4. ergonomic of wimp interface

1,733 views
1,576 views

Published on

Multimedia

Published in: Education, Technology
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,733
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
50
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Conduct : the act of leading, guidance
  • 4. ergonomic of wimp interface

    1. 1. HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION (INTERACTION HOMME-MACHINE) Sethserey SAM
    2. 2. CHAPTER 4: ERGONOMIC OF WIMP INTERFACE Usage conduct rules from honest graphic user interface designer for interactive system
    3. 3. INTERACTION STYLE <ul><li>Command line </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Query language and question / reply </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Menus </li></ul><ul><li>WIMP interfaces </li></ul><ul><li>Selection form </li></ul><ul><li>Natural language (handwriting, speech) </li></ul><ul><li>3D interface, gesture (sensor), approaching the reality, … </li></ul>
    4. 4. WINDOWS/WIDGETS <ul><li>A Window is rarely a passive object: Widget </li></ul><ul><li>Interactive graphic object </li></ul><ul><li>Ergonomic recommendation concerning all aspects of widgets </li></ul><ul><li>General design for display (simple) </li></ul><ul><li>Dynamic behavior: react to user actions </li></ul><ul><li>Some ergonomic recommendation </li></ul><ul><li>Open the windows </li></ul><ul><li>Direct manipulation: maintain the </li></ul><ul><li>feedback </li></ul>
    5. 5. WINDOWS AND FEEDBACK <ul><li>An essential dimension </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Always conserve the coupling perception/action which allows the paradigm of direct manipulation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Example </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Pointing / selection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Movement / Modification / Tracking </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Opening / Closure </li></ul></ul>
    6. 6. WINDOWS: OPENING <ul><li>Open a Window </li></ul><ul><li>A strategy to avoid </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Fixed parameters for opening </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Two strategies acceptable </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Concentrate on user preferences : opening to the position and follow the size of the last closure </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Concentrate on focus : opening to the proximity of attention focus (for example: the icon which is just clicked on), but to a sufficiently distance which will not mask this focus </li></ul></ul>
    7. 7. WINDOWS: OPENING / CLOSURE Opening an Windows Conservation of feedback Closure an Windows The closure without feedback (no animation …) is disturbing
    8. 8. MULTI-WINDOWS <ul><li>Advantage: multi-tasking environment </li></ul><ul><ul><li>A task may need several applications </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Transparent management of multi-task compare with commands in UNIX bg / fg </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Principle problem: masking of information </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lose of context </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Access time for the masking windows </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Different strategies for multi-tasking management </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Mosaics of windows (tiling) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Flipping windows </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Overlapping windows (recovery) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Zoomable windows </li></ul></ul>
    9. 9. MULTI-WINDOWS: STRATEGY Mosaics of windows (tiling)
    10. 10. MULTI-WINDOWS: STRATEGY Windows overlapping Flipping windows
    11. 11. MULTI-WINDOWS: STRATEGY Zoomable windows Mac OS X (Exposé / Quartz Extreme)
    12. 12. MULTI-WINDOWS: RECOMMENDATION <ul><li>Organization strategies </li></ul><ul><li>Allow recovery or failover (overlapping) of windows for experienced user </li></ul><ul><li>Use tiling windows for occasional user </li></ul><ul><li>Example: Encyclopedia for public </li></ul><ul><li>Strategies for division in windows </li></ul><ul><li>Organize the division according to the task: regrouping coherent of information </li></ul><ul><li>Limit the quantity of information to memorize from one window to another </li></ul><ul><li>Adapt the number of windows to the utilization: increase the number of windows for an utilization less frequent, complex windows is limited/reserved for very frequent usage (ex: Paint, Photoshop, …) </li></ul>
    13. 13. ICON <ul><li>Advantage </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Easily identifiable </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Compact: small space in interface </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Difficulty </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Identification the meaning associate to an icon </li></ul></ul>[Camacho 90]
    14. 14. ICON: CONSTRUCTION <ul><li>Methodologies </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Identify all the commands we want to make icon and create the icon in the same time </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Limit the icons to frequent command </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Always valid the conception by an experimentation </li></ul></ul>Construction rules
    15. 15. ICON: GUIDELINE <ul><li>Some recommendations </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Limit number of icons on interface (degradation from 12) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Ensure that the character of selection of an icon is clearly visible </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Help identify the icons </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Ensure that the icons are well distinguishable from one to another </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Group the icons base on family </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Coherence the representation in the group </li></ul></ul>Prioritize the association icon/text
    16. 16. MENUS <ul><li>Not necessary in graphic </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Menus are used before the creation of GUIs WIMP </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Advantage </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Structure the functionalities of system following an organization logic and coherence which is easy understand and memorize </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Important of task analyses </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Limitation </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Lack of rapidity: useful especially for novice and occasional user (forecast shortcut for expert) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Different structures of menus </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Unique menus </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Linear sequential task (example: software installation) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hierarchic </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Acyclic </li></ul></ul>
    17. 17. MENUS: LINEAR <ul><li>Use case </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Sequential task </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Simplification of a task through a succession of sub-tasks </li></ul></ul>Example Form creation in MS ACCESS
    18. 18. MENUS: ACYCLIC <ul><li>Explore order indifferent </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Sub-task independent or optional </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Menus tabs, options </li></ul></ul>
    19. 19. MENUS: HIERARCHIC <ul><li>Example 1 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>MS PowerPoint: 3 level, width (factor of branching) 6 to 20 </li></ul></ul>
    20. 20. MENUS: HIERARCHIC <ul><li>Example 2 </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Windows Start Menus: vary level and width </li></ul></ul>
    21. 21. MENUS: HIERARCHIC <ul><li>Which organization of level and width? </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Kiger (1984): 64 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Wallace et al. (1987): problem menus level </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>96% supplementary of errors </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>16% more of time execution </li></ul></ul></ul>Width x Levels
    22. 22. MENUS: HIERARCHIC <ul><li>Law of Landauer and Nachbar (1985) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Experimental law: access time of a menus of N items which is divided into D balance levels (the same factor of branching b for each node), suppose D = log b (N) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Experiment with N=4096; b=2, 4, 8, 16 </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>General rule T = D * (k 1 + k 2 *log(b)) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Recommendation </li></ul><ul><li>Prioritize the larger of menus to its levels </li></ul><ul><li>Maximum width : 10 (novices) to 20 (experts) item maximum for each level </li></ul><ul><li>Maximum level : 3 or 4 </li></ul><ul><li>Vary width : we can increase the factors of branching to the root and leave of tree </li></ul><ul><li>Always consider the specificity of task </li></ul>
    23. 23. MENUS: ORDER OF THE REPRESENTATION OF ITEMS <ul><li>Sort the item for sequential data (natural order) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Date, number (chapter number, quantity, …), … </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Do not have natural order: static ordering </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Order items base on alphabetic </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Functional : the most important item first </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Frequency : the item most used first </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Do not have natural order: dynamic ordering </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Last used item first </li></ul></ul>
    24. 24. ORDER OF THE REPRESENTATION: EXPERIMENTATION <ul><li>Card (1982): Text Editor menus with 18 items </li></ul><ul><li>Somberg and Picardi (1983): menus with 5 items </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Selection time proportional to the position of the item in the list </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Selection time more rapid with familiarized items </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Mitchell and Schneiderman (1988): dinner menu selection </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Best performance with static menus vs. dynamic menus </li></ul></ul>
    25. 25. MENUS: ORDER OF THE REPRESENTATION OF ITEMS Alphabetic Functional Frequency Dynamic Static: positional coherence
    26. 26. MENUS: ORDER OF THE REPRESENTATION OF ITEMS <ul><li>Shared menus </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Compromise previous solution </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>3-4 items the most frequent use </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Last selected items </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Static functional menus for the following </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Principle of commensurate efforts </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Destructive commands (cannot cancel) at the end of menus, with separation </li></ul></ul>MS Office XP
    27. 27. MENUS: ORDER OF THE REPRESENTATION OF ITEMS <ul><li>Positional coherence and Contextual menus </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Conserve non valid items for the current context </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Operational visibility, guidance: made different items valid </li></ul></ul>MS PowerPoint
    28. 28. POINTER: MOUSE <ul><li>Affectation of commands to the button </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Coherence: the rules of mouse buttons must be constant </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Coherence: integrated the classic rules of button </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Left button: selection </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>Right button: display contextual menus </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Adaptation: not everyone have a mouse with 3 buttons </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><ul><li>No command invoke-able uniquely with mouse </li></ul></ul></ul><ul><li>Double click </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Commands associate to a double click must be coherent with the one of single click on the same button </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No any function should be invoked only with double click (ex: open) </li></ul></ul>
    29. 29. OTHER WIMP OBJECTS <ul><li>Pop-up windows </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Explicit button (termination: OK, …) and visible </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Place the pop-up windows close to concerning object </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Study the position and size to avoid masking of information </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Masking: allow the movement of window before termination </li></ul></ul>Selection components Check/radio Button Selection list List Number of choice [2,6] [7,12] >12 Vary Check/Radio Button Selection List List
    30. 30. BIBLIOGRAPHIES <ul><li>Publication </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Camacho M.J., Steiner B.A., Berson B.L. (1990) Icons versus alpha-numerics in pilot-vehicles interfaces. Actes Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Card S. (1982) User perceptual mechanisms in the search of computer command menus. Actes ACM Human Factors in Computer Systems, Washington DC. 190-196. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Kiger J. (1984) The depth / breadth trade-off in the design of menu-driven user interfaces. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 20, 1984. 201-213. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Landauer T., Nachbar D. (1985) Selection from alphabetic and numeric menu trees using a touch screen : breadth, depth and width. Actes CHI’85, ACM, New-York, NJ, 73-78. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Mitchell J., Schneidermann B. (1989) Dynamic versus static menus : an experimental comparison. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 20(4), 33-36. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Somberg B., Picardi M. (1983) Locus of information familiarity effect in the search of computer menus. Actes 37th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society, San Monica, CA, 826_830. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Wallace D., Anderson N., Shneiderman B. (1987) Time stress effect on two menu selection systems, Actes 31th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, CA. 727-731. </li></ul></ul>

    ×