ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
The springboard: multiple modes in one spring-loaded control
Full text PdfPdf (822 KB)
Source Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems archive
Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems table of contents
Montréal, Québec, Canada
SESSION: Interaction techniques: haptic and gestural table of contents
Pages: 181 - 190  
Year of Publication: 2006
ISBN:1-59593-372-7
Authors
Ken Hinckley  Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA
Francois Guimbretiere  University of Maryland, College Park, MD
Patrick Baudisch  Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA
Raman Sarin  Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA
Maneesh Agrawala  Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA
Ed Cutrell  Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA
Sponsors
SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 7,   Downloads (12 Months): 72,   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/10.1145/1124772.1124801
What is a DOI?

Warning: The download time has expired please click on the item to try again.


ABSTRACT

Modes allow a few inputs to invoke many operations, yet if a user misclassifies or forgets the state of a system, modes can result in errors. Spring-loaded modes (quasimodes) maintain a mode while the user holds a control such as a button or key. The Springboard is an interaction technique for tablet computers that extends quasimodes to encompass multiple tool modes in a single spring-loaded control. The Springboard allows the user to continue holding down a nonpreferred-hand command button after selecting a tool from a menu as a way to repeatedly apply the same tool. We find the Springboard improves performance for both a local marking menu and for a non-local marking menu ("lagoon") at the lower left corner of the screen. Despite the round-trip costs incurred to move the pen to a tool lagoon, a keystroke-level analysis of the true cost of each technique reveals the local marking menu is not significantly faster.


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
Appert, C., Beaudouin-Lafon, M., Mackay, W. Context matters: Evaluating interaction techniques with the CIS model. Proc. of HCI 2004, Springer Verlag, 279--295.
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
 
10
 
11
12
 
13
Kurtenbach, G., Sellen, A., Buxton, W., An emprical evaluation of some articulatory and cognitive aspects of 'marking menus'. J. Human Computer Interaction, 1993. 8(1).
14
 
15
Mackay, W. E. Which Interaction Technique Works When? Floating Palettes, Marking Menus and Toolglasses Support Different Task Strategies. ACM AVI 2002, 203--208.
 
16
McLoone, H., Hinckley, K., Cutrell, E. Ergonomic Principles Applied to the Design of the Microsoft Office Computer Keyboard. IEA 2003 International Ergonomics Association.
 
17
Norman, D. A., Categorization of Action Slips. Psychology Review, 1981. 88(1): p. 1--15.
 
18
Poller, M., Garter, S., The Effect of Modes on Text Editing by Experienced Editor Users. Human Factors, 26(4): 449--462.
19
 
20
 
21
Sellen, A., Kurtenbach, G., Buxton, W., The Prevention of Mode Errors through Sensory Feedback. J. Human Computer Interaction, 1992. 7(2): p. 141--164.
 
22
Tesler, L., The smalltalk environment. Byte 6(8): p. 90--147.
 
23
Wilson, F. R., The Hand: How its use shapes the brain, language, and human culture. 1998, New York: Pantheon.
24

CITED BY  9

Collaborative Colleagues:
Ken Hinckley: colleagues
Francois Guimbretiere: colleagues
Patrick Baudisch: colleagues
Raman Sarin: colleagues
Maneesh Agrawala: colleagues
Ed Cutrell: colleagues