skip to main content
10.1145/1556262.1556294acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesaviConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Which interaction technique works when?: floating palettes, marking menus and toolglasses support different task strategies

Published:22 May 2002Publication History

ABSTRACT

We conducted an experiment that compared three post-WIMP interaction techniques: floating palettes, marking menus and toolglasses, in a real-world Coloured Petri-Net editor, CPN2000. We created six situations in which users performed identical sets of actions with equally-complex nets, but with different cognitive contexts. We found significant differences in performance and preferences across interaction techniques. When a user is in a "copy" context, floating palettes are more efficient. If the user is problem solving, toolglasses or marking menus are preferred. No single interaction technique is clearly superior: each has strengths in different contexts. Since a single application must support different kinds of cognitive tasks, interaction designers should consider integrating multiple interaction techniques, rather than selecting only one.

References

  1. Beaudouin-Lafon, M.&Lassen, H. M. (2000) The Architecture and Implementation of CPN2000. A Post-WIMP Graphical Application. In Proc. of UIST'00, San Diego, CA, November 2000, CHI Letters 2(2):181--190, ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Beaudouin-Lafon, M. (2000) Instrumental Interaction: An Interaction Model for Designing Post-WIMP User Interfaces. In Proc. of CHI'00 the Hague, Netherlands, p.446--453, ACM Press. Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Beaudouin-Lafon, M.&Mackay, W. E. (2000) Reification, Polymorphism and Reuse: Three Principles for Designing Visual Interfaces. In Proc. of AVI'00 (Palermo, Italy), ACM, p.102--109. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Bederson, B.&Hollan, J. (1994). Pad++: A Zooming Graphical Interface for Exploring Alternate Interface Physics. In Proc. of UIST'94, ACM Press, p.17--26. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Bederson, B., Hollan, J., Druin, A., Stewart, J., Rogers, D.,&Proft, D. (1994). Local Tools: an Alternative to Tool Palettes. In Proc. of UIST'94, ACM Press, p. 169--170. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Bier, E., Stone, M., Pier, K., Buxton, W.,&DeRose, T. (1993) Toolglass and magic lenses: The see-through interface. In Proc. of SIGGRAPH'93, pp. 73--80. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Carroll, J. (1995) Scenario-based design. Envisioning work and technology in system development. NY: Wiley&Sons. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Fertig, S., Freeman, E.&Gelernter, D. (1996). LifeStreams: An Alternative to the Desktop Metaphor. Video in CHI'96 Adjunct Proceedings, p. 410--411. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Hertzum, M.,&Frøøkjær, E. (1996). Browsing and Querying in Online Documentation: A Study of User Interfaces and the Interaction Process. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 3(2), 136--161. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Green, T. (2000). Instructions and Descriptions: Some cognitive aspects of programming and similar activities. In Proc. of AVI'00, Palermo, Italy, May 2000, ACM. pp. 21--28. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Janecek, P., Ratzer, A.&Mackay, W. (1999) Petri Nets in Use: Redesigning Design CPN. In Proc. 2nd Workshop Practical Use of Coloured Petri Nets and Design/CPN. (K. Jensen, Ed.) p. 119--131.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Jensen, K. (1997) Coloured Petri Nets: Basic Concepts (Vol. 1, 1992), Analysis Methods (Vol. 2, 1994), Practical Use (Vol. 3, 1997). Monographs in Theoretical Computer Science. Springer-Verlag, 1992--97. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Kabbash, P., Buxton, W.&Sellen, A. (1994) Two-handed input in a compound task. In Proc. of CHI'94, ACM Press, p. 417--423. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Kramer, A. (1996). Translucent Patches: Dissolving Windows. In Proc. of UIST'96, ACM Press, p. 121--130. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Kurtenbach, G.&Buxton, W. (1994). User Learning and Performance with Marking Menus. In Proc. of CHI'94, ACM Press, p.258--264. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Kurtenbach, G., Fitzmaurice, G., Baudel, T.&Buxton, W. (1997). The Design of a GUI Paradigm based on Tablets, Two-hands, and Transparency. In Proc.of CHI'97, ACM Press, p.35--42. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Kurtenbach, G., Fitzmaurice, G. W., Owen, R. N.&Baudel, T. (1999). The Hotbox: efficient access to a large number of menu-items. In Proc. of CHI'99 ACM Press, p.231--237. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Mackay, W. E.&Bøødker, S.(1994) Workshop: Scenario-Based Design. In CHI'94 Conference Companion, Boston: ACM Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  19. Mackay, W. E., Ratzer, A.,&Janecek, P. (2000) Video Artifacts for Design: Bridging the Gap between Abstraction and Detail. In Proc. DIS 2000, NY: August 2000, ACM, pp. 72--82. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Raskin, J. (2000) The Humane Interface. NY: Addison-Wesley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Rubine, D. (1991). Specifying Gestures by Example. Proc. of SIGGRAPH '91, ACM Press, p 329--337. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Smith, D., Irby, C., Kimball, R., Verplank, B.,&Harslem E. (1982). Designing the Star User Interface. Byte, 7(4), p.242:282.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  23. Suchman, L. (1987). Plans and Situated Actions. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Which interaction technique works when?: floating palettes, marking menus and toolglasses support different task strategies

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      AVI '02: Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces
      May 2002
      382 pages
      ISBN:1581135378
      DOI:10.1145/1556262

      Copyright © 2002 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 22 May 2002

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate107of408submissions,26%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader