Tent Mode Interactions: Exploring Collocated Multi-User Interaction on a Foldable Device
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Foldable handheld displays have the potential to offer a rich interaction space, particularly as they fold into a convex form factor, for collocated multi-user interactions. In this paper, we explore Tent mode, a convex configuration of a foldable device partitioned into a primary and a secondary display, as well as a tertiary, Edge display that sits at the intersection of the two. We specifically explore the design space for a wide range of scenarios, such as co-browsing a gallery or co-planning a trip. Through a first collection of interviews, end-users identified a suite of apps that could leverage Tent mode for multi-user interactions. Based on these results we propose an interaction design space that builds on unique Tent mode properties, such as folding, flattening or tilting the device, and the interplay between the three sub-displays. We examine how end-users exploit this rich interaction space when presented with a set of collaborative tasks through a user study, and elicit potential interaction techniques. We implemented these interaction techniques and report on the preliminary user feedback we collected. Finally, we discuss the design implications for collocated interaction in Tent mode configurations.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.005 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.003 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.003 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.006 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".