Seminar by Naman Kumar for Interaction Design, CS889

Critique & Evaluation

University of Waterloo

ProposalCLC: Click-and-Cross

ProposalCRC: Cross-and-Cross

ProposalMM: Motor Magnifier

ProposalVMM: Visual-Motor-Magnifier

Why

Why

How

+

precision control

1. Reduce the need for corrective-phase pointing.2. Lessen effects of small targets on acquisition difficulty. 3. Reduce need for accurate, steady clicking

• Ideas– Ideate, Analyze, Reject.

• Scientific approach– Define Problem -> Synthesize solution -> Evaluate -> Analyze

• Results + Discussion– Qualitative + quantitative -> well rounded discussion

• Possible extension– Photo-editing, video editing

Strengths

Submovement analysis

Strengths

• Ideas – Why take out the Ballistic Square and Scanning Area Cursor?

» “Slow”. Then why include CRC (6.7s)?• They follow binary, O(log(n)), and linear search, O(n).

• Scientific approach– How was 300ms determined?

• Randomized targets– Not a real world simulation

• Participant pool – 12

» Bigger pool may have helped determine trackball vs. mouse

Weaknesses

• CRC• “first mouse-based”

• VMM• “first VMM evaluation study”; no previous comparison

• Successful– “existing techniques degrade in small, dense target layouts”– VMM won (able-bodied + motor impaired)

Comments

• Able-bodied fastest on Bubble and Point• “power users” prefer accuracy and want speed.• “novice users” are satisfied with accuracy.

• Novice vs. Expert motor-impaired users

• Trackball vs. MouseCRC and VMM made mouse easier

Comments

• Applies to all mouse based projects but…• Can the argument be applied to your technique?• Dimensions to think about:

– Spacing between targets– Clutter– Mouse gain– Magnification

Projects