ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
A review of overview+detail, zooming, and focus+context interfaces
Full text PdfPdf (6.24 MB)
Source
ACM Computing Surveys (CSUR) archive
Volume 41 ,  Issue 1  (December 2008) table of contents
Article No. 2  
Year of Publication: 2008
ISSN:0360-0300
Authors
Andy Cockburn  University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand
Amy Karlson  University of Maryland, College Park, MD
Benjamin B. Bederson  University of Maryland, College Park, MD
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 147,   Downloads (12 Months): 1103,   Citation Count: 1
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/10.1145/1456650.1456652
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

There are many interface schemes that allow users to work at, and move between, focused and contextual views of a dataset. We review and categorize these schemes according to the interface mechanisms used to separate and blend views. The four approaches are overview+detail, which uses a spatial separation between focused and contextual views; zooming, which uses a temporal separation; focus+context, which minimizes the seam between views by displaying the focus within the context; and cue-based techniques which selectively highlight or suppress items within the information space. Critical features of these categories, and empirical evidence of their success, are discussed. The aim is to provide a succinct summary of the state-of-the-art, to illuminate both successful and unsuccessful interface strategies, and to identify potentially fruitful areas for further work.


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
Aboelsaadat, W. and Balakrishnan, R. 2004. An empirical comparison of transparency on one and two layer displays. In Proceedings of the British HCI Conference, People and Computers XVIII, 53--67.
2
3
4
5
 
6
Beard, D. and Walker, J. 1990. Navigational techniques to improve the display of large two-dimensional spaces. Behav. Inf. Technol. 9, 6, 451--466.
7
8
 
9
 
10
 
11
Bederson, B., Hollan, J., Perlin, K., Meyer, J., Bacon, D., and Furnas, G. 1996. Pad++: A zoomable graphical sketchpad for exploring alternate interface physics. J. Visual Lang. Comput. 7, 1, 3--31.
12
13
14
15
 
16
17
 
18
19
 
20
21
 
22
23
 
24
25
 
26
Cockburn, A. and Savage, J. 2003. Comparing speed-dependent automatic zooming with traditional scroll, pan and zoom methods. In Proceedings of the British Computer Society Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, People and Computers XVII, 87--102.
27
 
28
Czerwinski, M. and Larson, K. 1997. The new Web browsers: They're cool but are they useful? In Proceedings of the British HCI Conference, People and Computers XII. Springer.
29
30
31
32
 
33
Fitts, P. 1954. The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. J. Exper. Psychol. 47, 381--391.
34
35
36
37
 
38
 
39
Ghosh, P. and Shneiderman, B. 1999. Zoom-Only vs. overview-detail pair: A study in browsing techniques as applied to patient histories. Tech. Rep., 99--12, HCIL, University of Maryland, College Park.
40
41
 
42
Guiard, Y. 1987. Asymmetric division of labor in human skilled bimanual action: The kinematic chain as a model. J. Motor Beha. 19, 4, 486--517.
43
 
44
Guiard, Y., Bourgeois, F., Mottet, D., and Beaudouin-Lafon, M. 2001. Beyond the 10-bit barrier: Fitts' law in multi-scale electronic worlds. In Proceedings of the IHM-HCI Conference, People and Computers XV, 573--587.
45
46
47
 
48
49
50
 
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
 
59
60
61
 
62
 
63
Kosara, R., Miksch, S., and Hauser, H. 2002. Focus+Context taken literally. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 22, 1, 22--29.
64
 
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
 
74
Norman, D. 2004. Emotional Design: Why We Love (or Hate) Everyday Things. Basic Books, New York.
75
76
 
77
78
79
80
 
81
 
82
83
 
84
Plumlee, M. and Ware, C. 2002. Modeling performance for zooming vs. multi-window interfaces based on visual working memory. In Proceedings of the ACM Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interface (AVI), 59--68.
85
86
 
87
 
88
89
90
91
92
93
 
94
 
95
Spence, R. and Apperley, M. 1982. Database navigation: An office enironment for the professional. Behav. Inf. Technol. 1, 1, 43--54.
96
 
97
Summers, K., Goldsmith, T., Kubica, S., and Caudell, T. 2003. An empirical evaluation of continuous semantic zooming in program visualization. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization (InfoVis), 155--162.
98
 
99
Tobler, W. 1973. A continuous transformation useful for districting. Annals New York Acad. Sci. 219, 215--220.
 
100
 
101
Van Wijk, J. and Nuij, W. 2004. A model for smooth viewing and navigation of large 2D information spaces. IEEE Trans. Visual. Comput. Graph. 10, 4, 447--458.
 
102
103
104
 
105
Woodson, W. and Conover, D. 1964. Human Engineering Guide for Equipment Designers. University of California Press, Berkeley, CA.
106
107
108


Collaborative Colleagues:
Andy Cockburn: colleagues
Amy Karlson: colleagues
Benjamin B. Bederson: colleagues