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

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 perfor-
mance 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 appli-
cations and user populations split menus perform significantly better. We find this
technique in the Microsoft Windows XP Start menu, where recently used applica-
tions 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