Improving drag-and-drop on wall-size displays

1. Improving drag-and-drop on wall-size displays Maxime Collomb, LIRMM Patrick Baudisch,Microsoft Research Mountaz Hascoët, LIRMM Brian Lee, Stanford Computer Graphics

2. Push-and-pop: not quite a demo Download our demo from www.lirmm.fr/vag/dragging GI'05, Victoria, BC

3. Warning • Lots of X-and-Y names ahead… GI'05, Victoria, BC

4. Contents • Pointing on wall-size displays • Survey of existing techniques • Picking push-and-throw & drag-and-pop • The best of both worlds: push-and-pop • User Studies • Conclusion GI'05, Victoria, BC

5. Wall-size displays • Augmented surfaces are more and more widely available • Smartboard ® • DynaWall • iWall GI'05, Victoria, BC

6. Problems with pen&touch • user may not be able to reach content • Target may be too high • Bezels not touch sensitive • Fatigue GI'05, Victoria, BC

7. Related work(RSVP version) GI'05, Victoria, BC

8. Pick-and-drop • Pick-and-drop [Rekimoto, 97] • Take-and-put [Geißler, 98] GI'05, Victoria, BC

9. Hyperdragging [Rekimoto, CHI 99] GI'05, Victoria, BC

10. Frisbee [Khan, UIST 04] GI'05, Victoria, BC

11. Laser pointers [Olsen 01, Myers 02] GI'05, Victoria, BC

12. TractorBeam [Parker, in 30min] GI'05, Victoria, BC

13. Push-and-throw [Hascoët, HCI 03] • Pantograph principle(~go go technique [Poupyrev, UIST 96]) GI'05, Victoria, BC

14. RADAR [Nacenta,CHI 05] • Pantographs (lots of them…) GI'05, Victoria, BC

15. Drag-and-pop[Baudisch, INTERACT 03] GI'05, Victoria, BC

16. Vacuum [Bezerianos, CHI 05] GI'05, Victoria, BC

17. The question… GI'05, Victoria, BC

18. What is better • Bring user to content (push-and-throw) • Bring content to user (drag-and-pop) …or just good old direct manipulation(pick-and-drop)? GI'05, Victoria, BC

19. Fixing drag-and-pop • Use asymmetric target sector • Make sure proxies appear in current display unit GI'05, Victoria, BC

20. Fixing push-and-throw • Add non-linear acceleration • Add semantic pointing:slow down pointer over target [Blanch CHI 04] GI'05, Victoria, BC

21. But wait: maybe push-and-throw and drag-and-pop are not mutually exclusive… GI'05, Victoria, BC

22. push-and-pop • From drag-and-pop • Bringing targets to the user Avoid imprecision of push-and-throw • From push-and-throw • Using the object centered take-off area Avoid target set selection error of drag-and-pop GI'05, Victoria, BC

23. push-and-pop GI'05, Victoria, BC

24. User studies GI'05, Victoria, BC

25.  iWall(exp. n°2)6 participants  Double display(exp. n°1)12 participants GI'05, Victoria, BC

26. Interfaces GI'05, Victoria, BC

27. Task • Dragging icons into target iconon a simulated desktop • Independent variables • 6 interfaces • 12 distances • repeated 3 times(4 times on the 2nd exp.) • 216 / 288 trials for each participant • Dependent variables • Movement time • Error rate • Subjective satisfaction GI'05, Victoria, BC

28. First study results Mean task completion time for each technique depending of the ID of the task GI'05, Victoria, BC

29. First study results Error rates (in percent) GI'05, Victoria, BC

30. First study results Subjective preferences (higher is better) GI'05, Victoria, BC

31. Repeated same study on 3-unit display wall GI'05, Victoria, BC

32. Second study results Mean task completion time for each technique depending of the ID of the task GI'05, Victoria, BC

33. Second study results Error rates (in percent) GI'05, Victoria, BC

34. Second study results Subjective preferences (higher is better) GI'05, Victoria, BC

35. Drag-and-drop performs well on single display Among pointer-to-target techniques, acc. push-and-throw design improvements were beneficial Push-and-pop outperformed all other techniques Discussion GI'05, Victoria, BC

36. Techniques that bring content to the user performed better We think: this is because they minimize the need for users to reorient themselves Conclusion GI'05, Victoria, BC

37. Future work Extends Push-and-pop to widgets • Optimize design of push-and-pop GI'05, Victoria, BC

38. Future work Extends Push-and-pop to widgets GI'05, Victoria, BC

39. Thank you! • Thanks to Mountaz & Brian • Download our demo from www.lirmm.fr/vag/dragging GI'05, Victoria, BC

40. « In case of » slides • The « many same-icon targets » problem • Pnp with rubber bands • Pnp with one rubber band (current selected target) • Experiment desktop layout choice • Experiment rooms arrangement • Extending push-and-pop to widgets GI'05, Victoria, BC

41. The « many same-icon targets » problem GI'05, Victoria, BC

42. Push-and-pop with rubber bands GI'05, Victoria, BC

43. Push-and-pop with one rubber band (current selected target) GI'05, Victoria, BC

44. Experiment desktop layout choice (1) • Test • 4 blocks of 10 trials • 2 interaction techniques: • drag-and-drop • push-and-pop • 2 desktop layouts: • Same sources and targets (different positions for each trial). • Different source and targets. • A total of 160 trials • Single display and mouse were used GI'05, Victoria, BC

45. Marking menus [Kurtenbach, CHI 94] GI'05, Victoria, BC

46. Experiment desktop layout choice (2) • Result: • Differences wasn’t significant between the 2 desktop layouts • P = 0.706 for drag-and-drop • P = 0.566 for push-and-pop GI'05, Victoria, BC

47. Future work: Tablecloth GI'05, Victoria, BC