ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
An empirical comparison of pie vs. linear menus
Full text PdfPdf (666 KB)
Source Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems archive
Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems table of contents
Washington, D.C., United States
Pages: 95 - 100  
Year of Publication: 1988
ISBN:0-201-14237-6
Authors
J. Callahan  Univ. of Maryland, College Park
D. Hopkins  Univ. of Maryland, College Park
M. Weiser  Univ. of Maryland, College Park
B. Shneiderman  Univ. of Maryland, College Park
Sponsor
SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 21,   Downloads (12 Months): 195,   Citation Count: 73
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/10.1145/57167.57182
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Menus are largely formatted in a linear fashion listing items from the top to bottom of the screen or window. Pull down menus are a common example of this format. Bitmapped computer displays, however, allow greater freedom in the placement, font, and general presentation of menus. A pie menu is a format where the items are placed along the circumference of a circle at equal radial distances from the center. Pie menus gain over traditional linear menus by reducing target seek time, lowering error rates by fixing the distance factor and increasing the target size in Fitts's Law, minimizing the drift distance after target selection, and are, in general, subjectively equivalent to the linear style.


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
Adobe Systems Inc. Postscript Reference .Manual, Palo Alto, Calif., 1985.
2
 
3
 
4
Dray, S.M., Ogden, W.G., and Vestewig, R.E. man computer interface Proceedings of the Human Factors Society: 25th Annual Meeting 1981 (Rochester, N.Y., Oct. 12-16). Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, Calif., 1981, pp. 746-748.
 
5
Ge~tys, J. and Newman, R., X Windows. MIT, 1985.
 
6
Gosling, J. Ne WS: A Definitive Approach to Window Systems Sun Microsystems Corp., Mountain View, Calif., 1986.
 
7
Hopkins, D., Callahan, J., and Weiser, M. Pies: Implementation, Evaluation and Application of Circular Menus. University of Maryland Computer Science Department Technical Report, 1988.
 
8
Kirk, R. t'Txperimen~al Design: Procedures for the Behavioral Sciences. Brooks-Cole, Belmont, Calif., 1968.
 
9
McDonald, J.E., Stone, J.D., and Liebelt, L.S. Searching fi)r items in menus: The effects of organization and type of target. Proceeding of the Human Factors Society: ~7th Annual Meeting 1983 (Norfolk, Virginia, Oct. 10-14). Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, Calif., 1983, pp. 834-837.
 
10
Perlman, G. Making the right choices with menus. INTERACT '84, First IFIP International Conference on Human Computer interaction. NorthtIolland, Amsterdam, 1984, pp. 291-295.
 
11
 
12
Xerox Corporation, Interpress Electronic Printing Standard. Stamford, Conn., 1984.

CITED BY  73

Collaborative Colleagues:
J. Callahan: colleagues
D. Hopkins: colleagues
M. Weiser: colleagues
B. Shneiderman: colleagues