Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Presentation is loading. Please wait.

Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Shengdong Zhao, Ravin Balakrishnan.

Similar presentations


Presentation on theme: "Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Shengdong Zhao, Ravin Balakrishnan."— Presentation transcript:

1 Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Shengdong Zhao, Ravin Balakrishnan

2 2 Compound Mark Technique

3 3

4 4

5 5

6 6

7 7

8 8 Advantages Seamless novice to expert transition

9 9 Advantages Seamless novice to expert transition 3.5 x faster than linear menus

10 10 Advantages Seamless novice to expert transition 3.5 x faster than linear menus Scale invariance =

11 11 Limitations – Error Rate Breadth/depth/speed/accuracy trade-off [Kurtenbach and Buxton, 1993] Compass4

12 12 Limitations – Error Rate Breadth/depth/speed/accuracy trade-off [Kurtenbach and Buxton, 1993] Compass4Compass4-4

13 13 Limitations – Error Rate Breadth/depth/speed/accuracy trade-off [Kurtenbach and Buxton, 1993] Compass8

14 14 Limitations – Error Rate Breadth/depth/speed/accuracy trade-off [Kurtenbach and Buxton, 1993] Compass8Compass8-2

15 15 Limitations – Ambiguous Marks S-S-N

16 16 Limitations – Ambiguous Marks S-S-N = S-N-N

17 17 Limitations – Ambiguous Marks S-S-N = S-N-N compass8-3: 22% ambiguous compass4-4: 57% ambiguous

18 18 Limitations – Physical Space NE-E -NE-E

19 19 Compound Mark Technique

20 20 Simple Mark Technique

21 21 Simple Mark Technique

22 22 Simple Mark Technique

23 23 Simple Mark Technique

24 24 Simple Mark Technique

25 25 Simple Mark Technique

26 26 Simple Mark Technique

27 27 Compound vs. Simple Compound Mark Technique Simple Mark Technique Breadth vs. Depth Compass4:max. depth 4 Compass8:max. depth 2 Possibly more depth AmbiguityYesNO Space usageGrows quadraticallyTheoretical constant Physical MotionSingle zig-zag strokeMultiple simple strokes

28 28 Compound vs. Simple Compound Mark Technique Simple Mark Technique Breadth vs. Depth Compass4:max. depth 4 Compass8:max. depth 2 Possibly more depth AmbiguityYesNO Space usageGrows quadraticallyTheoretical constant Physical MotionSingle zig-zag strokeMultiple simple strokes

29 29 Compound vs. Simple Compound Mark Technique Simple Mark Technique Breadth vs. Depth Compass4:max. depth 4 Compass8:max. depth 2 Possibly more depth AmbiguityYesNO Space usageGrows quadraticallyTheoretical constant Physical MotionSingle zig-zag strokeMultiple simple strokes

30 30 Compound vs. Simple Compound Mark Technique Simple Mark Technique Breadth vs. Depth Compass4:max. depth 4 Compass8:max. depth 2 Possibly more depth AmbiguityYesNO Space usageGrows quadraticallyTheoretical constant Physical MotionSingle zig-zag strokeMultiple simple strokes

31 31 Research Issues Speed and accuracy Hierarchy depth Input footprint Spatial overlap Timeout threshold Mark directions on-axisoff-axis

32 32 Experimental Setup

33 33 Input Footprint 1.25 x x x 8.8

34 34 Experimental Design

35 35 12 participants x Experimental Design

36 36 12 participants x 2 techniques (compound, simple) x Experimental Design

37 37 12 participants x 2 techniques (compound, simple) x 3 input footprint (small, medium, large) x Experimental Design

38 38 12 participants x 2 techniques (compound, simple) x 3 input footprint (small, medium, large) x 4 layouts (compass4-2, 4-3, 8-2, 8-3) Experimental Design

39 39 12 participants x 2 techniques (compound, simple) x 3 input footprint (small, medium, large) x 4 layouts (compass4-2, 4-3, 8-2, 8-3) = 9216 menu selections in total. Experimental Design

40 40 Accuracy Overall: Compound (80%) vs. Simple (93%) 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Accuracy(%) 4,2 4,3 8,2 8,3 4,2 4,3 8,2 8,3 4,2 4,3 8,2 8,3 Menu Layout (breadth, depth)

41 41 Accuracy 100% 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Accuracy(%) Off On Mix Off On Mix Off On Mix Off On Mix Off On Mix Off On Mix Level 2 Level 3 Level 2 Level 3 Level 2 Level 3 LargeMediumSmall

42 42 Speed 4,2 4,3 8,2 8,3 4,2 4,3 8,2 8,3 4,2 4,3 8,2 8,3 Menu Layout (breadth, depth) Time (in second)

43 43 Speed Off On Mix Off On Mix Off On Mix Off On Mix Off On Mix Off On Mix Level 2 Level 3 Level 2 Level 3 Level 2 Level 3 LargeMediumSmall Time (in second)

44 44 Input Space Usage

45 45 Results Summary Faster, more accurate Increased hierarchy depth Mark direction no effect on accuracy Unaffected by input footprint Space efficient Timeout threshold: 2s upper bound

46 46 Menu Transition Alternatives

47 47 Backtracking Alternatives

48 48 Future Directions Novice to expert transition Mode errors

49 49 Acknowledgements Mark Chignell, Michael McGuffin, Jingnan Yang, Xiao Wu, Faye Baron, Rick Bodner Experiment participants Members of DGP and MIE lab UIST Reviewers

50 50 Questions

51 51 Formula for Calculating Ambiguity Let B be the branching factor of the menu (e.g., 4, 8) Let D be the depth of the menu (i.e., number of levels) Then, the total number of leaf nodes = B^D Number of leaf nodes with unambiguous marks = (number of marks with maximal number D-1 inflections) + (number of marks with no inflections at all) = B*(B-1)^(D-1) + B Example calculations: compass8-2 layout = 8*(7^1) + 8 = 64 (i.e., all leaves) compass4-4 layout = 4*(3^3) + 4 = 112 (43% of all leaves) compass8-3 layout = 8*(7^2) + 8 = 400 (78% of all leaves)

52 52 Drawing TimeReaction Time

53 53 Drawing TimeReaction Time

54 54 Experimental Setup


Download ppt "Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus Shengdong Zhao, Ravin Balakrishnan."

Similar presentations


Ads by Google