1 / 61

Interaction Design Direct Manipulation

Interaction Design Direct Manipulation. Prof. Dr. Matthias Rauterberg Faculty Industrial Design Technical University Eindhoven g.w.m.rauterberg@tue.nl. 24-AUG-2005. Key references/literature:. D.J. Mayhew (1992) Principles and guidelines in software user interface design. Prentice Hall.

bryanne-kennedy
Download Presentation

Interaction Design Direct Manipulation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Interaction DesignDirect Manipulation Prof. Dr. Matthias Rauterberg Faculty Industrial Design Technical University Eindhoven g.w.m.rauterberg@tue.nl 24-AUG-2005

  2. Key references/literature: D.J. Mayhew (1992) Principles and guidelines in software user interface design. Prentice Hall. chapter 9: dialog styles - direct manipulation. ISO/FDIS 9241 (1997) Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs). Part 16: direct-manipulation dialogues. (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  3. Dimensions of interaction styles • Initiation • Degree to which initiation of the dialogue rests with the computer or the human user. • Dialogue flexibility • number of ways in which a user can perform given functions. • Degree of automation • Amount of work accomplished by the system in response to a single user command. • Complexity of action space • Number of different options available to the user at any given point in the dialogue. • Complexity of perception space • Degree to which the interactions absorbs the memory and reasoning power of the user. • Interaction style and user type [taken from Smith, 1997] (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  4. SketchPad, Ivan Sutherland, MIT, 1963 [Feel free to have a look at: The complete history of HCI] (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  5. First Mouse D. Engelbart & W. English, 1964 NLS, Douglas Engelbart, Stanford Research Institute, 1968 (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  6. Star, Xerox, 1981 (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  7. Lisa Desktop, Apple, 1982 (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  8. A Web Community, eBay, 1990s (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  9. The function space [taken from Rauterberg, M. (1996). An empirical validation of four different measures to quantify user interface characteristics based on a general descriptive concept for interaction points. Proceedings of IEEE Symposium and Workshop on Engineering of Computer-Based Systems (IEEE Order Number: PR07355, pp. 435-441). IEEE Computer Society Press] (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  10. Two dimensions for interaction [taken from Rauterberg, M. (1996). A concept to quantify different measures of user interface attributes: a meta-analysis of empirical studies. Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Systems, Man and Cybernetics--SMC'96 (vol. 4, IEEE Catalog Number: 96CH35929, pp. 2799-2804) IEEE Press] (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  11. How to measure usability? [taken from Rauterberg, M. (1996). Quantitative Test Metrics to Measure the Quality of User Interfaces. In: Proceedings of Fourth European Conference on Software Testing Analysis and Review--EuroSTAR'96 (pp. TQ2P2/1 - TQ2P2/13). Amsterdam] (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  12. How to design Desktop Interfaces (DI)? What is the Desktop Interface Style: • Menu bar and menu structure with pull-down menus • discrete and partially continuous actions • WIMP = Windows, Icons, Mouse, Pointing • ‘desktop’ is NOT ‘direct manipulation’ • the ‘desktop’ metaphor does NOT fit to all application domains (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  13. Desktop: example (1) [source: Mayhew, 1992] (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  14. Desktop: example (2) [source: Mayhew, 1992] (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  15. Desktop Interface (1): advantages • Easy to learn and remember • Direct, intuitive, "wysiwyg": allows user to focus on task semantics rather than on system semantics and syntax • Flexible, easily reversible actions • Provides context and instant, visual feedback • Exploits human use of visual/spatial cues and motor behaviour • Low typing requirements and visual feedback means less opportunity for user input error (and less error messages) (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  16. Desktop Interface (2): disadvantages • Can be inefficient for high frequency experts, especially touch typist, and when there are more actions and objects than can be fit on one screen • may be difficult to design recognizable icons for many objects and actions (‘what is it’ versus ‘where is it’) • icons take more screen ‘real estate’ than words (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  17. Desktop Interface (3) Most appropriate for: • Knowledge and experience • low typing skills • low system experience • low task experience • low application experience • high frequency of use of other systems • low computer literacy • job and task characteristics • low frequency of use • little or no training • discretionary use • high turn over rate • low task importance • low task structure [source: Mayhew, 1992] (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  18. Desktop Interface (4) Guideline: accompany icons with names [source: Mayhew, 1992] (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  19. Desktop Interface (5) Guideline: choose appropriate windowing strategy [source: Mayhew, 1992] (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  20. Desktop Interface (6) • Windowing uses: • quick context switching with place-saving • work in one, monitor another • cut and paste • compare • show more detail, preserve context • give command, see results • get HELP, preserve context • display same object in different forms • Windowing types: • system-controlled • user-controlled, tiled • user-controlled, overlapping [source: Mayhew, 1992] (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  21. Desktop Interface (7) Windowing: experimental study [S.E. Davies, K.F. Bury and M.J. Darnell (1985) An experimental comparison of a widowed vs. a non-windowed operating system environment. Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 29th Annual Meeting, pp. 250-254] (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  22. Desktop Interface (8) Windowing: experimental study [K. Gaylin (1986) How are window used? Some notes on creating an empirically based windowing benchmark task. Proceedings CH’86, ACM, pp. 96-100]] (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  23. Desktop Interface (9) Windowing: experimental study [S.A. Bly and J.K. Rosenberg (1986) A comparison of tiled versus overlapping windows. Proceedings CHI’86, ACM, pp. 101-106] (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  24. Desktop Interface (10) • Windowing design guidelines: • design easy to use and learn window operations (complexity of windowing interfaces should NOT cancel out advantages). • minimise the number of window operations necessary to achieve a desired effect. • make navigation between windows particularly easy and efficient to do. • make setting up windows particularly easy to remember. • provide salient visual cues to identify ‘active’ window. • provide a consistent ‘user model’ of windows (window is an object OR workspace OR dialog box). • allow overlapping when displays are unpredictable, screens are small, and users are fairly frequent and experienced. • in overlapping windowing, provide powerful commands for arranging windows on the screen in user-tailorable configurations. (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  25. Historical Trends for Icon Design • Four different levels of abstraction can be found over the last 80 years. • Actual icons get more abstract compared to the past. (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  26. The Meaning of Icons • The numbers in the table mean the percentage of all collected answers; each intended answer is underlined. • [see Caron, J.P., Jamieson, D.G. & Dewar, R.E.: Evaluating pictograms using semantic differential and classification technique. Ergonomics 23(2), 1980, p. 142] (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  27. The Icon Set for Marshalling Signals • [ redrawn from Henry Dreyfuss, Symbol Sourcebook (New York, 1972), p. 152] • See the wonderful analysis of this icon set and the recommended redesign in the marvelous book of Edward R. Tufte (Envisioning Information, 1990, Graphics Press) on page 63. (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  28. Redesign of Icons (1) • Design Principle: • avoid excessive detail in icon design. • [see Deborah J. Mayhew, Principles and Guidelines in Software User Interface Design (1992) pp.316-331] (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  29. Redesign of Icons (2) • Design Principles: • design the icons to communicate object relations and attributes whenever possible; • accompany icons with names. • [see Deborah J. Mayhew, Principles and Guidelines in Software User Interface Design (1992) pp.316-331] (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  30. [taken from Dominic Paul T. Piamonte (2000): Using Multiple Performance Parameters in Testing Small Graphical Symbols. Doctoral thesis, Institutionen för Arbetsvetenskap Avdelningen för Industriell ergonomi.• ISSN: 1402-1544] (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  31. Recognition rates in percent (first rows, bold-faced: above 67%) and certainty ratings (second rows) for the 23 Referents by subjects from Philippines and Sweden (N=100). Note: Phil. = Philippines, Swed. = Sweden.[taken from Dominic Paul T. Piamonte (2000): Using Multiple Performance Parameters in Testing Small Graphical Symbols. Doctoral thesis, Institutionen för Arbetsvetenskap Avdelningen för Industriell ergonomi. • ISSN: 1402-1544 • ISRN: LTU-DT--00/02--SE] (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  32. Graphical symbols used in the main studies as based on Böcker (1993) for the European Telecommunications Standards Institute (ETSI, 1993). Best videophone symbols when combining hit rates, false alarms (confusions) and missing values (no answers), per country. Numbers indicate Symbol Set. (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  33. Benefit visual representation high concrete textual representation representation low low high User’s knowledge and experiences in application domain (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  34. Information types States person sleeping descriptive features of a computer relationships similarity between twins spatial dimensions of a room discrete action switch light on continuous action ski turn events start of a race procedural repair photocopier causal how an engine works states evidence is uncertain descriptive person’s belief relationships classes of religious belief values prime numbers discrete action choosing to agree/disagree continuous action monitoring success procedural diagnosing a fault causal explanation of gravity static physical dynamic static conceptual dynamic (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  35. Media selection and combination (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  36. Examples for media design [taken from Rauterberg, M. (1998). About the importance of auditory alarms during the operation of a plant simulator. Interacting with Computers, vol. 10(1), pp. 31-44] (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  37. Feedback of system status information (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  38. User’s visual Attention Focus Ref: Erke, H (1975) Psychologische Grundlagen der visuellen Kommunikation. Universitaet Braunschweig. The relative ratios of the user's visual focus looking expectantly on one of the four quadrants of a dark and unstructured computer screen. MSc Thesis (1993) from Christian Cachin Ref: Rauterberg, M. & Cachin, C. (1993). Locating the primary attention focus of the user. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol. 733, pp. 129-140. (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  39. Signal Detection Experiment N = 19; 11 women and 8 men took part in the experiment (mean age: 33 ± 14 years). 12 subjects were students of computer science at the ETH. Dual task approach: (1) count circles, (2) detect signal X (given a distractor []) Standard computer display: 14 inch, black&white (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  40. Results: primary task ‘Circle Deviation’ CD as a measure for task accuracy: CD = |#CIRCLEScounted – #CIRCLESpresented| * 100% / #CIRCLESpresented Main Results: Quadrant IV outperforms all others (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  41. Results: secondary task Signal Detection Table: ‘Error Ratio’ ER: ER = (b + c) / (a + d) * 100% (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  42. Eye Recording Experiment How to determine automatically the actual position of the user’s visual attention focus on a computer screen? Subjects:N=6: 2 women and 4 men5 subjects were students of computer science at the ETH. 1 subject studied psychology at Uni Zurich. Tasks:(1) Computer game; (2) Text formatting;(3) Hypertext navigation. Main Results: (1) without mouse operations: Mouse position in fixation region for 25% - 70% (2) with mouse operations: Mouse position in fixation region for 49% - 97% [fixation region: circle around fixation point with r=3 inch] (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  43. Validated Design Recommendations • Place the message left above the actual user’s focus of attention; • Place this message maximal 3 inch away of actual mouse position. Message box 3 inch Primary attention focus (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  44. Desktop Interface: design guidelines • provide alternative interface for high frequency, expert user • choose a consistent icon design scheme: • depict ‘before and after’ • depict tool • depict action • accompany icons with name/labels • provide visual feedback for position, selection and movement, and physical feedback for modes! (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  45. Summary (1) [source: Mayhew, 1992] (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  46. Summary (2) [source: Mayhew, 1992] (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  47. Summary (3) [source: Mayhew, 1992] (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  48. Summary (4) [source: Mayhew, 1992] (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  49. How to design Direct Manipulation (DM)? • Icons and pop-up menus • Natural mappings • mostly analogue and continuous actions • context awareness of the system about user’s situation (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

  50. Direct manipulation interface (c) M. Rauterberg, TU/e

More Related