240 likes | 384 Views
User Perceptions of Drawing Logic Diagrams with Pen-Centric User Interfaces. Bo Kang, Jared N. Bott, and Joseph J. LaViola Jr. Interactive Systems & User Experience Lab Department of EECS University of Central Florida. Outline. Related Work Motivation Experiment Results Discussion
E N D
User Perceptions of Drawing Logic Diagrams withPen-Centric User Interfaces Bo Kang, Jared N. Bott, and Joseph J. LaViola Jr. Interactive Systems & User Experience Lab Department of EECS University of Central Florida
Outline • Related Work • Motivation • Experiment • Results • Discussion • Conclusion
Related Work • Pen-based Interfaces • DENIM (Lin et al. 2000) • CrossY(Apitz et al. 2004) • LogicPad (Kang and LaViola 2012) • Evaluation and Perceptions • MacKenzie et al. (1991) • Wais et al. (2007) • Forsberg et al. (2008) • Vatavu et al. (2011) • Bott et al. (2011)
Motivation • LogicPad • Hybrid interface for Boolean logic problems • Seemed faster than sketching • Is speed more important for these diagrams?
Experiment • Performed study comparing 3 pen-based interfaces for creating Boolean logic diagrams
Sketch Pure sketch, 100% accurate, “ideal”
Drag-and-Drop Traditional WIMP-based, stylus and keyboard
Hybrid Radial menu for gates, sketch labels and wires
Subjects and Apparatus • 18 college students participated • 3 female, 15 male • Ages 19 – 30 • Worked on tablet PC • HP EliteBook 2760p
Experimental Task • 3 copy-and-verify tasks (one per interface) • 6 problems per task • Given a diagram-equation pair • Copy a diagram using interface, get a Boolean equation back • Compare given equation with one from interface
Experimental Design • Wizard of Oz approach • All 3 interfaces programmed with ordering of tasks, which equation to show • 3 by 2 within-subjects factorial design • Independent variables: user interface (sketch, drag-and-drop, hybrid) and diagram complexity (low, high) • Dependent variable: completion time
Metrics • Measured completion time • Rate each interface • Making gates • Making wires • Making labels • Arrange gates • Create diagrams • Speed • Frustration • Rank interfaces • Ease of use • Speed • Naturalness • Overall preference
Hypotheses • Primary: Participants will prefer the sketch interface over the hybrid and drag-and-drop interfaces • Secondary • Hybrid interface will be faster than the sketch and drag-and-drop interfaces • Sketch interface will be rated more natural than the hybrid and drag-and-drop interfaces
Results – Completion Time • T-tests on completion time • Sketch faster than drag-and-drop • Hybrid faster than drag-and-drop • Hybrid faster than sketch, except at low complexity (no significance)
Results – Ratings • Significant tests • Ease of use in labeling, arranging, and creating diagrams • Easy label: sketch > hybrid > drag-and-drop • Easy arrange: drag-and-drop > sketch • Easy diagram: hybrid > drag-and-drop
Results – Hypotheses • Primary hypothesis – Did they prefer sketch interface? • No • Was sketch most natural? • Yes • Was hybrid fastest? • Yes…
Discussion • Speed and user perceptions • Difference in rankings/ratings and completion time • Why? • No task switching with sketch interface • Internal versus external mistakes • Drawing style slows down sketching • No easy way to spatial arrange drawing • 100% sketch accuracy not as fast as hybrid
Discussion – cont. • Why rank an interface as best overall? • Spearman’s rank correlation between overall ranking and other rankings and ratings • Highest correlations with ease of use ranking, naturalness ranking, speed ranking • Sketch “was fast for small diagrams” • Sketch “was easy and natural” • Hybrid “easier than the others”
Conclusion • Would users prefer a sketch interface over a faster interface? • Study comparing three pen-based interfaces for creating logic diagrams • Sketch was well-liked, but not decisively so • User perceptions and measurements • Perception of speed and our measurement differed • Should we continue research into pen-based interfaces for structured 2D languages? • Yes • Pure sketch might not be the most powerful, but clearly desirable traits
Acknowledgments • This work is supported in part by NSF CAREER award IIS-0845921 and NSF awards IIS-0856045 and CCF-1012056.
Bo Kang: bkang@cs.ucf.edu Jared N. Bott: jbott@cs.ucf.edu Joseph J. LaViola Jr.: jjl@eecs.ucf.edu Questions?