict how the artifacts will function when a team shares, points, and negotiates around them.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

  • Design teams can run collaborative sense-making on 360° video without VR headsets or special displays, using paper prints that support pointing, annotation, and rearrangement.
  • The two new capabilities, orientation and context-detail linking, give tangible 360° artifacts a distinct advantage over conventional storyboards for spatially complex scenes such as cycling, orchestral performance, or emergency training.
  • Because the artifacts are paper, designers can quickly cut, fold, and annotate them, allowing a workshop's artifacts to evolve into bespoke boundary objects rather than remaining fixed outputs.
  • Paper artifacts persist after a session, so they can serve as documentation that later teams or stakeholders can re-engage with.
  • Open-sourcing Tangi lets practitioners generate and share new artifact types, supporting a community-driven exploration of tangible 360° video artifacts.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • Beyond the paper's workshop framing, the orientation function suggests a testable use in multi-person training contexts, such as firefighter or medical instruction, where a group must agree on where in a 360° scene an event happened.
  • A natural next test is whether the two claimed capabilities survive in real multi-person workshops, since the evaluation was conducted one-on-one with the lead researcher acting as a design partner.
  • The participants' split reactions to the cube versus the cuboctahedron imply a measurable trade-off: cube artifacts may support faster detail-finding because they isolate single faces, while cuboctahedra may support a more holistic overview by inviting continuous rotation.
  • The design space the paper sketches, with spherical-flat and digital-tangible as axes, could serve as a coordinate system for classifying future artifact types beyond 360° video, such as tangible outputs from volumetric or panoramic recordings.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Signed reviews

No signed human review yet.

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 8 minor

Summary. This paper presents Tangi, a web-based tool that converts equirectangular 360° video frames into tangible paper artifacts, either as flat artifacts with a mini-map orientation aid or as foldable 'sphere-ish' polyhedra (cube and cuboctahedron). The authors motivate the tool by arguing that 360° video's spherical nature prevents designers from creating the tangible video artifacts (storyboards, frame clusters) that support collaborative sense-making in Video Design Ethnography. They describe a design space of 360° video artifacts, three design considerations, the tool implementation, and a qualitative evaluation with nine experienced designers in one-on-one sessions. The reported results include four themes: differences between artifact classes, two functions specific to tangible 360° artifacts (orientation and context-detail link), participants' extensions beyond single frames, and observations about tangibility and time. The paper claims that the evaluation demonstrates that Tangi's artifacts enable tangible interactions found in collaborative workshops and introduce two new capabilities.

Significance. If the central claims hold, Tangi addresses a real gap: it makes 360° video content amenable to paper-based artifacts, which prior work identifies as important for collaborative design analysis. The paper's strengths include a clear design-space framing, a working open-source tool with printable templates, and a qualitative study that documents experienced designers' reactions with quotes and artifact photos. The two candidate capabilities—orientation in 360° space and linking details to a broader context—are plausible and interesting. However, the evaluation design supports a more modest conclusion than the abstract states. Because the sessions were one-on-one reflections rather than observed group collaboration, and because the 'context-detail link' emerged only through participants' externally added annotations, the paper's strongest claims need to be scaled back or re-evidenced. The contribution remains useful as an exploratory tool study, but the current wording overstates what the data can demonstrate.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; §5.1; §5.2; §7.4] The abstract claims that the evaluation 'demonstrates that the artifacts Tangi creates enable tangible interactions found in collaborative workshops,' but the study did not observe collaborative workshops. As stated in §5.1, 'the 2 to 3 hour sessions were conducted one-on-one with a participant and the lead researcher,' and §5.2 describes the lead researcher demonstrating, sharing, and guiding reflection rather than multiple designers collaborating with one another. The 'tangible interactions' reported in §6 (pointing, rotating, annotating, arranging) appear as participants' descriptions or individual prototypes, not as observed multi-party behavior. The authors' own §7.4 limits the findings to 'a limited number of designers ... for a single session.' The verb 'demonstrates' therefore overstates the evidence; at most the study elicits designers' judgments about expected utility. I recommend reframing the central claim as providing initial evidence or suggesting potential, and explicitly distinguishing anticipated from observed collaborative interactions.
  2. [§6, F2; §6, M1; Abstract] The second claimed new capability, 'linking specific details to the broader 360° context,' is not directly attributable to the artifacts Tangi creates. In F2, the authors note that this linking function was 'missing in the sphere-ish artifacts,' and participants addressed the shortcoming by creating external booklets, flags, magnetic notes, QR-code stickers, and other meta-frame additions (M1). Thus the data show that unmodified Tangi artifacts leave this capability lacking, and that users invent supplementary attachments to achieve it. Attributing the capability to 'the artifacts Tangi creates' conflates the tool's output with participants' modifications. The paper should either reframe this as a design requirement that emerged from the study, or provide evidence that the base artifacts themselves support the context-detail link without modification.
  3. [§5.2; §5.3; §6] The evaluation was designed, facilitated, and analyzed by the same team that built Tangi, with the lead researcher acting as a 'fellow designer' and guiding participants through reflection. While this is common in exploratory HCI tool evaluations, it raises a risk that the two 'new capabilities' are partly researcher-led framings rather than independent discoveries. For instance, the reflective prompts in §5.2 explicitly ask about functions unique to 360° video, and the lead researcher demonstrated pre-assembled artifacts before eliciting reactions. The paper would be strengthened by acknowledging this interpretive risk, reporting the specific prompts used, and ideally including independent coding or member checking to support the claimed themes.
minor comments (8)
  1. [§5] The recruitment sentence is grammatically incomplete: 'We used snowball sampling to recruit participants (shown in Table 1) that to conduct a 2-3 hour in-person sessions...' should be rewritten.
  2. [§4] There is a duplicated word: 'both of which can can be quickly created with Tangi's online interface.'
  3. [§3.1] The sentence 'This tangibility also supports provides the practical benefits...' contains a typo ('supports provides').
  4. [§7.1] The phrase 'modify modify 360° video' contains a duplicated word.
  5. [§7.3.2] Typos: 'flexibilty' should be 'flexibility' and 'Therefor' should be 'Therefore.'
  6. [§4.1] 'orthagonal' should be 'orthogonal.'
  7. [Appendix B] Figure 10 is captioned 'geodesic octahedron artifact,' but the text consistently refers to the polyhedron as a 'cuboctahedron.' The caption and terminology should be made consistent.
  8. [Footnotes 2 and 4] The footnote text appears truncated and repeated: 'this term has been used by Ylirisku and Buur [51] to describe similar boundary objects made from video.' Should be cleaned up.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 0.0 of 10

No circular derivation: Tangi's claims rest on qualitative evaluation, and no load-bearing step reduces to its inputs or to a self-citation.

full rationale

This is an HCI tool paper rather than a formal derivation, so the circularity pass looks for self-definitional or self-citation-driven reductions. The paper builds a web tool, generates artifacts, and uses reflective sessions with nine designers. The main claims—that the artifacts are tangible, preserve 360° context, and support orientation and context-detail linking—are supported by participant quotes and session observations, not by equations or by fitting parameters to data. No prediction is derived from a fitted input; the two 'new capabilities' are reported as themes from the sessions, not encoded into Tangi's design by construction. The paper cites prior work by the same authors [30] for background and video selection, but that citation supports motivation rather than the claimed evaluation outcome, and the central evaluation evidence is the recorded sessions. Limitations of the evaluation—one-on-one sessions with the lead researcher, snowball sample, single sessions—are acknowledged in Section 7.4 and reduce the strength of the generalization, but they are not circularity; the observed data are not equivalent by construction to the paper's conclusions.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

This is a qualitative design study; no free parameters are fitted and no theoretical entities are postulated. The causal assumptions are domain assumptions about the value of tangible artifacts and about the generalizability of the evaluation.

assumptions (3)
  • domain assumption Tangible video artifacts are essential for collaborative video analysis in design ethnography
    Drawing on prior work (Buur et al., Lucero et al., Ylirisku & Buur), this motivates the design goals; it is not proven in this paper but accepted from the literature.
  • domain assumption Participants' self-reports during a single one-on-one session can evidence the utility of Tangi's artifacts in real collaborative workshops
    The evaluation was a single 2-3 hour session per participant, one-on-one with the lead researcher, yet the conclusion concerns collaborative workshop use.
  • domain assumption Snowball sampling produced a representative sample of designers experienced with 360-degree video
    Section 5 states snowball sampling; the sample of nine is treated as expert enough to judge utility, but representativeness is unclear.

how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Tangi: a Tool to Create Tangible Artifacts for Sharing Insights from 360$^\circ$ Video." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/S4ISLRVW

@misc{pith2026241110192,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Tangi: a Tool to Create Tangible Artifacts for Sharing Insights from 360$^\circ$ Video},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/S4ISLRVW}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2411.10192}
}
abstract

Designers often engage with video to gain rich, temporal insights about the context of users, collaboratively analyzing it to gather ideas, challenge assumptions, and foster empathy. To capture the full visual context of users and their situations, designers are adopting 360$^\circ$ video, providing richer, more multi-layered insights. Unfortunately, the spherical nature of 360$^\circ$ video means designers cannot create tangible video artifacts such as storyboards for collaborative analysis. To overcome this limitation, we created Tangi, a web-based tool that converts 360$^\circ$ images into tangible 360$^\circ$ video artifacts, that enable designers to embody and share their insights. Our evaluation with nine experienced designers demonstrates that the artifacts Tangi creates enable tangible interactions found in collaborative workshops and introduce two new capabilities: spatial orientation within 360$^\circ$ environments and linking specific details to the broader 360$^\circ$ context. Since Tangi is an open-source tool, designers can immediately leverage 360$^\circ$ video in collaborative workshops.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2411.10192 by the authors.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Printing out frames of 360° video leads to highly distorted artifacts (a) that make collaboration challenging. The artifacts generated by Tangi (b) enable designers to share, collaborate, annotate, and document insights from 360° video with minimal distortion. ABSTRACT Designers often engage with video to gain rich, temporal insights about the context of users, collaboratively analyzing it to gather ideas, challenge… view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. The difference in visual information of a frame when using conventional video and 360 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p002_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Examples of the elements of Video Artifacts that designers use or combine to document and share their insights [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p003_3.png] view at source ↗
Figures from the paper (7 more)
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: also shows how previous approaches of sharing 360° content fit into the design space. The first example is 3D Thumb￾nails [49] ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p004_4.png]
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: Examples of (A) 3D Thumbnails [49], (B) Little Planet [32], and (C) Route Tapestries [24]. can move around – thereby including the full context, but only when the interaction is digital. The second is the Little Planet pro￾jection ( [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p…
Figure 6
Figure 6. Figure 6: Examples of the two types of the Tangible 360 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_6.png]
Figure 7
Figure 7. Figure 7: The generator for sphere-ish artifacts, showing an [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_7.png]
Figure 8
Figure 8. Figure 8: Additional examples of artifacts created by participants that go beyond the “frame” artifacts used as the basis of the [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p008_8.png]
Figure 9
Figure 9. Figure 9: An example of the cube artifact generated by Tangi. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_9.png]
Figure 10
Figure 10. Figure 10: An example of the geodesic octahedron artifact generated by Tangi. [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p013_10.png]

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

55 extracted references · 33 canonical work pages

  1. [1]

    sizima soft . 2017. SAYA360. https://sizima.com/paper360/index_jp.html

    work page 2017

  2. [2]

    Hugh Beyer and Karen Holtzblatt. 1999. Contextual design. Interactions 6, 1 (Jan. 1999), 32–42. https://doi.org/10.1145/291224.291229

    work page arXiv 1999

  3. [3]

    Eva Brandt. 2007. How Tangible Mock-Ups Support Design Collaboration.Knowl- edge, Technology & Policy 20, 3 (Oct. 2007), 179–192. https://doi.org/10.1007/ s12130-007-9021-9

    work page 2007

  4. [4]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology 3, 2 (Jan. 2006), 77–101. https://doi.org/10. 1191/1478088706qp063oa

    2006

  5. [5]

    Virginia Braun and Victoria Clarke. 2022. Thematic analysis: a practical guide . SAGE, London ; Thousand Oaks, California. OCLC: on1247204005

    work page 2022

  6. [6]

    Jacob Buur, Thomas Binder, and Eva Brandt. 2000. Taking Video Beyond ’Hard Data’ in User Centered Design. In In Proceedings of Participatory Design Confer- ence. 21–29

    work page 2000

  7. [7]

    Jacob Buur, Euan Fraser, Soila Oinonen, and Max Rolfstam. 2010. Ethnographic video as design specs. In Proceedings of the 22nd Conference of the Computer- Human Interaction Special Interest Group of Australia on Computer-Human Inter- action (OZCHI ’10). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 49–56. https://doi.org/10.1145/1952222.1952235

    arXiv 2010

  8. [8]

    Jacob Buur and Astrid Soendergaard. 2000. Video card game: an augmented environment for user centred design discussions. In Proceedings of DARE 2000 on Designing augmented reality environments (DARE ’00). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA, 63–69. https://doi.org/10.1145/354666.354673

    arXiv 2000

Show all 55 references
  1. [9]

    Peter Dalsgaard, Kim Halskov, and Ditte Amund Basballe. 2014. Emergent boundary objects and boundary zones in collaborative design research projects. In Proceedings of the 2014 conference on Designing interactive systems . ACM, Vancouver BC Canada, 745–754. https://doi.org/10....

    2014

  2. [10]

    Jacob Davidsen, Dorthe Vinther Larsen, Lucas Paulsen, and Sten Rasmussen

  3. [11]

    Siu, Jennifer Healey, Curtis Wigington, Chang Xiao, and Tong Sun

    Mustafa Doga Dogan, Alexa F. Siu, Jennifer Healey, Curtis Wigington, Chang Xiao, and Tong Sun. 2023. StandARone: Infrared-Watermarked Documents as Portable Containers of AR Interaction and Personalization. In Extended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Co...

    2023

  4. [12]

    Stanley Donen. 1963. Charade

    1963

  5. [13]

    Kees Dorst and Judith Dijkhuis. 1995. Comparing paradigms for describing design activity. Design Studies 16, 2 (April 1995), 261–274. https://doi.org/10.1016/0142- 694X(94)00012-3

    1995 doi

  6. [14]

    Dan B Goldman, Brian Curless, David Salesin, and Steven M. Seitz. 2006. Schematic storyboarding for video visualization and editing. ACM Transactions Tangi on Graphics 25, 3 (July 2006), 862–871. https://doi.org/10.1145/1141911.1141967

    2006 arXiv

  7. [15]

    Shuqi He, Haonan Yao, Luyan Jiang, Kaiwen Li, Nan Xiang, Yue Li, Hai-Ning Liang, and Lingyun Yu. 2024. Data Cubes in Hand: A Design Space of Tangible Cubes for Visualizing 3D Spatio-Temporal Data in Mixed Reality. InProceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computi...

    2024

  8. [16]

    Philippe Hurbain. 2003. 3-D panorama printing: enter physical real- ity... https://web.archive.org/web/20030413190851/https://www.philohome. com/rhombicuboctahedron/rhombicuboctahedron.htm

    2003

  9. [17]

    Tero Jokela, Jarno Ojala, and Kaisa Väänänen. 2019. How people use 360-degree cameras. In Proceedings of the 18th International Conference on Mobile and Ubiqui- tous Multimedia. ACM, Pisa Italy, 1–10. https://doi.org/10.1145/3365610.3365645

    2019

  10. [18]

    Seung-Nam Kim and Hanwool Lee. 2022. Capturing reality: Validation of omnidirectional video-based immersive virtual reality as a streetscape qual- ity auditing method. Landscape and Urban Planning 218 (Feb. 2022), 104290. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.landurbplan.2021.104290

    2022

  11. [19]

    Jan Koenderink and Andrea van Doorn. 2017. The Planispheric Optic Ar- ray. i-Perception 8, 3 (June 2017), 2041669517705388. https://doi.org/10.1177/ 2041669517705388 Publisher: SAGE Publications

    2017

  12. [20]

    Kosko, Jennifer Heisler, and Enrico Gandolfi

    Karl W. Kosko, Jennifer Heisler, and Enrico Gandolfi. 2022. Using 360-degree video to explore teachers’ professional noticing. Computers & Education 180 (April 2022), 104443. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.compedu.2022.104443

    2022

  13. [21]

    Mark A. M. Kramer. 2022. Innovating Methods: Observing In Situ Tech- nology Experiences Using Novel Visual Research Methods. International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction 38, 3 (Feb. 2022), 253–262. https: //doi.org/10.1080/10447318.2021.1938388 Publisher: Taylor & Franc...

    2022

  14. [22]

    David Ledo, Steven Houben, Jo Vermeulen, Nicolai Marquardt, Lora Oehlberg, and Saul Greenberg. 2018. Evaluation Strategies for HCI Toolkit Research. In Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Montreal QC Canada, 1–17. https://doi.org...

    2018

  15. [23]

    L P Lee. 1944. The Nomenclature and Classification of Map Projections. Empire Survey Review 7, 50 (Jan. 1944), 190–200

    1944

  16. [24]

    Jiannan Li, Jiahe Lyu, Mauricio Sousa, Ravin Balakrishnan, Anthony Tang, and Tovi Grossman. 2021. Route Tapestries: Navigating 360 ° Virtual Tour Videos Using Slit-Scan Visualizations. In The 34th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology . ACM, Virtual Ev...

    2021

  17. [25]

    Zhengqing Li, Shio Miyafuji, Toshiki Sato, and Hideki Koike. 2016. OmniEyeball: Spherical Display Embedded With Omnidirectional Camera Using Dynamic Spherical Mapping. In Adjunct Proceedings of the 29th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST ’16 A...

    2016

  18. [26]

    Panagiotis Louridas. 1999. Design as bricolage: anthropology meets design thinking. Design Studies 20, 6 (Nov. 1999), 517–535. https://doi.org/10.1016/ S0142-694X(98)00044-1

    1999

  19. [27]

    Andrés Lucero, Peter Dalsgaard, Kim Halskov, and Jacob Buur. 2016. Designing with Cards. InCollaboration in Creative Design, Panos Markopoulos, Jean-Bernard Martens, Julian Malins, Karin Coninx, and Aggelos Liapis (Eds.). Springer Inter- national Publishing, Cham, 75–95. https...

    2016 doi

  20. [28]

    Radwa Mabrook and Jane B. Singer. 2019. Virtual Reality, 360° Video, and Journal- ism Studies: Conceptual Approaches to Immersive Technologies.Journalism Stud- ies 20, 14 (Oct. 2019), 2096–2112. https://doi.org/10.1080/1461670X.2019.1568203

    2019

  21. [29]

    MacEachren

    Alan M. MacEachren. 2004. How maps work: representation, visualization, and design (paperback edition ed.). Guilford Press, New York. http://catdir.loc.gov/ catdir/enhancements/fy0626/2005276848-t.html OCLC: 56039088

    2004

  22. [30]

    Wo Meijer, Jacky Bourgeois, Wilhelm Frederik van der Vegte, and Gerd Kortuem

  23. [31]

    Daniel Neubauer, Verena Paepcke-Hjeltness, Pete Evans, Betsy Barn- hart, and Tor Finseth. 2017. Experiencing Technology Enabled Empa- thy Mapping. The Design Journal 20, sup1 (July 2017), S4683–S4689. https://doi.org/10.1080/14606925.2017.1352966 Publisher: Routledge _eprint: ...

    2017

  24. [32]

    Cuong Nguyen, Stephen DiVerdi, Aaron Hertzmann, and Feng Liu. 2017. Vremiere: In-Headset Virtual Reality Video Editing. In Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Denver Colorado USA, 5428–5438. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025675

    2017

  25. [33]

    Nicolas Nova. 2014. Beyond design ethnography. SHS Publishing

    2014

  26. [34]

    Marza, Mihai- Octavian Botea, and Ovidiu A

    Alina Petrica, Diana Lungeanu, Alexandru Ciuta, Adina M. Marza, Mihai- Octavian Botea, and Ovidiu A. Mederle. 2021. Using 360-degree video for teaching emergency medicine during and beyond the COVID-19 pan- demic. Annals of Medicine 53, 1 (Jan. 2021), 1520–1530. https://doi. o...

    2021

  27. [35]

    Daniel Pimentel, Sri Kalyanaraman, Yu-Hao Lee, and Shiva Halan. 2021. Voices of the unsung: The role of social presence and interactivity in building empathy in 360 video. New Media & Society 23, 8 (Aug. 2021), 2230–2254. https://doi.org/ 10.1177/1461444821993124 Publisher: SA...

    2021 doi

  28. [36]

    Martin Porcheron, Leigh Clark, Stuart Alan Nicholson, and Matt Jones. 2023. Cyclists’ Use of Technology While on Their Bike. In Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems . ACM, Hamburg Germany, 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1145/3544548.3580971

    2023

  29. [37]

    Claudius Ptolemaeus. 1845. Geographia. Vol. 3. Tauchnitz

  30. [38]

    Tony Salvador, Genevieve Bell, and Ken Anderson. 1999. Design Ethnography. Design Management Journal (Former Series) 10, 4 (1999), 35–41. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1948-7169.1999.tb00274.x _eprint: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1111/j.1948-7169.1999.tb00274.x

    1999

  31. [39]

    Ayush Sarkar, Anh Nguyen, Zhisheng Yan, and Klara Nahrstedt. 2022. A 360- Degree Video Analytics Service for In-Classroom Firefighter Training. In 2022 Workshop on Cyber Physical Systems for Emergency Response (CPS-ER) . 13–18. https://doi.org/10.1109/CPS-ER56134.2022.00009

    2022

  32. [40]

    Paul Schlosser and Ben Matthews. 2022. Designing for Inaccessible Emergency Medical Service Contexts: Development and Evaluation of the Contextual Sec- ondary Video Toolkit. InProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI ’22) . Association ...

    2022

  33. [41]

    Donghee Shin. 2018. Empathy and embodied experience in virtual environment: To what extent can virtual reality stimulate empathy and embodied experience? Computers in Human Behavior 78 (Jan. 2018), 64–73. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. chb.2017.09.012

    2018 doi

  34. [42]

    Taufik Akbar Sitompul and Markus Wallmyr. 2019. Analyzing Online Videos: A Complement to Field Studies in Remote Locations. In Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2019 , David Lamas, Fernando Loizides, Lennart Nacke, Helen Petrie, Marco Winckler, and Panayiotis Zaphiris (Eds...

    2019 doi

  35. [43]

    Chareen Snelson and Yu-Chang Hsu. 2020. Educational 360-Degree Videos in Virtual Reality: a Scoping Review of the Emerging Research. TechTrends 64, 3 (May 2020), 404–412. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11528-019-00474-3 Company: Springer Distributor: Springer Institution: Springer L...

    2020 doi

  36. [44]

    Griesemer

    Susan Leigh Star and James R. Griesemer. 1989. Institutional Ecology, ’Transla- tions’ and Boundary Objects: Amateurs and Professionals in Berkeley’s Museum of Vertebrate Zoology, 1907-39. Social Studies of Science 19, 3 (1989), 387–420. https://www.jstor.org/stable/285080 Pub...

    1989

  37. [45]

    Matthew Tancik, Ben Mildenhall, and Ren Ng. 2020. StegaStamp: Invisible Hyperlinks in Physical Photographs. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.1904.05343 arXiv:1904.05343 [cs]

    2020 doi arXiv

  38. [46]

    Naoya Tojo, Tomoko Oto, and Sumaru Niida. 2021. How Ethnographic Practices Are Reconfigured with 360-degree Cameras. 115–122. https://doi.org/10.5220/ 0010639000003060

    2021

  39. [47]

    Phillip Vannini. 2020. The Routledge International Handbook of ethnographic film and video. Routledge

    2020

  40. [48]

    Anna Vatanen, Heidi Spets, Maarit Siromaa, Mirka Rauniomaa, and Tiina Keisa- nen. 2022. Experiences in Collecting 360° Video Data and Collaborating Remotely in Virtual Reality. QuiViRR: Qualitative Video Research Reports 3 (Sept. 2022), a0005–a0005. https://doi.org/10.54337/oj...

    2022 doi

  41. [49]

    Alissa Vermast and Wolfgang Hürst. 2023. Introducing 3D Thumbnails to Ac- cess 360-Degree Videos in Virtual Reality. IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics 29, 5 (May 2023), 2547–2556. https://doi.org/10.1109/ TVCG.2023.3247462 Conference Name: IEEE Transacti...

    2023

  42. [50]

    Ehinger, Aude Oliva, and Antonio Torralba

    Jianxiong Xiao, Krista A. Ehinger, Aude Oliva, and Antonio Torralba. 2012. Recognizing scene viewpoint using panoramic place representation. In 2012 IEEE Conference on Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition . 2695–2702. https: //doi.org/10.1109/CVPR.2012.6247991 ISSN: 1063-6919

    2012

  43. [51]

    Salu Pekka Ylirisku and Jacob Buur. 2007. Designing with Video: Focusing the user-centred design process . Springer Science & Business Media. https://link. springer.com/book/10.1007/978-1-84628-961-3

    2007 doi

  44. [52]

    Takehiko Yoshida. [n. d.]. How to use the PazuCraft. https://www.chihayafuru. jp/pazucraft/howtouse_en.html

  45. [53]

    Horn, Orit Shaer, and Robert J

    Jamie Zigelbaum, Michael S. Horn, Orit Shaer, and Robert J. K. Jacob. 2007. The tangible video editor: collaborative video editing with active tokens. In Pro- ceedings of the 1st international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction (TEI ’07). Association for Computing...

    2007

  46. [2022]

    Journal of Problem Based Learning in Higher Education 10, 1 (Oct

    360VR PBL: A New Format of Digital Cases in Clinical Medicine. Journal of Problem Based Learning in Higher Education 10, 1 (Oct. 2022). https://doi.org/ 10.54337/ojs.jpblhe.v10i1.7097 Number: 1

    2022 doi

  47. [2024]

    In Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (NordiCHI 2024)

    Sphere Window: Challenges and Opportunities of 360° Video in Collabora- tive Design Workshops.. In Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (NordiCHI 2024). Association for Computing Machinery, New York, NY, USA. https://doi.org/10.1145/3679318.3685407

    2024

Pith tools

Reviewed August 12, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.