think-cell technical report TC2003/01 A GUI-based Interaction ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

3.1 User Interfaces for Layout Specification STATE OF THE ART objects. Examples include the specification of abstract constraints, text and color formatting options, and special settings for complex elements like charts. This functionality must be handled by menus. Boritz [Bor90] provides an overview of traditional menu techniques (and a title for this section). Figure 7: A pie menu as seen in The Sims from Maxis (screenshot from [Hop]) Pie Menus and Variations A particularly interesting variant of the traditional linear menus are pie menus. In pie menus, the menu items are laid out in a circular fashion around the current mouse pointer location. The distance for the mouse pointer to travel in order to select a menu item is equal for all items, and is almost minimal. The responsive areas of menu items in a pie menu have the shape of a wedge. They are especially easy to hit, because with increasing distance from the pie center the wedge grows much larger than traditional menu items. Callahan and Shneiderman [CHWS88] were among the first to compare the performance of pie menus and linear menus. They found a statistically significant difference between menu type performance. Users were approximately 15 % faster with the pie menus and errors were less frequent than with linear menus. Hopkins [Hop91, Hop] took the pie menu concept and implemented pie menus for a range of widely used applications, including the game The Sims (see Fig. 7). Pie menus for the Mozilla web browser [OR] are another prominent example. The pie menu concept was broadened by the notion of marking menus. Marking menus refer to an invisible pie menu that allows menu item selection by drawing marks in different angles. Marking menus are non-obtrusive in the sense that they 26
3.1 User Interfaces for Layout Specification STATE OF THE ART Principle Refinements “Maintain visual context” • Display only the labels (no backgrounds) • Violate geometric layout of pie wedges • Make labels symmetric “Hide unnecessary information” • Hide parent menus “Support skill development using • Use eight menu items graphical feedback” • Use compass star with menu center • Show idealized marks Figure 8: Design refinements on marking menus as suggested by Tapia and Kurtenbach [TK95] (annotated) do not cover the visual context of an interaction. Yet, they are easy to learn, because not drawing a mark, triggers a normal pie menu as a reminder of the menu item layout. Kurtenbach and Buxton [KB94] studied user learning and performance with marking menus and concluded that marking menus are a very effective interaction technique, as long as the list of items does not dynamically change. They suggested that marking menus would be an appropriate technique for user interaction in many popular software such as Microsoft Word. Based on existing implementations of marking menus, Tapia and Kurtenbach [TK95] suggested some refinements and principles on the appearance and behavior of marking menus (Fig. 8). Friedlander et al. [FSM98] suggest another variation, which they call bullseye menu: A bullseye menu is a series of concentric circles divided into sectors. The effect being, the wedges of the normal pie menu are further divided so that more menu items can be presented in a single menu. Other Menu Types A great deal of research has gone into different ways to enhance traditional menus. Cornelison [Cor] as well as Sears and Shneiderman [SS94] compared user performance for static menus with performance for split menus, which group frequently used items in a dynamic section of the item list. They found that for specific applications and user populations split menus perform significantly better. We find this technique in the Microsoft Windows XP Start menu, where recently used applications are presented first. Guimbretière and Winograd [GW00] developed a concept they call FlowMenu, which effectively is a hierarchical pie menu with submenus shown in the same place like the parent menu. Multiple stage menu selections can be performed in one interaction, allowing the use of a non-visible menu similar to marking menus. That same idea is pursued by Pook et al. [PLVB00] who present what they call control menus. In this case, a single gesture suffices to select an operation and make a choice from a continuum of possibilities, such as selecting the zoom option first and then setting the desired zoom factor. All menus that have a visual representation have in common that the user must divide her attention between the context of her work and the menu layout. Harrison et al. tried to reduce the distraction that stems from visual interference between the 27
Page 1 and 2: think-cell technical report TC2003/
Page 3 and 4: Contents List of Figures 5 1 Introd
Page 5 and 6: List of Figures 1 The consultant’
Page 7 and 8: 1 Introduction INTRODUCTION “Layo
Page 9 and 10: 2 Field Study FIELD STUDY Jeff Hawk
Page 11 and 12: 2.1 Qualitative Aspects FIELD STUDY
Page 19 and 20: 2.2 Quantitative Aspects FIELD STUD
Page 25: 3 State of the Art STATE OF THE ART
Page 29 and 30: 3.2 Computer Supported Layout STATE
Page 31 and 32: 3.2 Computer Supported Layout STATE
Page 33 and 34: 3.3 State of the Art - Résumé STA
Page 35 and 36: 4.1 A New Approach to Slide Layout
Page 43 and 44: 4.2 Interaction Toolbox INTERACTION
Page 53 and 54: 4.3 Specifying the User Interface I
Page 69 and 70: 5 Implementation IMPLEMENTATION The
Page 71 and 72: 5.1 Program Architecture IMPLEMENTA
Page 77 and 78:
5.2 An Application of Dynamic Progr
Page 79 and 80:
Page 81 and 82:
Page 83 and 84:
6 Evaluation EVALUATION In this cha
Page 85 and 86:
6.2 Case Study EVALUATION presented
Page 87 and 88:
6.2 Case Study EVALUATION AÖGHKÖ
Page 89 and 90:
7.2 Résumé CONCLUSION User Studie
Page 91 and 92:
References REFERENCES [Adoa] Adobe
Page 93 and 94:
REFERENCES [Hur78] A. Hurlburt. The
show all

think-cell technical report TC2003/01 A GUI-based Interaction ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?