flat volume control

1. flat volume control patrick baudischmicrosoft research, visualization and interaction research john pruitt (microsoft user experience) steve ball (microsoft eHome)

2. summary        • traditional volume control:audio may fail at several points • flat volume control:app volume sliders only

3. contents • the problem: “my audio does not play!” • flat volume control fixes this • user interface design • pilot study vs. Windows XP: preference • user study: users 2x faster • conclusions

4. scenario (nobody I know) • during talk: video plays, but no audio • crank up volume slider in app (1) • volume control panel master volume (5) • unmute wave channel (4) •  LOUD!!!       

5.  mute    a look under the hood professionalmixers  speakers mastervolume master pc sound cards  mute wave channel pc userinterface … sound card channel mute but: pc users are notprofessional DJs! … mediaplayer application

6. what was the OS thinking? • when I dragged up the slider in the application, what did the system think I was trying to do?

7. flat volume control • replace volume slider with smart slider that knows about the volume control hierarchy • keep visuals, but change semantics of the slider • if application does not play, drag its slider • “make volume less of equal” • “make it play that loud”

8. ( ) … … user experience similar to automatic transmission speakers media player app 2 app 3

9. auxiliary user interface:the control panel

10. thecpl

11. thumbwheel-based design

12. slider-based design

13. algorithm • on load convert to flat volume • top-down traversal: multiply by parent • bottom-up traversal: maximum • whenever user adjusts flat volumecopy to hardware volume • top-down traversal: divide by parent • causes the tight coupling • optimizes signal-to-noise ratio

14. deployment:legacy app in new OS • can manage apps without volume control • can’t animate slider in app • application compatibility “shims” • intercept getVolume() and setVolume() calls

15. deployment:new app inlegacy OS • app can run flat volume • adjusting channel/mastermay have side effects • flood mark sliderwarns of side effects

16. pilot study & user study

18. pilot study • goal: “are we on the right track?” • interfaces: windows XP vs. flat volume longhorn • mockup running three sounds sources • seven participants with audio experience • no training • tasks: a walkthrough • PC muted: unmute • increase CD volume • called them on phone, “turn down volume” • restore volume • repeat with other interface • questionnaire to assess comprehension

19. results • discoverability of thumbwheel • 6 out of 7 did not touch the wheel •  added animation to wheel • subjective preference • 7/7 preferred flat volume •  we are on right track

21. user study • hypothesis: flat volume helps troubleshooting • interfaces: flat vs. hierarchical volume • same mockup, same three sounds sources • seven new participants with/out audio exp. • no training • part 1: same walkthrough tasks as pilot study • part 2: troubleshooting performance tasks • unmute, restore, max one, max all

22. ms resultstask completion time

23. resultserror rates: same trend

24. conclusions • audio volume control is a problem(6 papers siteseer, but 30k pages google) • flat volume control helps troubleshooting (but most of all avoids the need for it) • future work • other application areas (mixers, gamma) • and… vista!

25. vista

26. thanks! • read more at www.patrickbaudisch.com • thanks to: • ed cutrell &mary czerwinski • frank yerraceannette crowleylarry ostermanfrank wongand jeremy knudsen