1. Improving drag-and-drop on wall-size displays
Maxime Collomb, LIRMM
Patrick Baudisch, Microsoft Research
Mountaz Hascoët, LIRMM
Brian Lee, Stanford Computer Graphics

2. Push-and-pop: not quite a demo
Download our demo from
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

3. Warning
Lots of X-and-Y names ahead…
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

4. Contents Pointing on wall-size displays Survey of existing techniques
Picking push-and-throw & drag-and-pop
The best of both worlds: push-and-pop
User Studies
Conclusion
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

5. Wall-size displays
Augmented surfaces are more and more widely available
Smartboard ®
DynaWall
iWall
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

6. Problems with pen&touch
user may not be able to reach content
Target may be too high
Bezels not touch sensitive
Fatigue
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

7. Related work (RSVP version)
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

8. Pick-and-drop Pick-and-drop [Rekimoto, 97] Take-and-put [Geißler, 98]
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

9. Hyperdragging [Rekimoto, CHI 99]
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

10. Frisbee [Khan, UIST 04]
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

11. Laser pointers [Olsen 01, Myers 02]
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

12. TractorBeam [Parker, in 30min]
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

13. Push-and-throw [Hascoët, HCI 03]
Pantograph principle (~go go technique [Poupyrev, UIST 96])
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

14. RADAR [Nacenta, CHI 05] Pantographs (lots of them…) May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

15. Drag-and-pop [Baudisch, INTERACT 03]
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

16. Vacuum [Bezerianos, CHI 05]
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

17. The question…
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

18. What is better Bring user to content (push-and-throw)
Bring content to user (drag-and-pop)
…or just good old direct manipulation (pick-and-drop) ?
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

19. Fixing drag-and-pop Use asymmetric target sector
Make sure proxies appear in current display unit
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

20. Fixing push-and-throw
Add non-linear acceleration
Add semantic pointing: slow down pointer over target [Blanch CHI 04]
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

21. But wait: maybe push-and-throw and drag-and-pop are not mutually exclusive…
GI'05, Victoria, BC

22. push-and-pop From drag-and-pop From push-and-throw
Bringing targets to the user
Avoid imprecision of push-and-throw
From push-and-throw
Using the object centered take-off area
Avoid target set selection error of drag-and-pop
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

23. push-and-pop
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

24. User studies
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

25.  iWall (exp. n°2) 6 participants
 Double display (exp. n°1) 12 participants
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

26. Interfaces Technique Approach Need to reorient Drag-and-drop – Never
Pick-and-drop
Push-and-throw
To target
Constantly
Accelerated PT
Drag-and-pop
To pointer
Once
Push-and-pop
Once, later never
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

27. Task Dragging icons into target icon on a simulated desktop
Independent variables
6 interfaces
12 distances
repeated 3 times (4 times on the 2nd exp.)
216 / 288 trials for each participant
Dependent variables
Movement time
Error rate
Subjective satisfaction
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

28. First study results
Mean task completion time for each technique depending of the ID of the task
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

29. First study results Error rates (in percent) May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

30. First study results Subjective preferences (higher is better)
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

31. Repeated same study on 3-unit display wall
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

32. Second study results
Mean task completion time for each technique depending of the ID of the task
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

33. Second study results Error rates (in percent) May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

34. Second study results Subjective preferences (higher is better)
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

35. Discussion Drag-and-drop performs well on single display
Among pointer-to-target techniques, acc. push-and-throw design improvements were beneficial
Push-and-pop outperformed all other techniques
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

36. Conclusion Techniques that bring content to the user performed better
We think: this is because they minimize the need for users to reorient themselves
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

37. Future work Extends Push-and-pop to widgets
Optimize design of push-and-pop
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

38. Future work Extends Push-and-pop to widgets May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

39. Thank you! Thanks to Mountaz & Brian Download our demo from
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

40. « In case of » slides The « many same-icon targets » problem
Pnp with rubber bands
Pnp with one rubber band (current selected target)
Experiment desktop layout choice
Experiment rooms arrangement
Extending push-and-pop to widgets
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

41. The « many same-icon targets » problem
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

42. Push-and-pop with rubber bands
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

43. Push-and-pop with one rubber band (current selected target)
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

44. Experiment desktop layout choice (1)
Test
4 blocks of 10 trials
2 interaction techniques:
drag-and-drop
push-and-pop
2 desktop layouts:
Same sources and targets (different positions for each trial).
Different source and targets.
A total of 160 trials
Single display and mouse were used
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

45. Marking menus [Kurtenbach, CHI 94]
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

46. Experiment desktop layout choice (2)
Result:
Differences wasn’t significant between the 2 desktop layouts
P = for drag-and-drop
P = for push-and-pop
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC

47. Future work: Tablecloth
May, 2005
GI'05, Victoria, BC