Successfully reported this slideshow.
We use your LinkedIn profile and activity data to personalize ads and to show you more relevant ads. You can change your ad preferences anytime.

of

Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 1 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 2 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 3 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 4 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 5 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 6 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 7 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 8 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 9 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 10 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 11 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 12 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 13 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 14 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 15 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 16 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 17 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 18 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 19 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 20 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 21 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 22 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 23 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 24 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 25 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 26 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 27 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 28 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 29 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 30 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 31 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 32 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 33 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 34 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 35 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 36 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 37 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 38 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 39 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 40 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 41 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 42 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 43 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 44 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 45 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 46 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 47 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 48 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 49 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 50 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 51 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 52 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 53 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Slide 54
Upcoming SlideShare
What to Upload to SlideShare
Next
Download to read offline and view in fullscreen.

0 Likes

Share

Download to read offline

Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus

Download to read offline

Authors: Shengdong Zhao, Ravin Balakrishnan

Related Books

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all

Related Audiobooks

Free with a 30 day trial from Scribd

See all
  • Be the first to like this

Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus

  1. 1. Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Shengdong Zhao, Ravin Balakrishnan
  2. 2. 2 Compound Mark Technique
  3. 3. 3 Compound Mark Technique
  4. 4. 4 Compound Mark Technique
  5. 5. 5 Compound Mark Technique
  6. 6. 6 Compound Mark Technique
  7. 7. 7 Compound Mark Technique
  8. 8. 8 Advantages Seamless novice to expert transition
  9. 9. 9 Advantages Seamless novice to expert transition 3.5 x faster than linear menus
  10. 10. 10 Advantages Seamless novice to expert transition 3.5 x faster than linear menus Scale invariance =
  11. 11. 11 Limitations – Error Rate Breadth/depth/speed/accuracy trade-off [Kurtenbach and Buxton, 1993] Compass4
  12. 12. 12 Limitations – Error Rate Breadth/depth/speed/accuracy trade-off [Kurtenbach and Buxton, 1993] Compass4 Compass4-4
  13. 13. 13 Limitations – Error Rate Breadth/depth/speed/accuracy trade-off [Kurtenbach and Buxton, 1993] Compass8
  14. 14. 14 Limitations – Error Rate Breadth/depth/speed/accuracy trade-off [Kurtenbach and Buxton, 1993] Compass8 Compass8-2
  15. 15. 15 Limitations – Ambiguous Marks S-S-N
  16. 16. 16 Limitations – Ambiguous Marks S-S-N = S-N-N
  17. 17. 17 Limitations – Ambiguous Marks S-S-N = S-N-N compass8-3: 22% ambiguous compass4-4: 57% ambiguous
  18. 18. 18 Limitations – Physical Space NE-E-NE-E
  19. 19. 19 Compound Mark Technique
  20. 20. 20 Simple Mark Technique
  21. 21. 21 Simple Mark Technique
  22. 22. 22 Simple Mark Technique
  23. 23. 23 Simple Mark Technique
  24. 24. 24 Simple Mark Technique
  25. 25. 25 Simple Mark Technique
  26. 26. 26 Simple Mark Technique
  27. 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 Ambiguity Yes NO Space usage Grows quadratically Theoretical constant Physical Motion Single zig-zag stroke Multiple simple strokes
  28. 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 Ambiguity Yes NO Space usage Grows quadratically Theoretical constant Physical Motion Single zig-zag stroke Multiple simple strokes
  29. 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 Ambiguity Yes NO Space usage Grows quadratically Theoretical constant Physical Motion Single zig-zag stroke Multiple simple strokes
  30. 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 Ambiguity Yes NO Space usage Grows quadratically Theoretical constant Physical Motion Single zig-zag stroke Multiple simple strokes
  31. 31. 31 Research Issues Speed and accuracy Hierarchy depth Input footprint Spatial overlap Timeout threshold Mark directions on-axis off-axis
  32. 32. 32 Experimental Setup
  33. 33. 33 Input Footprint 1.25’’ x 1.25’’ 3.5’’ x 4.25’’ 7.8’’ x 8.8’’
  34. 34. 34 Experimental Design
  35. 35. 35 12 participants x Experimental Design
  36. 36. 36 12 participants x 2 techniques (compound, simple) x Experimental Design
  37. 37. 37 12 participants x 2 techniques (compound, simple) x 3 input footprint (small, medium, large) x Experimental Design
  38. 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. 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. 40 Accuracy Overall: Compound (80%) vs. Simple (93%) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 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 (Number of items, depth) Accuracy(%) compound simple Large Medium Small 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. 41 Accuracy 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% off on mix off on mix off on mix off on mix off on mix off on mix Accuracy(%) compound simple Large Medium Small Level 2 Level 3 Level 2 Level 3 Level 2 Level 3 100% 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 Large Medium Small
  42. 42. 42 Speed 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 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 (Number of items, depth) Time(insecond) compound simple Large Medium Small 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(insecond)
  43. 43. 43 Speed 0 1 2 3 4 5 off on mix off on mix off on mix off on mix off on mix off on mix TotalTime(insecond) compound simple Large Medium Small Level 2 Level 3 Level 2 Level 3 Level 2 Level 3 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 Large Medium Small Time(insecond) 5 4 3 2 1 0
  44. 44. 44 Input Space Usage 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 Participant ID Area(KiloPixels) compound simple 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 Area(KiloPixels) Large Medium Small Comp4 Comp8 Comp4 Comp8 Comp4 Comp8 2 2 2 2 2 23 3 3 3 3 3
  45. 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. 46 Menu Transition Alternatives Furniture Fruit ToolAuto Furniture Fruit ToolAuto Hammer Nail ScrewSaw Furniture Fruit ToolAuto Hammer Nail ScrewSaw Furniture Fruit Auto Tool Nail ScrewSaw HammerFurniture Fruit Auto Tool Furniture Fruit ToolAuto Nail ScrewSaw Hammer
  47. 47. 47 Backtracking Alternatives Sun Thurs Tues Mon Wes Sat Fri Season Month Date Day Furniture Fruit Auto Hammer Nail ScrewSawTool
  48. 48. 48 Future Directions Novice to expert transition Mode errors
  49. 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. 50 Questions
  51. 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. 52 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 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 (Number of items, depth) Time(insecond) compound simple Large Medium Small 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 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 (Number of items, depth)Time(insecond) compound simple Large Medium Small Drawing TimeReaction Time
  53. 53. 53 0 1 2 3 4 5 off on mix off on mix off on mix off on mix off on mix off on mix ReactionTime(insecond) compound simple Large Medium Small Level 2 Level 3 Level 2 Level 3 Level 2 Level 3 0 1 2 3 4 5 off on mix off on mix off on mix off on mix off on mix off on mix DrawingTime(insecond) compound simple Large Medium Small Level 2 Level 3 Level 2 Level 3 Level 2 Level 3 Drawing TimeReaction Time
  54. 54. 54 Experimental Setup

Authors: Shengdong Zhao, Ravin Balakrishnan

Views

Total views

56

On Slideshare

0

From embeds

0

Number of embeds

39

Actions

Downloads

0

Shares

0

Comments

0

Likes

0

×