© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Large Display User Interaction Mary Czerwinski, Senior Researcher Microsoft Research.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Recuperação de Informação B Cap. 10: User Interfaces and Visualization , , , November 29, 1999.
Advertisements

Chapter 11 Designing the User Interface
GroupBar: The TaskBar Evolved Greg Smith, Patrick Baudisch, George Robertson, Mary Czerwinski, Brian Meyers, Daniel Robbins, and Donna Andrews Microsoft.
Regis Kopper Mara G. Silva Ryan P. McMahan Doug A. Bowman.
ORGANIZING THE CONTENT Physical Structure
Clipping Lists & Change Borders: Improving Multitasking Efficiency with Peripheral Information Design Mary Czerwinski George Robertson Desney Tan Microsoft.
Differences in Navigational Ability and Memory in Males and Females A Focus on Road Map usage versus Landmark Map usage in Navigation.
Multi-Modal Text Entry and Selection on a Mobile Device David Dearman 1, Amy Karlson 2, Brian Meyers 2 and Ben Bederson 3 1 University of Toronto 2 Microsoft.
Introduction User Patterns September 4 th, User Patterns in Software Safe Exploration Instant Gratification Satisficing Changes in Midstream Deferred.
Flower Menus: A New Type of Marking Menus with Large Menu Breadth, Within Groups and Efficient Expert Mode Memorization Gilles Bailly Eric Lecolinet Laurence.
Miscellaneous Windows 2000 Desktop Features Windows 2000 Intermediate.
L ARGE D ISPLAYS I MPROVE 2 D AND 3 D N AVIGATION By JOHN BELL and TOM PETERKA University of Illinois at Chicago CS 522 Human Computer Interaction Professor.
Try It: Curvature Dial: Eyes free parameter entry for GUIs mc schraefel, Graham Smith, Patrick.
Women Take a Wider View Mary Czerwinski, Desney Tan, George Robertson Microsoft Research and CMU Women Take a Wider View.
Small Displays Nicole Arksey Information Visualization December 5, 2005 My new kitty, Erwin.
Ultra-High Resolution Information Visualization CS 5764 Sarah Peck, Chris North Credits: Beth Yost, Bob Ball, Christopher Andrews, Mike DellaNoce, Candice.
User Testing & Experiments. Objectives Explain the process of running a user testing or experiment session. Describe evaluation scripts and pilot tests.
Microsoft ® Research Faculty Summit 2002 Building Scalable User Interfaces for Mobile Devices using.NET Technologies Benjamin B. Bederson Computer Science.
Evaluation Adam Bodnar CPSC 533C Monday, April 5, 2004.
Johan Mattsson Post Desktop user-interfaces iWand, evaluation, iStuff, iLounge, iROS & USE.
Lecture 7 Date: 23rd February
Evaluating Non-Visual Feedback Cues for Touch Input Device Selina Sharmin Project for the course New Interaction Techniques Spring.
Ch 7 & 8 Interaction Styles page 1 CS 368 Designing the Interaction Interaction Design The look and feel (appearance and behavior) of interaction objects.
Novel visualization and interaction for large displays mary czerwinski microsoft research.
Chapter 13: Designing the User Interface
T HE VISUAL INTERFACE Human Visual Perception Includes material from Dix et al, 2006, Human Computer Interaction, Chapter 1 1.
Integrated Videos and Maps for Driving Direction UIST 2009 Billy Chen, Boris Neubert, Eyal Ofek,Oliver Deussen, Michael F.Cohen Microsoft Research, University.
Evaluation of Viewport Size and Curvature of Large, High-Resolution Displays Lauren Shupp, Robert Ball, John Booker, Beth Yost, Chris North Virginia Polytechnic.
Said Achmiz, Alexander Gountras, Xinxin He. Problem Space Currently users in the home, performing a manually intensive task, do not have an easy and efficient.
patrick baudisch edward cutrell, george robertson microsoft research
Fall 2002CS/PSY On-Speech Audio Area Overview Will it be heard ? Will it be identified ? Will it be understood Four Areas Uses of Non-speech Audio.
Drag-and-pop a technique for accessing remote screen content on touch- and pen-operated systems patrick baudisch & ed cutrell, dan robbins, mary czerwinski,
14 Chapter 11: Designing the User Interface. 14 Systems Analysis and Design in a Changing World, 3rd Edition 2 Identifying and Classifying Inputs and.
ENTERFACE ‘08: Project4 Design and Usability Issues for multimodal cues in Interface Design/ Virtual Environments eNTERFACE ‘08| Project 4.
11.10 Human Computer Interface www. ICT-Teacher.com.
Notes on our audience People have selective attention/tunnel vision (especially if problem-solving), limited working/short-term memory, slow long-term.
Exploiting the Cognitive and Social Benefits of Physically Large Displays Desney S. Tan Thesis Proposal Thesis Committee: Randy Pausch (Chair) Jessica.
Ch 14. Testing & modeling users
Q Q Human Computer Interaction – Part 1© 2005 Mohammed Alabdulkareem Human Computer Interaction - 1 Dr. Mohammed Alabdulkareem
The Perception of Walking Speed in a Virtual Environment By T. Banton, J. Stefanucci, F. Durgin, A. Fass, and D. Proffitt Presentation by Ben Cummings.
MSR Data Mountain Using Spatial Memory for Data Management Written by: George Roberston, Mary Czerwinski, Kevin Larson, Daniel C. Robbins, David Thiel,
Novel visualization and interaction for large displays mary czerwinski microsoft research.
Novel Visualization and Interaction for Small to Jumbo Displays Mary Czerwinski Microsoft Research Mary Czerwinski Microsoft Research.
Seungwon Yang, Haeyong Chung, Chris North, and Edward A. Fox Virginia Tech, Blacksburg, VA USA 1ETD 2010, June 16-18, Austin, TX.
Snap-and-go helping users align objects without the modality of traditional snapping patrick baudisch ed cutrell ken hinckley adam eversole microsoft research.
A Case Study of Interaction Design. “Most people think it is a ludicrous idea to view Web pages on mobile phones because of the small screen and slow.
Technical Paper Review Designing Usable Web Forms – Empirical Evaluation of Web Form Improvement Guidelines By Amit Kumar.
Navigation and orientation in 3D user interfaces: the impact of navigation aids and landmarks Author: Avi Parush, Dafna Berman International journal of.
1 CP586 © Peter Lo 2003 Multimedia Communication Visual Interface Design & Product Design.
Presenter: Lung-Hao Lee Nov. 3, Room 310.  Introduction  Related Work  Methods  Results ◦ General Gaze Distribution on SERPs ◦ Effects of Task.
Towards understanding programs through wear-based filtering Robert DeLine Amir Khella Mary Czerwinski George Robertson Microsoft Corporation SoftVis 2005.
The Perception of Visual Walking Speed While Moving Frank Durgin, Krista Gigone, Rebecca Scott Swarthmore College In Press: Journal of Experimental Psychology:
Workshop: Using Large, High-Resolution Displays for Information Visualization IEEE InfoVis 2005.
Bongshin Lee, Greg Smith, George Robertson, Mary Czerwinski, Desney Tan Computational User Experiences (CUE) Visualization and Interaction Research Group.
The Use of Virtual Reality for Persons with Balance Disorders Susan L. Whitney, PT, PhD, NCS, ATC University of Pittsburgh Supported by the National Institute.
1 Evaluating the User Experience in CAA Environments: What affects User Satisfaction? Gavin Sim Janet C Read Phil Holifield.
Factors influencing the usability of icons in the LCD touch screens Hsinfu Huang, Wang-Chin Tsai, Hsin-His Lai Department of Industrial Design, National.
Transitioning from Implicit to Explicit, Public to Personal, Interaction with Multiple Users Daniel Vogel, Ravin Balakrishnan Department of Computer Science.
Real Time Collaboration and Sharing
The Task Gallery A 3-D Window Manager Presented By - - Priya Shivakumar Developed By – - Microsoft Research George Robertson Daniel Robbins..
Color Theory. Primary Colors Colors that cannot be created by mixing others.
GroupMap Starter’s Guide Think Better Together Plan, brainstorm, discuss and prioritise for action. © GroupMap Pty Ltd |
Got Multiple Devices and Displays?
Where have we been? Cartography as communication systems: then (linear) and now (cyclical) Geospatial data Visualization Pipeline (Ben Fry) Getting a message.
9/6/2018 8:11 PM THR1046 Using Digital Experience Management to Validate the Impact of IT Change Mike Marks Product Evangelist, Riverbed © Microsoft Corporation.
How do we realize design? What should we consider? Technical Visual Interaction Search Context of use Information Interacting/ transacting.
mouse ether helping users acquire targets across multimon
Leveraging Human Capabilities in Advanced User Interfaces
How Students Navigate a Test and Use Test Tools
Improving drag-and-drop on wall-size displays
Presentation transcript:

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Large Display User Interaction Mary Czerwinski, Senior Researcher Microsoft Research

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Thanks to my Colleagues Desney Tan George Robertson Greg Smith Patrick Baudisch Brian Meyers Gary Starkweather

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Ignore Science Fiction at Our Peril Workstation in the world of the Matrix

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Large Display Surfaces are Here Workstation in the real world

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Why A Larger Display Surface? Productivity benefits 15-30% (despite OS issues) Users prefer more display surface Prices dropping fast Footprints getting smaller

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Multimon Trend is Growing (Jon Peddie Research Dec, 2002 N=6652) No Multimon 30% Plan to Use Multimon 38% Use Multimon 32%

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved Large Monitor ASP Projections Single 20 ” Diagonal 2 x 17” (30” Diagonal) 2 x 15” (26” Diagonal) 17 ” Diagonal 15 ” Diagonal 16:9 x 22” Diagonal Note: All Prices are for Liquid Crystal Displays Source for Single Panel Pricing: IDC and Display Search Relative Pricing MultipleWide $1000

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Large Display User Experience, MSR Large display surfaces fundamentally change user interaction –Visualization, input techniques, work management, … Large display surfaces provide non- linear productivity increases –Additional space has different utility –E.g. Focal/peripheral displays provide different cues

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Windows and Task Management Issues Emerge Larger displays = more open windows Multimon users arrange windows spatially TaskBar does not scale: –Aggregation model not task-based –Users can’t operate on groups of related windows

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. DEMOS: High Density Cursor

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. INPUT: Drag ‘n Pop Problems: –Large displays create long distance mouse movement –Drag ‘n Pop brings proxies of targets to the user from across display surfaces

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. DEMO: GroupBar GroupBar joins related items in the taskbar and remembers spatial layouts of tasks To help solve this problem, Shell needs to remember Windows’ states between sessions Download: \\gregsmi2\dowloads\groupba r.exe

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. DEMO: GroupBar Layouts Windows management time- consuming –Screen real estate often gets wasted during layout Solution—Smart Windows Layout Options

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Advanced UI: Scalable Fabric Configurable central focus + peripheral context areas Easy task switch from periphery to focus area Personally meaningful layouts are preserved by system Leverages human spatial memory Proximity determines group membership

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Women Take a Wider View (CHI 2002) Grew from work designing and evaluating 3D virtual navigation techniques On regular desktop display: –Men performed significantly better than women On exploratory widescreen display: –Overall improvement for all users Surprising finding: –Gender gap disappeared - Males and females performed equally on widescreen display

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Related Work Formation of cognitive maps while navigating 3D virtual worlds –Spatial abilities –Artifacts (maps, landmarks,…) Gender differences in spatial ability and navigation strategies –Most report male advantages, especially in virtual environments

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Related Work: Optical Flow Changing retinal image as we move through the environment –Aids perception of environmental structure

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Related Work: Optical Flow Changing retinal image as we move through the environment –Aids perception of environmental structure

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. What we know about Optical Flow Optical flow benefits heading perception in active navigation –Shown for fields of view up to 90 degrees Hypothesized that effectiveness of optical flow depends on spatial ability –[Cutmore et al. 2000] –Gender unexplored

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Our Hypotheses 1.Optical flow cues help all users form better cognitive maps when navigating 3D virtual environments 2.Better optical flow cues help women more than men in cognitive map formation 3.Wider displays offer even better optical flow cues

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Dsharp Display 43" 11"

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Task: General Description Learning: User controls movement along path through virtual 3D maze Testing: Remember path traveled

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Virtual Maps 14 rooms (6 straight ahead, 8 turns) Some paths go through same room twice For example:

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Cognitive Map Learning Use arrow keys to go through green door Determine if path crosses itself Remember full path

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Cognitive Map Memory Test Tested on memory for maze –Forward test and backward test –Measured task time & number of correct doors opened on first attempt Same controls as in learning phase, but without green door guides Given feedback

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Experimental Design Large FOV: 120 degreesSmall FOV: 100 degrees Optical Flow Present Optical Flow Absent Male Female

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Experimental Procedure Paper folding test of spatial ability 1 practice trial + 4 test trials Satisfaction questionnaire

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Benefits of Optical Flow

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Optical Flow Helps All Users in Forward Test Forward Backward

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Optical Flow Benefits Females More in the Forward Test FemalesMales

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Other Results No effects for field of view No effects for spatial ability measure Satisfaction ratings matched performance results

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Conclusion 1.Optical flow cues help all users form better cognitive maps when navigating 3D virtual environments 2.Better optical flow cues help women more than men in cognitive map formation Unexplained by biases in spatial ability 3.Wider displays offer even better optical flow cues 100 degree field of view seems sufficient

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Information Voyeurism: Social Impact of Large Displays Exploit social cues induced by physical size: –Help people communicate –Increase productivity on individual tasks Must quantify in order to exploit Information on large displays more public –Ask user? Cannot guarantee accuracy –Video? Cannot disambiguate glance from reading

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Measuring ‘ Peeking ’ Implicit memory priming paradigm –Expose user to stimulus –Test user implicitly on how much they’ve processed stimulus Word stem completion Eg. Mon_____ –Priming measured by faster response or higher frequency of stimulus Monkey, Money, Monster, Monday, Monopoly, …

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Experiment Materials Stimulus: 30 words embedded in: –7 subject lines –2 messages Place where it can be seen by user Priming test to see if they’ve read it –Word stem completion

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Experimental Setup 156″ 38″ 16″ 27.5″ 66″114″ Experimenter Participant Large Projection Screen Small Desktop Monitor

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Implicit Memory Results Small DisplayLarge Display Average # of Target Words N=12

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Other Converging Data More users admitted reading text on: –Large Screen (7/12) vs. Small Screen (3/12) Comments indicated reading someone else’s more acceptable on large screen Video shows users glanced more at: –Large Screen (M=19 seconds) vs. Small Screen (M=14 seconds)

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Future Work Understand why large displays more public –Physical proximity of information to owner? –Wall-mounted nature of large display? Protect private information from prying eyes –Private information never placed on public screens –Interface conventions that convey level of privacy Facilitate ad hoc collaboration –Display systems that make people interact more

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Summary Novel application of implicit memory priming paradigm for measuring if someone has peeked at information People are more willing to read someone else’s on large wall-sized displays than on smaller displays –Even with identical visual angles and legibility Future Work

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Future Research Directions Continue researching benefits of and methods for testing large displays Task management for information workers Reconfigurable information display surfaces – Heterogeneous devices Social impact, collaboration and communication scenarios Gestures, vision and tracking Novel UI and interaction techniques

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Thank you…

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Large Display Surfaces are Here Workstation in the real world (InfoCockpit--CMU)

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. Optical Flow Benefits All Users Equally in the Backward Test

© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved. User Views of Maze Narrow field of view (100 degrees) Wide field of view (120 degrees)