effects of display position and control space orientation on user preference and performance

Cambridge, Massachusetts

Effects of Display Position and Control Space Orientation on User Preference and Performance

Presented at CHI2006, April, 2006

Daniel WigdorChia Shen

Clifton ForlinesRavin Balakrishnan

2

Problem

3

Motivation

4

Issues

Display Position

Control Space Orientation

5

Related Work

HCI:• Nacenta et al. (2005)

Psychology:• Hemholtz (1866), Stratton (1897): prism glasses• Cunningham (1989)• Cunningham & Welch (1994)

6

Our Goals

Find:• Preferred:

– Display position(s)– Control orientation(s) for each position

• Optimal:– Display position(s)– Control orientation for each position

• Performance penalties

Recommend:– Ideal display position(s)– Ideal control orientation(s)

7

Two Experiments: Preference, Performance

8

Two Experiments: Preference, Performance

9

Task

• Docking task:

10

Study 1: All About Preference

• Setup:– Perform task at all 8 display positions– Participant sets control orientation

• Measure:– Task time & error rate– Control orientation chosen by the participant– Participants’ preferred display position

• Tells us:– Optimal display position– Preferred control orientation for each position– Performance at preferred control orientation

11

Design

• 8 participants (all right handed)• 8 display positions• 40 trials per position• Participant-set control orientation

+

12

Results: Display Position Preference

Participant Most Preferred Least Preferred

1 N S

2 NE S

3 NE & NW S

4 NW S

5 NE S

6 NE SW

7 NE & NW SE & S

8 N SW

• 6 of 8 participants prefer NE or NW position

13

Results: Control Orientation Preference

14

Results: Control Orientation Preference

15

Results: Control Orientation Preference

16

Study 2: All About Performance

• Setup:– Perform task at all 8 display positions– For each position, perform task at 8 control orientations

• Measure:– Task time & error rate– Drag paths

• Tells us:– Optimal control orientation for each position– Penalty for not meeting optimal– Display position and control orientation for shared displays

17

Design

• 8 participants (all right handed)• 4 display positions each (8 total)• 4 fixed control orientations each (8 total)• 80 trials per position

+

18

Results: Performance

19

Results: Performance

20

Screen North

21

Screen North

22

Screen North

23

Screen North

24

Results: Performance

25

Results: Performance

26

Design Recommendations

1 & 2

S

SE

E

NE

N

NW

W

SW

27

Design Recommendations

1 & 2

S 53%

SE 32%

E 62%

NE 46%

N 62%

NW 36%

W 41%

SW 38%

28

Design Recommendations

1 & 2 1 & 3

S 53%

SE 32%

E 62%

NE 46%

N 62%

NW 36%

W 41%

SW 38%

29

Design Recommendations

1 & 2 1 & 3

S 53% 32%

SE 32% 38%

E 62% 18%

NE 46% 75%

N 62% 32%

NW 36% 38%

W 41% 18%

SW 38% 75%

30

Design Recommendations

1 & 2 1 & 3 1,2,3

S 53% 32%

SE 32% 38%

E 62% 18%

NE 46% 75%

N 62% 32%

NW 36% 38%

W 41% 18%

SW 38% 75%

31

Design Recommendations

1 & 2 1 & 3 1,2,3

S 53% 32% 53%

SE 32% 38% 38%

E 62% 18% 62%

NE 46% 75% 75%

N 62% 32% 62%

NW 36% 38% 46%

W 41% 18% 62%

SW 38% 75% 75%

32

Design Recommendations

1 & 2 1 & 3 1,2,3 1,2,3,4

S 53% 32% 53%

SE 32% 38% 38%

E 62% 18% 62%

NE 46% 75% 75%

N 62% 32% 62%

NW 36% 38% 46%

W 41% 18% 62%

SW 38% 75% 75%

33

Design Recommendations

1 & 2 1 & 3 1,2,3 1,2,3,4

S 53% 32% 53% 183%

SE 32% 38% 38% 273%

E 62% 18% 62% 183%

NE 46% 75% 75% 273%

N 62% 32% 62% 183%

NW 36% 38% 46% 273%

W 41% 18% 62% 183%

SW 38% 75% 75% 273%

34

Acknowledgements

• Dr. Helen Cunningham• Experimental participants• John Barnwell • Edward Tse• CHI meta-reviewer• ARDA

35

Questions?