View
215
Download
1
Category
Tags:
Preview:
Citation preview
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Large Display User Interaction
Mary Czerwinski, Senior ResearcherMicrosoft Research
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Thanks to my Colleagues
• Desney Tan
• George Robertson
• Greg Smith
• Patrick Baudisch
• Brian Meyers
• Gary Starkweather
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Ignore Science Fiction at Our Peril
Workstation in the world of the Matrix
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Large Display Surfaces are Here
Workstation in the real world
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Why A Larger Display Surface?
• Productivity benefits 15-30% (despite OS issues)
• Users prefer more display surface
• Prices dropping fast
• Footprints getting smaller
Projected LCD Pricing 2002-2005
$437$378 $327 $283
$699$597
$510$436
$1,089
$905
$752$625
$0
$200
$400
$600
$800
$1,000
$1,200
2002 2003 2004 2005$
US
15" -13.5%
17" -14.6%
18" -16.9%
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Multimon Trend is Growing
(Jon Peddie Research
Dec, 2002 N=6652)
No Multimon30%
Plan to Use Multimon
38%
Use Multimon32%
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
2004 Large Monitor ASP Projections
Single
20”Diagonal
2 x 17” (30” Diagonal)
2 x 15” (26” Diagonal)
17”Diagonal
15”Diagonal
16:9 x 22” Diagonal
Note: All Prices are for Liquid Crystal DisplaysSource for Single Panel Pricing: IDC and Display Search
Rel
ativ
e P
ricin
g
Multiple Wide
$1000
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Large Display User Experience, MSR
• Large display surfaces fundamentally change user interaction– Visualization, input techniques, work
management, …
• Large display surfaces provide non-linear productivity increases– Additional space has different utility– E.g. Focal/peripheral displays provide
different cues
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Windows and Task Management Issues Emerge
• Larger displays = more open windows
• Multimon users arrange windows spatially
• TaskBar does not scale:
– Aggregation model not task-based
– Users can’t operate on groups of related windows
Relationship between # of Monitors and # of Windows Left Open
0.00
2.00
4.00
6.00
8.00
10.00
12.00
14.00
16.00
18.00
No. of Monitors
Avg
. #
of
Win
do
ws
Lef
t O
pen
Single Monitor
DualMon
TripleMon
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
DEMOS: High Density Cursor
fill-in cursors
current framefill-in cursors
previous frame
mouse
motion
mouse
motion
solution• high-density cursor inserts additional
cursor images between actual cursor positions
• the mouse cursor appear more continuous
problem• at high mouse speeds, the mouse cursor
seems to jump from one position to the next
the windows mouse trail…• makes mouse trail last longer• drawback: cursor images lag behind
...is not high-density cursor• hd cursor makes mouse trail denser• lag-free: mouse stops=>cursor stops
regular mouse cursor
high-density cursor
Windows mouse trail
high-density cursor
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
INPUT: Drag ‘n Pop
• Problems:– Large displays
create long distance mouse movement
– Drag ‘n Pop brings proxies of targets to the user from across display surfaces
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
DEMO: GroupBar
• GroupBar joins related items in the taskbar and remembers spatial layouts of tasks
• To help solve this problem, Shell needs to remember Windows’ states between sessions
• Download: \\gregsmi2\dowloads\groupbar.exe
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
DEMO: GroupBar Layouts
• Windows management time-consuming– Screen real estate often gets wasted during layout
• Solution—Smart Windows Layout Options
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Advanced UI: Scalable Fabric
• Configurable central focus + peripheral context areas
• Easy task switch from periphery to focus area
• Personally meaningful layouts are preserved by system
• Leverages human spatial memory
• Proximity determines group membership
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Women Take a Wider View (CHI 2002)
• Grew from work designing and evaluating 3D virtual navigation techniques
• On regular desktop display:– Men performed significantly better than women
• On exploratory widescreen display:– Overall improvement for all users
• Surprising finding: – Gender gap disappeared - Males and females
performed equally on widescreen display
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Related Work
• Formation of cognitive maps while navigating 3D virtual worlds– Spatial abilities – Artifacts (maps, landmarks,…)
• Gender differences in spatial ability and navigation strategies– Most report male advantages, especially in
virtual environments
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Related Work: Optical Flow
• Changing retinal image as we move through the environment– Aids perception of environmental
structure
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Related Work: Optical Flow
• Changing retinal image as we move through the environment– Aids perception of environmental
structure
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
What we know about Optical Flow
• Optical flow benefits heading perception in active navigation– Shown for fields of view up to 90 degrees
• Hypothesized that effectiveness of optical flow depends on spatial ability– [Cutmore et al. 2000]– Gender unexplored
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Our Hypotheses
1. Optical flow cues help all users form better cognitive maps when navigating 3D virtual environments
2. Better optical flow cues help women more than men in cognitive map formation
3. Wider displays offer even better optical flow cues
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Task: General Description
• Learning: User controls movement along path through virtual 3D maze
• Testing: Remember path traveled
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Virtual Maps
• 14 rooms (6 straight ahead, 8 turns)
• Some paths go through same room twice
For example:
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Cognitive Map Learning
• Use arrow keys to go through green door
• Determine if path crosses itself
• Remember full path
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Cognitive Map Memory Test
• Tested on memory for maze– Forward test and backward test– Measured task time & number of correct
doors opened on first attempt
• Same controls as in learning phase, but without green door guides
• Given feedback
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Experimental Design
Large FOV: 120 degreesSmall FOV: 100 degrees
Optical FlowPresent
Optical FlowAbsent
Male
Female
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Experimental Procedure
• Paper folding test of spatial ability
• 1 practice trial + 4 test trials
• Satisfaction questionnaire
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Benefits of Optical Flow
Benefits of Optical Flow Cues
0102030405060708090
100
Display Condition
Ave
rag
e T
ask
Tim
e (S
ecs)
No Optical Flow Cues
Optical Flow Cues
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Optical Flow Helps All Users in Forward Test
Direction x Optical Flow
0102030405060708090
100
Display Condition
Ave
rag
e T
ask
Tim
e (S
ecs)
Forward-No Flow
Forward-Flow
Backward-No Flow
Backward-Flow
Forward Backward
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Optical Flow Benefits Females More in the Forward Test
Gender x Optical Flow: Forward Trials
0102030405060708090
100
Display Condition
Ave
rag
e T
ask
Tim
e (S
ecs)
Females-No Flow
Females-Flow
Males-No Flow
Males-Flow
Females Males
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Other Results
• No effects for field of view
• No effects for spatial ability measure
• Satisfaction ratings matched performance results
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Conclusion1. Optical flow cues help all users form
better cognitive maps when navigating 3D virtual environments
2. Better optical flow cues help women more than men in cognitive map formation• Unexplained by biases in spatial ability
3. Wider displays offer even better optical flow cues• 100 degree field of view seems sufficient
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Information Voyeurism: Social Impact of Large Displays
• Exploit social cues induced by physical size:– Help people communicate– Increase productivity on individual tasks
• Must quantify in order to exploit
• Information on large displays more public– Ask user? Cannot guarantee accuracy– Video? Cannot disambiguate glance from
reading
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Measuring ‘Peeking’
• Implicit memory priming paradigm– Expose user to stimulus– Test user implicitly on how much they’ve
processed stimulus• Word stem completion• Eg. Mon_____
– Priming measured by faster response or higher frequency of stimulus
• Monkey, Money, Monster, Monday, Monopoly, …
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Experiment Materials
• Stimulus: 30 words embedded in:– 7 e-mail subject lines– 2 e-mail messages
• Place e-mail where it can be seen by user
• Priming test to see if they’ve read it– Word stem completion
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Experimental Setup
156″
38″
16″27.5″
66″114″
Experimenter
Participant
Large ProjectionScreen
Small Desktop Monitor
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Implicit Memory Results
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
1 2Small Display Large Display
Avera
ge #
of
Targ
et
Word
s
N=12
N=12
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Other Converging Data
• More users admitted reading text on:– Large Screen (7/12) vs.
Small Screen (3/12)
• Comments indicated reading someone else’s e-mail more acceptable on large screen
• Video shows users glanced more at:– Large Screen (M=19 seconds) vs.
Small Screen (M=14 seconds)
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Future Work• Understand why large displays more public
– Physical proximity of information to owner?– Wall-mounted nature of large display?
• Protect private information from prying eyes– Private information never placed on public
screens– Interface conventions that convey level of privacy
• Facilitate ad hoc collaboration– Display systems that make people interact more
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Summary
• Novel application of implicit memory priming paradigm for measuring if someone has peeked at information
• People are more willing to read someone else’s e-mail on large wall-sized displays than on smaller displays– Even with identical visual angles and legibility
• Future Work
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Future Research Directions
• Continue researching benefits of and methods for testing large displays
• Task management for information workers• Reconfigurable information display
surfaces– Heterogeneous devices
• Social impact, collaboration and communication scenarios
• Gestures, vision and tracking• Novel UI and interaction techniques
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Large Display Surfaces are Here
Workstation in the real world (InfoCockpit--CMU)
© 2003 Microsoft Corporation. All rights reserved.
Optical Flow Benefits All Users Equally in the Backward Test
Gender x Optical Flow: Backward Trials
0102030405060708090
100
Display Condition
Ave
rag
e T
ask
Tim
e (S
ecs)
Females-No Flow
Females-Flow
Males-No Flow
Males-Flow
Recommended