1. Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Shengdong Zhao, Ravin Balakrishnan

2. 2 Compound Mark Technique

3. 3

4. 4

5. 5

6. 6

7. 7

8. 8 Advantages Seamless novice to expert transition

9. 9 Advantages Seamless novice to expert transition 3.5 x faster than linear menus

10. 10 Advantages Seamless novice to expert transition 3.5 x faster than linear menus Scale invariance =

11. 11 Limitations – Error Rate Breadth/depth/speed/accuracy trade-off [Kurtenbach and Buxton, 1993] Compass4

12. 12 Limitations – Error Rate Breadth/depth/speed/accuracy trade-off [Kurtenbach and Buxton, 1993] Compass4Compass4-4

13. 13 Limitations – Error Rate Breadth/depth/speed/accuracy trade-off [Kurtenbach and Buxton, 1993] Compass8

14. 14 Limitations – Error Rate Breadth/depth/speed/accuracy trade-off [Kurtenbach and Buxton, 1993] Compass8Compass8-2

15. 15 Limitations – Ambiguous Marks S-S-N

16. 16 Limitations – Ambiguous Marks S-S-N = S-N-N

17. 17 Limitations – Ambiguous Marks S-S-N = S-N-N compass8-3: 22% ambiguous compass4-4: 57% ambiguous

18. 18 Limitations – Physical Space NE-E -NE-E

19. 19 Compound Mark Technique

20. 20 Simple Mark Technique

21. 21 Simple Mark Technique

22. 22 Simple Mark Technique

23. 23 Simple Mark Technique

24. 24 Simple Mark Technique

25. 25 Simple Mark Technique

26. 26 Simple Mark Technique

27. 27 Compound vs. Simple Compound Mark Technique Simple Mark Technique Breadth vs. Depth Compass4:max. depth 4 Compass8:max. depth 2 Possibly more depth AmbiguityYesNO Space usageGrows quadraticallyTheoretical constant Physical MotionSingle zig-zag strokeMultiple simple strokes

28. 28 Compound vs. Simple Compound Mark Technique Simple Mark Technique Breadth vs. Depth Compass4:max. depth 4 Compass8:max. depth 2 Possibly more depth AmbiguityYesNO Space usageGrows quadraticallyTheoretical constant Physical MotionSingle zig-zag strokeMultiple simple strokes

29. 29 Compound vs. Simple Compound Mark Technique Simple Mark Technique Breadth vs. Depth Compass4:max. depth 4 Compass8:max. depth 2 Possibly more depth AmbiguityYesNO Space usageGrows quadraticallyTheoretical constant Physical MotionSingle zig-zag strokeMultiple simple strokes

30. 30 Compound vs. Simple Compound Mark Technique Simple Mark Technique Breadth vs. Depth Compass4:max. depth 4 Compass8:max. depth 2 Possibly more depth AmbiguityYesNO Space usageGrows quadraticallyTheoretical constant Physical MotionSingle zig-zag strokeMultiple simple strokes

31. 31 Research Issues Speed and accuracy Hierarchy depth Input footprint Spatial overlap Timeout threshold Mark directions on-axisoff-axis

32. 32 Experimental Setup

33. 33 Input Footprint 1.25 x 1.25 3.5 x 4.25 7.8 x 8.8

34. 34 Experimental Design

35. 35 12 participants x Experimental Design

36. 36 12 participants x 2 techniques (compound, simple) x Experimental Design

37. 37 12 participants x 2 techniques (compound, simple) x 3 input footprint (small, medium, large) x Experimental Design

38. 38 12 participants x 2 techniques (compound, simple) x 3 input footprint (small, medium, large) x 4 layouts (compass4-2, 4-3, 8-2, 8-3) Experimental Design

39. 39 12 participants x 2 techniques (compound, simple) x 3 input footprint (small, medium, large) x 4 layouts (compass4-2, 4-3, 8-2, 8-3) = 9216 menu selections in total. Experimental Design

40. 40 Accuracy Overall: Compound (80%) vs. Simple (93%) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Accuracy(%) 4,2 4,3 8,2 8,3 4,2 4,3 8,2 8,3 4,2 4,3 8,2 8,3 Menu Layout (breadth, depth)

41. 41 Accuracy 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Accuracy(%) Off On Mix Off On Mix Off On Mix Off On Mix Off On Mix Off On Mix Level 2 Level 3 Level 2 Level 3 Level 2 Level 3 LargeMediumSmall

42. 42 Speed 4,2 4,3 8,2 8,3 4,2 4,3 8,2 8,3 4,2 4,3 8,2 8,3 Menu Layout (breadth, depth) 4 3.5 3 2.5 2 1.5 1 0.5 0 Time (in second)

43. 43 Speed Off On Mix Off On Mix Off On Mix Off On Mix Off On Mix Off On Mix Level 2 Level 3 Level 2 Level 3 Level 2 Level 3 LargeMediumSmall Time (in second) 543210543210

44. 44 Input Space Usage

45. 45 Results Summary Faster, more accurate Increased hierarchy depth Mark direction no effect on accuracy Unaffected by input footprint Space efficient Timeout threshold: 2s upper bound

46. 46 Menu Transition Alternatives

47. 47 Backtracking Alternatives

48. 48 Future Directions Novice to expert transition Mode errors

49. 49 Acknowledgements Mark Chignell, Michael McGuffin, Jingnan Yang, Xiao Wu, Faye Baron, Rick Bodner Experiment participants Members of DGP and MIE lab UIST Reviewers

50. 50 Questions

51. 51 Formula for Calculating Ambiguity Let B be the branching factor of the menu (e.g., 4, 8) Let D be the depth of the menu (i.e., number of levels) Then, the total number of leaf nodes = B^D Number of leaf nodes with unambiguous marks = (number of marks with maximal number D-1 inflections) + (number of marks with no inflections at all) = B*(B-1)^(D-1) + B Example calculations: compass8-2 layout = 8*(7^1) + 8 = 64 (i.e., all leaves) compass4-4 layout = 4*(3^3) + 4 = 112 (43% of all leaves) compass8-3 layout = 8*(7^2) + 8 = 400 (78% of all leaves)

52. 52 Drawing TimeReaction Time

53. 53 Drawing TimeReaction Time

54. 54 Experimental Setup