An evaluation of techniques for controlling focus+context screens

Mark J. Flider, Brian P Bailey

Research output: Contribution to journalConference article

Abstract

We evaluated four techniques for controlling focus+context screens. We compared an egocentric versus exocentric View mixed with whether the display on the focus screen moves in the same (paper mapping) versus opposite (scroll mapping) direction as input force. Our results show that (i) View had little effect, (ii) users almost always allocated attention to the context screen when controlling the display, (iii) scroll mappings enabled a user to perform tasks faster, commit fewer errors, and be more satisfied with the system compared to paper mappings, and (iv) a user can better control focus+context screens when the frame of reference either does move or is perceived to move in the direction of input force. We discuss these results and recommend how to enable a user to better control focus+context screens.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)135-144
Number of pages10
JournalProceedings - Graphics Interface
StatePublished - Aug 30 2004
EventProceedings - Graphics Interface 2004 - London, Ont, Canada
Duration: May 17 2004May 19 2004

Fingerprint

Display devices

Keywords

  • Design
  • Focus+context
  • Sketching
  • Two-handed interaction

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Computer Graphics and Computer-Aided Design

Cite this

An evaluation of techniques for controlling focus+context screens. / Flider, Mark J.; Bailey, Brian P.

In: Proceedings - Graphics Interface, 30.08.2004, p. 135-144.

Research output: Contribution to journalConference article

@article{d31cb8d7c5574b13b6d10bb26842445a,
title = "An evaluation of techniques for controlling focus+context screens",
abstract = "We evaluated four techniques for controlling focus+context screens. We compared an egocentric versus exocentric View mixed with whether the display on the focus screen moves in the same (paper mapping) versus opposite (scroll mapping) direction as input force. Our results show that (i) View had little effect, (ii) users almost always allocated attention to the context screen when controlling the display, (iii) scroll mappings enabled a user to perform tasks faster, commit fewer errors, and be more satisfied with the system compared to paper mappings, and (iv) a user can better control focus+context screens when the frame of reference either does move or is perceived to move in the direction of input force. We discuss these results and recommend how to enable a user to better control focus+context screens.",
keywords = "Design, Focus+context, Sketching, Two-handed interaction",
author = "Flider, {Mark J.} and Bailey, {Brian P}",
year = "2004",
month = "8",
day = "30",
language = "English (US)",
pages = "135--144",
journal = "Proceedings - Graphics Interface",
issn = "0713-5424",
publisher = "Canadian Information Processing Society",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - An evaluation of techniques for controlling focus+context screens

AU - Flider, Mark J.

AU - Bailey, Brian P

PY - 2004/8/30

Y1 - 2004/8/30

N2 - We evaluated four techniques for controlling focus+context screens. We compared an egocentric versus exocentric View mixed with whether the display on the focus screen moves in the same (paper mapping) versus opposite (scroll mapping) direction as input force. Our results show that (i) View had little effect, (ii) users almost always allocated attention to the context screen when controlling the display, (iii) scroll mappings enabled a user to perform tasks faster, commit fewer errors, and be more satisfied with the system compared to paper mappings, and (iv) a user can better control focus+context screens when the frame of reference either does move or is perceived to move in the direction of input force. We discuss these results and recommend how to enable a user to better control focus+context screens.

AB - We evaluated four techniques for controlling focus+context screens. We compared an egocentric versus exocentric View mixed with whether the display on the focus screen moves in the same (paper mapping) versus opposite (scroll mapping) direction as input force. Our results show that (i) View had little effect, (ii) users almost always allocated attention to the context screen when controlling the display, (iii) scroll mappings enabled a user to perform tasks faster, commit fewer errors, and be more satisfied with the system compared to paper mappings, and (iv) a user can better control focus+context screens when the frame of reference either does move or is perceived to move in the direction of input force. We discuss these results and recommend how to enable a user to better control focus+context screens.

KW - Design

KW - Focus+context

KW - Sketching

KW - Two-handed interaction

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=4143075832&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=4143075832&partnerID=8YFLogxK

M3 - Conference article

AN - SCOPUS:4143075832

SP - 135

EP - 144

JO - Proceedings - Graphics Interface

JF - Proceedings - Graphics Interface

SN - 0713-5424

ER -