ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Benefits of merging command selection and direct manipulation
Full text PdfPdf (615 KB)
Source ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) archive
Volume 12 ,  Issue 3  (September 2005) table of contents
Pages: 460 - 476  
Year of Publication: 2005
ISSN:1073-0516
Authors
François Guimbretière  University of Maryland, College Park, Maryland
Andrew Martin  Stanford University, Stanford, California
Terry Winograd  Stanford University, Stanford, California
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 18,   Downloads (12 Months): 127,   Citation Count: 9
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1096737.1096742
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Toolglass [Bier et al. 1993] demonstrated a two-handed command selection technique that combined command selection and direct manipulation. While empirical evaluations showed a speed advantage for ToolGlass, they did not examine the relative importance of two possible factors in its improved performance: (1) the use of two hands and (2) the merging of command selection and direct manipulation.We conducted a study comparing the relative benefits of three command selection techniques that merge command selection and direct manipulation: one two-handed technique, Toolglass, and two one-handed techniques, namely, control menus [Pook et al. 2000] and FlowMenu [Guimbretière and Winograd 2000]. Participants performed sequences of operations that required both selecting a color and designating the endpoints of a line. Our results show that control menus and FlowMenu are significantly faster than Toolglass. Further analysis suggests that the merging of command selection and direct manipulation is the most important factor in the performance of all three techniques.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

1
2
3
4
5
 
6
Buxton, B. 1986. Chunking and phrasing and the design of human-computer dialogues. In Proceedings of the IFIP World Computer Congress. Dublin, Ireland. 475--480.
7
 
8
Guiard, Y. 1987. Asymmetric division of labor in human skilled bimanual action: The kinematic chain as a model. J. Motor Behav. 19, 4, 486--517.
9
10
 
11
12
13
 
14
15
16
17
 
18
Mackay, W. E. 2002. Which interaction technique works when? floating palettes, marking menus and toolglasses support different task strategies. In Proceedings of Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI'02). Trento, Italy. 203--208.
 
19
McGuffin, M., Burtnyk, N., and Kurtenbach, G. 2002. FaST sliders: Integrating marking menus and the adjustment of continuous values. In Proceedings of Graphics Interface (GI'02). Calgary, Alberta, Canada. 35--42.
20
 
21
Poulton, E. C. 1966. Unwanted asymmetrical transfer effects with balanced experimental designs. Psych. Bull. 66, 1, 1--8.
 
22
 
23
Welford, A. T. 1971. Fundamentals of Skill. Methuen, London, UK.

CITED BY  9

Collaborative Colleagues:
François Guimbretière: colleagues
Andrew Martin: colleagues
Terry Winograd: colleagues