1. Effects of Display Position and Control Space Orientation on User Preference and Performance
Presented at CHI2006, April, 2006
Daniel Wigdor
Chia Shen
Clifton Forlines
Ravin Balakrishnan
introduce
paper title
Co-authors
MERL & DGP
Brief summary richness in paper (though ugly without colour)

2. Problem
Watch this week!

3. Motivation

4. Issues Display Position Control Space Orientation Define terms
Example: using mouse with screen in front of you
Degrees vs letters
Control Space Orientation

5. Hemholtz (1866), Stratton (1897): prism glasses Cunningham (1989)
Related Work
HCI:
Nacenta et al. (2005)
Psychology:
Hemholtz (1866), Stratton (1897): prism glasses
Cunningham (1989)
Cunningham & Welch (1994)
Prism glasses remove retinal inversion
Cunningham 1: (insert thoughts!)
Cunningham 2: (insert thoughts!)

6. Performance penalties Recommend:
Our Goals
Find:
Preferred:
Display position(s)
Control orientation(s) for each position
Optimal:
Control orientation for each position
Performance penalties
Recommend:
Ideal display position(s)
Ideal control orientation(s)
Mouse seems to solve orientation problem

7. Two Experiments: Preference, Performance
Screen on wheels
Pen based input device
Imagine wacom tablet done virtually

8. Two Experiments: Preference, Performance
Screen on wheels
Pen based input device
Imagine wacom tablet done virtually

9. Task
Docking task:
Blue target on to red dock

10. Study 1: All About Preference
Setup:
Perform task at all 8 display positions
Participant sets control orientation
Measure:
Task time & error rate
Control orientation chosen by the participant
Participants’ preferred display position
Tells us:
Optimal display position
Preferred control orientation for each position
Performance at preferred control orientation

11. + Design 8 participants (all right handed) 8 display positions
40 trials per position
Participant-set control orientation +
Position orient reference frame themselves

12. Results: Display Position Preference
Participant
Most Preferred
Least Preferred 1 N S 2 NE 3
NE & NW 4 NW 5 6 SW 7
SE & S 8
6 of 8 participants prefer NE or NW position

13. Results: Control Orientation Preference
Each colour is a participant

14. Results: Control Orientation Preference
North (in front of the user) tight spread, but not all north

15. Results: Control Orientation Preference
10:00

16. Study 2: All About Performance
Setup:
Perform task at all 8 display positions
For each position, perform task at 8 control orientations
Measure:
Task time & error rate
Drag paths
Tells us:
Optimal control orientation for each position
Penalty for not meeting optimal
Display position and control orientation for shared displays
Avoid single user bias / ‘sweet spots’

17. + Design 8 participants (all right handed)
4 display positions each (8 total)
4 fixed control orientations each (8 total)
80 trials per position +

18. Results: Performance
Explain graph

19. Results: Performance
Explain graph

20. Screen North

21. Screen North

22. Screen North

23. Screen North

24. Results: Performance Interesting results
Users don’t know what they’re talking about!

25. Results: Performance
Green cases: optimal was within range selected by users. Red cases: wasn’t within range.

26. Design Recommendations
1 & 2 S SE E NE N NW W SW

27. Design Recommendations
1 & 2 S
53% SE
32% E
62% NE
46% N NW
36% W
41% SW
38%

28. Design Recommendations
1 & 2
1 & 3 S
53% SE
32% E
62% NE
46% N NW
36% W
41% SW
38%

29. Design Recommendations
1 & 2
1 & 3 S
53%
32% SE
38% E
62%
18% NE
46%
75% N NW
36% W
41% SW

30. Design Recommendations
1 & 2
1 & 3
1,2,3 S
53%
32% SE
38% E
62%
18% NE
46%
75% N NW
36% W
41% SW
Least preferred position is best!

31. Design Recommendations
1 & 2
1 & 3
1,2,3 S
53%
32% SE
38% E
62%
18% NE
46%
75% N NW
36% W
41% SW
Least preferred position is best!

32. Design Recommendations
1 & 2
1 & 3
1,2,3
1,2,3,4 S
53%
32% SE
38% E
62%
18% NE
46%
75% N NW
36% W
41% SW

33. Design Recommendations
1 & 2
1 & 3
1,2,3
1,2,3,4 S
53%
32%
183% SE
38%
273% E
62%
18% NE
46%
75% N NW
36% W
41% SW

34. Acknowledgements
Dr. Helen Cunningham
Experimental participants
John Barnwell
Edward Tse
CHI meta-reviewer
ARDA

35. Questions?