Evaluating visual cues for window switching on large screens

ABSTRACT

An increasing number of users are adopting large, multi-monitor displays. The resulting setups cover such a broad viewing angle that users can no longer simultaneously perceive all parts of the screen. Changes outside the user's visual field often go unnoticed. As a result, users sometimes have trouble locating the active window, for example after switching focus. This paper surveys graphical cues designed to direct visual attention and adapts them to window switching. Visual cues include five types of frames and mask around the target window and four trails leading to the window. We report the results of two user studies. The first evaluates each cue in isolation. The second evaluates hybrid techniques created by combining the most successful candidates from the first study. The best cues were visually sparse --- combinations of curved frames which use color to pop-out and tapered trails with predictable origin.

REFERENCES

• 1: Austen, E. and Enns, J. T. Change detection: Paying attention to detail. Psyche, 6, 11.
• 2: Lyn Bartram , Colin Ware , Tom Calvert, Moticons: detection, distraction and task, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, v.58 n.5, p.515-545, May 2003 [doi>10.1016/S1071-5819(03)00021-1]
• 3: Baudisch, P., Cutrell, E., Robbins, D., Czerwinski, M., Tandler, P. Bederson, B., and Zierlinger, A. Drag-and-Pop and Drag-and-Pick: Techniques for Accessing Remote Screen Content on Touch- and Pen-operated Systems. In Proc Interact 2003, 57--64.
• 4: Patrick Baudisch , Ruth Rosenholtz, Halo: a technique for visualizing off-screen objects, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, April 05-10, 2003, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA [doi>10.1145/642611.642695]
• 5: Patrick Baudisch , Desney Tan , Maxime Collomb , Dan Robbins , Ken Hinckley , Maneesh Agrawala , Shengdong Zhao , Gonzalo Ramos, Phosphor: explaining transitions in the user interface using afterglow effects, Proceedings of the 19th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, October 15-18, 2006, Montreux, Switzerland [doi>10.1145/1166253.1166280]
• 6: Anastasia Bezerianos , Pierre Dragicevic , Ravin Balakrishnan, Mnemonic rendering: an image-based approach for exposing hidden changes in dynamic displays, Proceedings of the 19th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, October 15-18, 2006, Montreux, Switzerland [doi>10.1145/1166253.1166279]
• 7: Callaghan, T. C. Interference and dominance in texture segregation. Perception & Psychophysics, 46, 4 (1989), 299--311.
• 8: Chi, C.-F. and Lin, F.-T. A comparison of seven visual fatigue assessment techniques in three data-acquisition vdt tasks. Human Factors, 40, 4 (1998), 577--590.
• 9: Czerwinski, M., Smith, G., Regan, T., Meyers, B., Robertson, G. G., and Starkweather, G. Toward characterizing the productivity benefits of very large displays. In Proc Interact 2003, 9--16.
• 10: Duncan, J. and Humphreys, G. W. Visual search and stimulus similarity. Psychological Review, 96, 3 (1989), 433--458.
• 11: Jonathan Grudin, Partitioning digital worlds: focal and peripheral awareness in multiple monitor use, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, p.458-465, March 2001, Seattle, Washington, United States [doi>10.1145/365024.365312]
• 12: Hillstrom, A. P. and Yantis, S. Visual motion and attentional capture. Perception and Psychophysics, 55, 4 (1994), 399--411.
• 13: Dugald Ralph Hutchings , Greg Smith , Brian Meyers , Mary Czerwinski , George Robertson, Display space usage and window management operation comparisons between single monitor and multiple monitor users, Proceedings of the working conference on Advanced visual interfaces, May 25-28, 2004, Gallipoli, Italy [doi>10.1145/989863.989867]
• 14: Azam Khan , Justin Matejka , George Fitzmaurice , Gordon Kurtenbach, Spotlight: directing users' attention on large displays, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, April 02-07, 2005, Portland, Oregon, USA [doi>10.1145/1054972.1055082]
• 15: Kleffner, D. A. and Ramachandran, V. S. On the perception of shape from shading. Perception and Psychophysics, 52, 1 (1992), 18--36.
• 16: Pashler, H. Cross-dimensional interaction and texture segregation. Perception and Psychophysics, 43, 4 (1988), 307--318.
• 17: Christopher Plaue , John Stasko, Animation in a peripheral display: distraction, appeal, and information conveyance in varying display configurations, Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2007, May 28-30, 2007, Montreal, Canada [doi>10.1145/1268517.1268541]
• 18: Rantanen, E. M. and Goldberg, J. H. The effect of mental workload on the visual field size and shape. Ergonomics, 42, 6 (1999), 816--834.
• 19: George Robertson , Mary Czerwinski , Patrick Baudisch , Brian Meyers , Daniel Robbins , Greg Smith , Desney Tan, The Large-Display User Experience, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, v.25 n.4, p.44-51, July 2005 [doi>10.1109/MCG.2005.88]
• 20: Su, R. E. and Bailey, B. P. Put them where? Towards guidelines for positioning large displays in interactive workspaces. In Proc Interact 2005, 337--349.
• 21: Bongwon Suh , Allison Woodruff , Ruth Rosenholtz , Alyssa Glass, Popout prism: adding perceptual principles to overview+detail document interfaces, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: Changing our world, changing ourselves, April 20-25, 2002, Minneapolis, Minnesota, USA [doi>10.1145/503376.503422]
• 22: Desney S. Tan , Darren Gergle , Peter Scupelli , Randy Pausch, With similar visual angles, larger displays improve spatial performance, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, April 05-10, 2003, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA [doi>10.1145/642611.642650]
• 23: Desney S. Tan , Darren Gergle , Peter Scupelli , Randy Pausch, Physically large displays improve performance on spatial tasks, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), v.13 n.1, p.71-99, March 2006 [doi>10.1145/1143518.1143521]
• 24: Treisman, A. and Gelade, G. A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12 (1980), 97--136.
• 25: Daniel Vogel , Patrick Baudisch, Shift: a technique for operating pen-based interfaces using touch, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, April 28-May 03, 2007, San Jose, California, USA [doi>10.1145/1240624.1240727]
• 26: Wolfe, J.M. and Horowitz, T. S. What attributes guide the deployment of visual attention and how do they do it? Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 5 (2004), 1--7.
• 27: Wolfe, J. M., Oliva, A., Horowitz, T. S., Butcher, S. J., and Bompas, A. Segmentation of objects from backgrounds in visual search tasks. Vision Research, 42 (2002), 2985--3004.
• 28: Wolfe, J. M. and O'Neill, P. Why are there eccentricity effects in visual search? visual and attentional hypotheses. Perception and Psychophysics, 60, 1 (1998), 140--156.
• 29: Shumin Zhai , Julie Wright , Ted Selker , Sabra-Anne Kelin, Graphical Means of Directing User's Attention in the Visual Interface, Proceedings of the IFIP TC13 Interantional Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, p.59-66, July 14-18, 1997

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)
          Subjects: Graphical user interfaces (GUI)

Additional Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)
          Subjects: Windowing systems

General Terms:
Design, Human Factors

Keywords:
attention, large displays, user study, window switching