Usability Study Mouse Zoom

1,563 views

Published on

A small usability study to judge the effect of mouse wheel zoom direction settings in Google Earth navigation.

Published in: Technology, Design
1 Comment
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • S'funny, I find the reverse setting to be more intuitive. Push object away, pull object closer. I find I make way more errors with the 'proper' settings (defined by Microsoft?). Problem is many (and most of Microsoft's) have no setting to switch it.
       Reply 
    Are you sure you want to  Yes  No
    Your message goes here
No Downloads
Views
Total views
1,563
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
12
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
15
Comments
1
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Usability Study Mouse Zoom

  1. 1. Usability Study The Effect of Mouse Scroll-wheel Configuration on Virtual Globe Navigation Amenity Applewhite Yikalo Hayelom Jia Wang
  2. 2. Outline • Introduction • Motivation • Hypothesis • Study Methodology • Results & Discussion • Conclusion • Recommendation 2
  3. 3. Introduction: Mouse Zoom Available in many applications: Microsoft Office, AutoCAD, ArcMap, Photoshop... Default setting: • “Push” forward • “Pull” back 3
  4. 4. Introduction: Virtual Globes • Streaming satellite imagery in 3D • Zoomable User Interface ZUI information navigation best supported by natural and geographic ways of thinking* *Perlin & Fox 1993 4
  5. 5. Introduction: Virtual Globes Four ways to zoom: • Double-click • Mouse scroll-wheel 5
  6. 6. Introduction: Virtual Globes Four ways to zoom: • Double-click • Mouse scroll-wheel 5
  7. 7. Introduction: Virtual Globes Four ways to zoom: • Double-click • Mouse scroll-wheel 5
  8. 8. Motivation • Increasing popularity of virtual globes • Main ZUI navigation problem: users may get “lost” while zooming* • Need to provide intuitive tools for a usable interface Compare the usability of two zoom configurations. *Buring, et al 2006 6
  9. 9. Methodology Hypothesis Despite the fact that most software shares the same default setting for mouse zooming, users will be able to adjust to the default configuration without a marked decrease in usability. 7
  10. 10. Methodology Usability (adapted from Nielsen) Learnability ease of accomplishing task the first time Errors number of errors and ease of recovery Satisfaction pleasant to use design? 8
  11. 11. Methodology Test design Participants 6 classmates: 4 males, 2 females; 23-29 Simple task instrucions • 4 screenshots in Google Earth, pasted into Word • Instructed only to use mouse wheel for movement 9
  12. 12. Methodology 10
  13. 13. Methodology Test design Two sessions First with default zoom, second reverse Recorded with CamStudio Facial expressions and speech noted Post study interview, scale 1-5 • Difficulty • Enjoyment 10
  14. 14. Methodology Test design Errors & Learnability • number of errors counted in second half of tasks in both sessions • compared results individually Enjoyment • observed during session • reported during interview 11
  15. 15. Methodology Test design Criteria to accept hypothesis • an increase of errors with reverse configuration no greater than 10% • no significant decrease in enjoyment - observed or reported 12
  16. 16. Results 1 • Difference in errors with reverse setting 2 greater than 10% 3 for 4 users User 4 5 6 0 0.075 7.5% 0.150 15% 0.225 22.5% 0.300 Increase in zoom errors with reverse setting 13
  17. 17. Results 1 • Difference in errors with reverse setting 2 12.38% greater than 10% 3 for 4 users User 4 20% 5 20.55% 6 13.18% 0 0.075 7.5% 0.150 15% 0.225 22.5% 0.300 Increase in zoom errors with reverse setting 13
  18. 18. Results Total Number of Zooms • All users performed 1 more zooms with 2 reverse setting 3 User 4 5 6 0 20 40 60 80 Test 1 default zoom Test 2 reverse zoom 14
  19. 19. Results • Two users noticed the change immediately • One vocalized frustration throughout task with reverse setting • One user reported that the reverse setting was more difficult • No one reported the reverse setting was less enjoyable 15
  20. 20. Conclusion Must reject hypothesis: • Increase in errors was greater than 10% for the majority of users; not learnable! • Reported and observed decrease in enjoyment; not enjoyable! • Questions raised about efficiency, more zooms Ultimately, the reverse setting seems to have lower usability. 16
  21. 21. Recommendation • Some users not affected by reverse setting • Using the scroll wheel instead of double- click was very difficult for some users • We recommend that virtual globe interfaces offer a range of zooming methods and allow users to adjust the configurations 17
  22. 22. References Büring, T., Gerken, J., and Reiterer, H. 2006. Usability of overview-supported zooming on small screens with regard to individual differences in spatial ability. In Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual interfaces (Venezia, Italy, May 23 - 26, 2006). AVI '06. ACM, New York, NY, 233-240. Perlin, K. and Fox, D. 1993. Pad: an alternative approach to the computer interface. In Proceedings of the 20th Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and interactive Techniques SIGGRAPH '93. ACM, New York, NY, 57-64. 18
  23. 23. Questions? 19

×