interaction design seminar
DESCRIPTION
Critique and evaluation of work of mouse pointing techniques for seminar in Interaction Design.TRANSCRIPT
Seminar by Naman Kumar for Interaction Design, CS889
Critique & Evaluation
University of Waterloo
ProposalCLC: Click-and-Cross
ProposalCRC: Cross-and-Cross
ProposalMM: Motor Magnifier
ProposalVMM: Visual-Motor-Magnifier
Why
Why
How
+
precision control
1. Reduce the need for corrective-phase pointing.2. Lessen effects of small targets on acquisition difficulty. 3. Reduce need for accurate, steady clicking
• Ideas– Ideate, Analyze, Reject.
• Scientific approach– Define Problem -> Synthesize solution -> Evaluate -> Analyze
• Results + Discussion– Qualitative + quantitative -> well rounded discussion
• Possible extension– Photo-editing, video editing
Strengths
Submovement analysis
Strengths
• Ideas – Why take out the Ballistic Square and Scanning Area Cursor?
» “Slow”. Then why include CRC (6.7s)?• They follow binary, O(log(n)), and linear search, O(n).
• Scientific approach– How was 300ms determined?
• Randomized targets– Not a real world simulation
• Participant pool – 12
» Bigger pool may have helped determine trackball vs. mouse
Weaknesses
• CRC• “first mouse-based”
• VMM• “first VMM evaluation study”; no previous comparison
• Successful– “existing techniques degrade in small, dense target layouts”– VMM won (able-bodied + motor impaired)
Comments
• Able-bodied fastest on Bubble and Point• “power users” prefer accuracy and want speed.• “novice users” are satisfied with accuracy.
• Novice vs. Expert motor-impaired users
• Trackball vs. MouseCRC and VMM made mouse easier
Comments
• Applies to all mouse based projects but…• Can the argument be applied to your technique?• Dimensions to think about:
– Spacing between targets– Clutter– Mouse gain– Magnification
Projects