Upload
kh-ravy
View
1.416
Download
6
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
Multimedia
Citation preview
HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION
(INTERACTION HOMME-MACHINE)
Sethserey SAM
1
CHAPTER 4:ERGONOMIC OF WIMP INTERFACE
2
Usage conduct rules from honest graphic user interface designer for interactive system
INTERACTION STYLE
3
o Command lineo Query language and question / reply
o Menuso WIMP interfaces
o Selection formo Natural language (handwriting, speech)o 3D interface, gesture (sensor), approaching the reality, …
WINDOWS/WIDGETS
4
A Window is rarely a passive object: Widget Interactive graphic object
Ergonomic recommendation concerning all aspects of widgets General design for display (simple) Dynamic behavior: react to user actions
Some ergonomic recommendation Open the windows Direct manipulation: maintain the
feedback
WINDOWS AND FEEDBACK
5
o An essential dimension
Always conserve the coupling perception/action which allows the paradigm of direct manipulation
o Example• Pointing / selection
• Movement / Modification / Tracking
• Opening / Closure
WINDOWS: OPENING
6
o Open a Window
o A strategy to avoid Fixed parameters for opening
o Two strategies acceptable Concentrate on user preferences: opening to the position and follow
the size of the last closure Concentrate on focus: opening to the proximity of attention focus (for
example: the icon which is just clicked on), but to a sufficiently distance which will not mask this focus
WINDOWS: OPENING / CLOSURE
7
Opening an WindowsConservation of feedback
Closure an WindowsThe closure without feedback (no animation …) is disturbing
MULTI-WINDOWS
8
o Advantage: multi-tasking environment A task may need several applications Transparent management of multi-task compare with commands in UNIX
bg / fg
o Principle problem: masking of information Lose of context Access time for the masking windows
o Different strategies for multi-tasking management Mosaics of windows (tiling) Flipping windows Overlapping windows (recovery) Zoomable windows
MULTI-WINDOWS: STRATEGY
9
Mosaics of windows (tiling)
MULTI-WINDOWS: STRATEGY
10
Windows overlapping
Flipping windows
MULTI-WINDOWS: STRATEGY
11
Zoomable windows
Mac OS X (Exposé / Quartz Extreme)
MULTI-WINDOWS: RECOMMENDATION
12
Organization strategies Allow recovery or failover (overlapping) of windows for experienced user Use tiling windows for occasional user
Example: Encyclopedia for public
Strategies for division in windows Organize the division according to the task: regrouping coherent of
information Limit the quantity of information to memorize from one window to another Adapt the number of windows to the utilization: increase the number of
windows for an utilization less frequent, complex windows is limited/reserved for very frequent usage (ex: Paint, Photoshop, …)
ICON
13
Advantage Easily identifiable Compact: small space in interface
Difficulty Identification the meaning associate to an icon [Camacho 90]
ICON: CONSTRUCTION
14
Methodologies Identify all the commands we want to make icon and create the icon in
the same time Limit the icons to frequent command Always valid the conception by an experimentation
Construction rules
ICON: GUIDELINE
15
Some recommendations Limit number of icons on interface (degradation from 12) Ensure that the character of selection of an icon is clearly visible
Help identify the icons Ensure that the icons are well distinguishable from one to another Group the icons base on family Coherence the representation in the group
Prioritize the association icon/text
MENUS
16
o Not necessary in graphic Menus are used before the creation of GUIs WIMP
o Advantage Structure the functionalities of system following an organization logic and
coherence which is easy understand and memorize Important of task analyses
o Limitation Lack of rapidity: useful especially for novice and occasional user (forecast
shortcut for expert)o Different structures of menus
Unique menus Linear sequential task (example: software installation) Hierarchic Acyclic
MENUS: LINEAR
17
Use case Sequential task Simplification of a task through a succession of sub-tasks
Example
Form creation in
MS ACCESS
MENUS: ACYCLIC
18
Explore order indifferent Sub-task independent or optional Menus tabs, options
MENUS: HIERARCHIC
19
Example 1
MS PowerPoint: 3 level, width (factor of branching) 6 to 20
MENUS: HIERARCHIC
20
Example 2
Windows Start Menus: vary level and width
MENUS: HIERARCHIC
21
Which organization of level and width? Kiger (1984): 64
Wallace et al. (1987): problem menus level 96% supplementary of errors 16% more of time execution
Width x Levels
MENUS: HIERARCHIC
22
Law of Landauer and Nachbar (1985) Experimental law: access time of a menus of N
items which is divided into D balance levels (the same factor of branching b for each node), suppose D = logb(N)
Experiment with N=4096; b=2, 4, 8, 16 General rule T = D * (k1 + k2*log(b))
Recommendation
rioritize the larger of menus to its levels
aximum width: 10 (novices) to 20 (experts) item maximum for each level
aximum level: 3 or 4
ary width: we can increase the factors of branching to the root and leave of tree
lways consider the specificity of task
MENUS: ORDER OF THE REPRESENTATION OF ITEMS
23
Sort the item for sequential data (natural order) Date, number (chapter number, quantity, …), …
Do not have natural order: static ordering Order items base on alphabetic Functional: the most important item first
Frequency: the item most used first
Do not have natural order: dynamic ordering Last used item first
ORDER OF THE REPRESENTATION: EXPERIMENTATION
24
Card (1982): Text Editor menus with 18 items
Somberg and Picardi (1983): menus with 5 items Selection time proportional to the position of the item in the list Selection time more rapid with familiarized items
Mitchell and Schneiderman (1988): dinner menu selection Best performance with static menus vs. dynamic menus
MENUS: ORDER OF THE REPRESENTATION OF ITEMS
25
Alphabetic
Functional
Frequency
Dynamic
Static: positional coherence
MENUS: ORDER OF THE REPRESENTATION OF ITEMS
26
Shared menus
Compromise previous solution 3-4 items the most frequent use Last selected items Static functional menus for the following
rinciple of commensurate efforts Destructive commands (cannot cancel) at
the end of menus, with separation
S Office XP
MENUS: ORDER OF THE REPRESENTATION OF ITEMS
27
Positional coherence and Contextual menus Conserve non valid items for the current context Operational visibility, guidance: made different items valid
MS PowerPoint
POINTER: MOUSE
28
Affectation of commands to the button Coherence: the rules of mouse buttons must be constant Coherence: integrated the classic rules of button
Left button: selection Right button: display contextual menus
Adaptation: not everyone have a mouse with 3 buttons No command invoke-able uniquely with mouse
Double click Commands associate to a double click must be coherent with
the one of single click on the same button No any function should be invoked only with double click (ex:
open)
OTHER WIMP OBJECTS
29
Pop-up windows Explicit button (termination: OK, …) and visible Place the pop-up windows close to concerning object Study the position and size to avoid masking of information Masking: allow the movement of window before termination
Selection components
Check/radioButton
Selection list
List
Number of choice [2,6] [7,12] >12 Vary
Check/Radio Button
Selection List
List
BIBLIOGRAPHIES
30
Publication Camacho M.J., Steiner B.A., Berson B.L. (1990) Icons versus alpha-numerics
in pilot-vehicles interfaces. Actes Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting.
Card S. (1982) User perceptual mechanisms in the search of computer command menus. Actes ACM Human Factors in Computer Systems, Washington DC. 190-196.
Kiger J. (1984) The depth / breadth trade-off in the design of menu-driven user interfaces. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 20, 1984. 201-213.
Landauer T., Nachbar D. (1985) Selection from alphabetic and numeric menu trees using a touch screen : breadth, depth and width. Actes CHI’85, ACM, New-York, NJ, 73-78.
Mitchell J., Schneidermann B. (1989) Dynamic versus static menus : an experimental comparison. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 20(4), 33-36.
Somberg B., Picardi M. (1983) Locus of information familiarity effect in the search of computer menus. Actes 37th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society, San Monica, CA, 826_830.
Wallace D., Anderson N., Shneiderman B. (1987) Time stress effect on two menu selection systems, Actes 31th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, CA. 727-731.