1 / 29

Quantitative Analysis of Scrolling Techniques

Ken Hinckley Edward Cutrell Steve Bathiche Tim Muss Microsoft Research & Microsoft Hardware April 23, 2002. Quantitative Analysis of Scrolling Techniques. Motivating Questions: Product. Multi-Channel scrolling devices (1) save time to grab scrollbar

petunia
Download Presentation

Quantitative Analysis of Scrolling Techniques

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. Ken Hinckley Edward Cutrell Steve Bathiche Tim Muss Microsoft Research & Microsoft Hardware April 23, 2002 Quantitative Analysis of Scrolling Techniques

  2. Motivating Questions: Product • Multi-Channel scrolling devices (1) save time to grab scrollbar (2) maintain visual focus on primary task • Can performance of the scrolling wheel be improved? • How does it compare? • How to evaluate & test our new scrolling products in general?

  3. Accelerated Scrolling Wheel • Scroll further when you roll faster • Extend range of wheel • But… Is it really any better? • Possible loss of control / precision?

  4. Motivating Questions: Research • How should one experimentally evaluate scrolling performance? Distance & Precision? • Which is fastest: blue or green (dotted) ?

  5. D W Fitts’ Law: Cough Syrup for Input Devices • Widely used to study rapid, aimed movements (Fitts 1954) • Used in pointing device studies since 1978 • Task: Point at a target W wide at distance D • The Law: • MT = a + b log2(D/W + 1) • a, b fit by linear regression using observed MT • Never applied to scrolling

  6. Frame Target line Scrolling Experimentfounded in Fitts’ Law • Scroll back & forth between 2 lines in a doc • Ex: comparing paragraphs • EachTrial had at least 10 Phasesof individual scrolling movements

  7. Experimental Design • Device X D X W • ScrollPoint • Standard Wheel • 3 lines/notch • Accel. W1 • 1 line/notch • Accel. W3 • 3 lines/notch • nonsensical D X W’s • e.g. D=6, W=18

  8. Note on Practice Effects • First 2 phases of each trial eliminated due to start-up effects

  9. Results: Average Movement Times • Overall average Movement Time (MT) • ScrollPoint & Std. Wheel do not differ significantly • But what if we control for D/W ?

  10. Results: By Distance (Raw Data) • Hard to see what’s going on in raw MT data • D: 3.5 cm to 2.25 meters; So MT also has wide range

  11. Results: By Distance (Scaled) • Significant crossover interaction by Distance! • Std Wheel faster at small D, ScrollPoint for large D • Accel mappings improve performance

  12. Results: By Width • No interesting crossover effects for Device X W • A faster device is faster across all W

  13. … and Fitts’ Law Describes our Data • r ≥ 0.90 for all devices

  14. Representative Tasks for Scrolling • We experimented with several tasks: • Scrolling while proofreading text for misspellings • Searching for highlighted line in document • [and following the link – Zhai] • Searching for highlighted target word in document, in presence of highlighted distracter words • Fitts’ task sensitive to subtle device diffs • Cognitive & visual search issues ignored

  15. Design Insights • No one device or acceleration setting is “best” • Accel W1 vs. Std Wheel: faster + better resolution • Is it possible to combine Accel W1 / Accel W3 mappings to have optimal performance?

  16. Qualitative Results • ScrollPoint: Most Ss preferred for long D • But in practice many would “just grab scrollbar” • “very ineffective in targeting lines” • “my hand didn’t get tired” • Standard Wheel: moved predictably • Fatigue / comfort frequent negative comment • Accel W3: “very easy to scroll long distances”, but most Ss disliked larger notches • Accel W1: liked finer notches, but still “tedious to scroll long distances”

  17. Naturally Occurring Behaviors with the Wheel • How do users roll the wheel? • (1) trying to get somewhere fast, or • (2) reading fast reading

  18. How Acceleration Works • Roll faster  move further • But do not change “reading” experience • For Δt < 0.1 notch/s Δy =K1(1+K2Δt)α • Otherwise Δy = 1 line • The user does nothave to learn anything new!

  19. ProductVersion • To play with Accel. Scrolling, download IntelliPoint 4.0 • Differs slightly • e.g. no fractional lines • http://www.microsoft.com/ hardware/mouse/download.asp

  20. Future Work • Apply Fitts approach to a scroll/select task • Scroll, then click on object of varying W • Two-handed scrolling: Current experiment can compare right- vs. left-handed devices, but not higher level benefits of 2h scrolling, e.g. • Anticipatory cursor motion • Avoid fatigue from single hand doing everything • Scrollbar: cost of moving mouse back and forth to scrollbar needs to be considered • More scrolling expt’s needed with Fitts’ Law

  21. Thank You! • Questions? • kenh@microsoft.com • http://www.microsoft.com/ hardware/mouse/download.asp

  22. Extra slides for questions etc.

  23. Jellinek & Card 1991 • Gain theoretically does not affect performance • MT = a + b log2(D/W + 1); gD/gW = D/W • Observed MT almost unchanged for g = 1  10 • g Reduces footprint of device & reclutching • On Wheel, reduced footprint = faster MT

  24. Principles of Bimanual Action • Yves Guiard, 1987. For right-handers: • Right-to-left reference: Action of the right hand occurs within the frame-of-reference defined by the left. • Scale Asymmetry: Movements of the right hand occur at higher spatial and temporal frequencies than the left • Left-hand Precedence: Action starts with the left hand.

  25. Principles of (Bimanual) Scrolling • Scrolling is a background task that should be assigned to the nonpreferred hand. • Right-to-left reference: Movement of mouse cursor is within current document view. • Scale Asymmetry: Scrolling is a coarse task, cursor movement & selection are high-precision • Left-hand Precedence: Scrolling precedes detailed activity in the document. (MacKenzie 1998)

  26. No switching between pointing & scrolling Overlapped action of the 2 hands Maintain visual focus & concentration on work Buxton & Myers 1986bimanual scrolling ~25% faster than scroll bar Bimanual Scrolling

  27. Bimanual Controlon Office Kbd • Navigation controls on left • Scrolling [wide wheel] • Web [Forward / Back] • Windows [AppToggle] • Cut, Copy, Paste also well suited to left side • Compound selection [or placement of IP] + articulation of command

  28.  OVERDRIVE • “Automatic transmission” for the wheel (+accel.) • Evaluating… Informally, seems to work great! • in a ~10 pg doc: IntelliPoint 4.0!  IP 5.0 (?)  • All of these have 1 line/notch precision

More Related