visualizing off-screen locations on small mobile displays
Post on 23-Feb-2016
24 Views
Preview:
DESCRIPTION
TRANSCRIPT
Visualizing Off-Screen Locations onSmall Mobile Displays
Sean Gustafson
master of sciencethesis defenseDec 15 / 2008
2
off-screen viz
overview arrows halo
3
atedworkrel
4
overviews
[Plaisant 95 and many others]
5
fisheye views
fisheye views
[Carpendale 01]
6
simple arrows
[Tecmo Bowl 87]
7
scaled and stretched arrows
[Burigat 06]
8 [Gustafson 07]
edgeradar
9 [Baudisch 03]
halo
10 [Baudisch 03]
halo
11
the problem: clutter
12
the problem: clutter
13
corner
(also not great: corners)
side
14
cut lines color
ovalsclustering
Irani et al.Baudisch & Rosenholtz
initial approaches
separatevisually
15
ewedgeth
16
leg
legtarget
basebasebasebasewedge
17
halo wedge
18
3 degrees of freedom
rotationbase lengthintrusion
19
avoiding overlap
rotation
base length
intrusion
20
outalgorithmlay
21
avoidance algorithm
22
avoidance algorithm
23
avoidance algorithm
24
avoidance algorithm
25
avoidance algorithm
26
leaves 2 degrees
intrusion ~ distance
base-width ~ distance
27
serstudyu
28
two interface conditionshalo and wedge
29halo
task 1: locate
wedge
same as original halo paper
30halo
task 2: closest
wedge
same as original halo paper
31halo
task 3: avoid
wedge
same as original halo paper
32
IV: density
sparse dense
33
IV: cornerside
corner
34
36 participants
35
1.wedge is more accurate
2.larger improvement in dense condition
3.larger improvement in corners
(no hypothesis about task time)
hypotheses
36
results
37
participants were significantly more accurate when using the wedge
38
error in pixels
locate task
Err
or (p
ixel
s) 60
40
20
0SparseDense
Side
Wedge
Halo80
39
error in pixels
locate task
Err
or (p
ixel
s) 60
40
20
0SparseDense
Side
Wedge
Halo80
Corner
SparseDense
40
other results
no interesting results from the other tasks or from completion time.
41
other resultsWedge Halo No
Preference
Locate 25 10 1
Avoid 21 13 2
Closest 18 14 4
preferences
42
1.wedge is more accurate
2.larger improvement in dense condition
3.larger improvement in corners
hypotheses
43
elingpointingmod
44
45
beam
46
beam
47
beam
beam
48
orbitalbeam
beam
49 intrusion
50 intrusion
51 aperture
52 aperture
53 rotation
54 rotation
55
experiment to gather accuracy data
data collection
56
experiment to gather accuracy data
data collection
distance
legLength1
legLength2 base
Leng
th
57
results50
100
200
300
Depth Error
Distance
-100 0 100 200 300-60
60
0
-60
60
0
-60
60
0
-60
60
0
Bre
adth
Err
or
58
results
Depth Error
-100 0 100 200 300
60
0
-60bias
length
width
59
results - bias
60
results - length
61
minimizing errors
• choose smallest base and leg length that still maintains small orbital and low bias
• base length of at least 50px, 100px for longer distances
• a large leg length (above 8px) does not result in smaller orbital
• avoid heavily rotating wedges
62
conclusion
63
1. summary of existing techniques and criteria for evaluating them
2. introduction of Wedge3. introduction of the concept of degrees of
freedom and dynamic layout4. evaluation of Wedge5. preliminary model
contributions
64
thanks
65
66
IV: density2
3 4
1sparse
dense
67
68
correcting errors
69
correcting errors
70
71
fiedpointinguniwedge=
72
intrusion 0
citylights
73
aperture 0
stretched arrows
74
?halo
75
round bases
distance information in corner distance information along arc
76halo
aperture 360
77
78 locate task
SparseDense
Err
or (p
ixel
s) 60
40
20
0SparseDense
SideCorner
WedgeHalo80
SparseDense
Tim
e (m
s)
3000
2000
1000
SparseDense
SideCorner
WedgeHalo
0
full results
79 avoid task
full results
SparseDense
Err
or R
ate
%
50
40
30
20
10
0SparseDense
WedgeHalo
SideCorner
Tim
e (m
s)
5000
4000
2000
0
SideCorner
WedgeHalo
SparseDense SparseDense
3000
1000
80 closest task
full results
SparseDense
Err
or R
ate
%
60
40
20
0SparseDense
WedgeHalo
SideCorner
SparseDenseTi
me
(ms)
6000
4000
2000
0SparseDense
SideCorner
WedgeHalo
81
top related