1. snap-and-go helping users align objects without the modality of traditional snapping patrick baudisch ed cutrell ken hinckley adam eversole microsoft research CHI 2005

2. not a demo

3. snapping gets in the way

5. kind of a solution hold down key to activate hold down key to deactivate problems 1.,, may be in use (Adobe) 2.more snapping functions than qualifier keys (Visio) 3.target audience may not know (who knows that tab switches windows?) in the real world 18% do

6. lots of UI for turning off a

7. now a demo

8. traditional snapping inaccessible snap location inaccessible snap-and-go snap location enlarged in motor space only

9. related work

10. Alignment techniques

12. Constraints Thinglab [Borning, CHI 86]

13. Alignment techniques Snap dragging [Bier, SIGGRAPH 86]

14. Alignment techniques Alignment Stick [Raisamo & Räihä, UIST 96]

15. Alignment techniques The CAGE [Baudisch, UIST 96]

16. Fuzzing with pointer speed Pseudo haptics [Lecuyer VR ’00]

17. Fuzzing with pointer speed Sticky icons [Worden…, CHI 97] Semantic pointing [Blanc, 04] Object pointing [Guiard 04]

18. snap-and-go in 2D

20. basic snap-and-go building blocks

21. combine building blocks to make widgets

22. widget example

23. snap-and-go vs. sticky

24. and yes, it also works also for target acquisition target vs. bubble cursor [Grossman, CHI 05] selecting handles

25. vs. Bubble Cursor [CHI 05] bubble cursor can’t help selecting these handles snap-and-go can because we insert

26. implementation

27. simplest code snapTo(x, width, snapX) { if (x >= snapX + width) return x - width + 1; if (x > snapX) return snapX; else return x; }

28. “real” implementation written in C# rectangular “friction objects” friction gradient of configurable direction and strength combine multiple friction objects algorithm integrate friction along interpolated pointer path  ok, even if pointer jumps over a widget track in subpixels to avoid accumulated error

29. user study

30. 3 studies snap-and-go compared to traditional snapping… snap-and-go with distractors… …in 1Dstudy 1study 2 …in 2D study 3

31. 1D apparatus

32. user study apparatus

33. experimental design within subjects design 2 x 4 x 4 (Snapping Technique x Attractor Width x Target Distance) 8 repetitions for each cell Distances 100, 200, 400, and 800 pixels Widths 5, 10, 18, and 34 pixels recorded task completion time and error 9 participants

34. hypotheses snap-and-go faster than no snapping stronger attractors reduce task time snap-and-go slightly slower than traditional snapping

35. results: task time

36. fitts analysis of task time

37. anecdote control condition != control condition We reran

38. 2 nd study: distractors

39. experimental design single distance only two attractor widths only snap-and-go (no traditional snapping)  (2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2) (Target Attractor on x Distractor 1 x Distractor 2 x Distractor 3 x Distractor 4 x Attractor Width) 4 repetitions for each cell recorded task completion time and error 9 participants

40. results: task time

41. “Oh, I see, you don’t put any targets really close the light bulbs, because I could not reach them there”

42. study 3: 2D apparatus 45 30 15 0

43. study 3: task 1 within subjects 2 x 4 x 4 (Snapping Technique x Attractor Width x Approach Angle) 8 repetitions for each cell distance to the target was 200 pixels approach angles were 0, 15, 30, and 45 degrees, recorded task completion time and error 11 participants

44. results task 1

45. study 3: task 2 distracters

46. study 3: task 2 within subjects 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 x 2 (Target Attractor Vertical x Target Attractor Horizontal x Distractor Vertical10 x Distractor Horizontal10 x Distractor Vertical60 x Distractor Horizontal60 4 repetitions for each cell recorded task completion time and error 11 participants

47. results task 2

48. discussion all 3 studies faster with snap-and-go than without 138% in 1D 231% in 2D as predicted slightly slower then traditional snapping 3% in 1D 14% in 2D fairly robust against distractors

49. lessons learned: placing attractor visuals

50. lessons learned: cartoon animation

51. conclusions: snap-and-go unlike traditional snapping does not require deactivation  omit the deactivation interface allows deployment where complexity of deactivation interface would be prohibitive

52. contributions 1.manipulations of mouse gain can help align objects 2.extended technique to 2D by introducing guides that guide dragged objects to snap locations (plus and the bar widgets) 3.three user studies evaluating future work: extend snap-and-go to such as pen and touch input

53. read more & try out patrickbaudisch.com/projects thanks to VIBE

54. END

55. a cb

57. user study apparatus