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

Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus

Shengdong Zhao, Ravin Balakrishnan

2

Compound Mark Technique

3


4


5


6


7


8

Advantages

Seamless novice to expert transition

9

Advantages


3.5 x faster than linear menus

10

Advantages


3.5 x faster than linear menus

Scale invariance=

11

Limitations – Error Rate

Breadth/depth/speed/accuracy trade-off

[Kurtenbach and Buxton, 1993]

Compass4

12




Compass4 Compass4-4

13




Compass8

14




Compass8 Compass8-2

15

Limitations – Ambiguous Marks

S-S-N

16


S-S-N = S-N-N

17


S-S-N = S-N-N

compass8-3: 22% ambiguous

compass4-4: 57% ambiguous

18

Limitations – Physical Space

NE-E -NE -E

19


20

Simple Mark Technique

21


22


23


24


25


26


27

Compound vs. Simple



Breadth vs. DepthCompass4:max. depth 4

Compass8:max. depth 2 Possibly more depth

Ambiguity Yes NO

Space usage Grows quadratically Theoretical constant

Physical Motion Single zig-zag stroke Multiple simple strokes

28

Compound vs. Simple





Ambiguity Yes NO



29

Compound vs. Simple





Ambiguity Yes NO



30

Compound vs. Simple





Ambiguity Yes NO



31

Research IssuesSpeed and accuracy

Hierarchy depth

Input footprint

Spatial overlap

Timeout threshold

Mark directions

on-axis off-axis

32

Experimental Setup

33

Input Footprint

1.25’’ x 1.25’’

3.5’’ x 4.25’’

7.8’’ x 8.8’’

34

Experimental Design

35

12 participants x

Experimental Design

36

12 participants x

2 techniques (compound, simple) x

Experimental Design

37

12 participants x


3 input footprint (small, medium, large) x

Experimental Design

38

12 participants x



4 layouts (compass4-2, 4-3 , 8-2 , 8-3)

Experimental Design

39

12 participants x



4 layouts (compass4-2, 4-3 , 8-2 , 8-3)

= 9216 menu selections in total.

Experimental Design

40

Accuracy

Overall: Compound (80%) vs. Simple (93%)

100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%

0%

Acc

ura

cy(%

)

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

Accuracy100%

90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%

0%

Acc

ura

cy(%

)

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

Large Medium Small

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)

4

3.5

3

2.5

2

1.5

1

0.5

0

Tim

e (

in s

eco

nd

)

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

Large Medium Small

Tim

e (

in s

eco

nd

)

5

4

3

2

1

0

44

Input Space Usage

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Participant ID

Are

a (K

ilo

Pix

els

)

compound

simple

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Are

a (K

ilo P

ixe

ls)

Large Medium Small

Comp4 Comp8 Comp4 Comp8 Comp4 Comp8

2 2 2 2 2 23 3 3 3 3 3

45

Results SummaryFaster, more accurate

Increased hierarchy depth

Mark direction no effect on accuracy

Unaffected by input footprint

Space efficient

Timeout threshold: 2s upper bound

46

Menu Transition Alternatives

Furniture

Fruit

ToolAuto

Furniture

Fruit

ToolAuto

Hammer

Nail

ScrewSaw

Furniture

Fruit

ToolAuto

Hammer

Nail

ScrewSaw

Furniture

Fruit

Auto Tool

Nail

ScrewSaw

HammerFurniture

Fruit

Auto Tool

Furniture

Fruit

ToolAuto

Nail

ScrewSaw

Hammer

47

Backtracking Alternatives

Sun

Thurs

Tues

Mon

Wes

Sat

Fri

Season

Month

Date Day

Furniture

Fruit

Auto

Hammer

Nail

ScrewSawTool

48

Future Directions

Novice to expert transition

Mode errors

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

Questions

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^DNumber 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) + BExample 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

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

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 (Number of items, depth)

Tim

e (in

sec

ond)

compound

simple

Large Medium Small

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

3

3.5

4

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 (Number of items, depth)Tim

e (in

seco

nd)

compound

simple

Large Medium Small

Drawing TimeReaction Time

53

Drawing TimeReaction Time

54

Experimental Setup

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

Documents

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