simple vs. compound mark hierarchical marking menus shengdong zhao, ravin balakrishnan
TRANSCRIPT
Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus
Shengdong Zhao, Ravin Balakrishnan
2
Compound Mark Technique
3
Compound Mark Technique
4
Compound Mark Technique
5
Compound Mark Technique
6
Compound Mark Technique
7
Compound Mark Technique
8
Advantages
Seamless novice to expert transition
9
Advantages
Seamless novice to expert transition
3.5 x faster than linear menus
10
Advantages
Seamless novice to expert transition
3.5 x faster than linear menus
Scale invariance=
11
Limitations – Error Rate
Breadth/depth/speed/accuracy trade-off
[Kurtenbach and Buxton, 1993]
Compass4
12
Limitations – Error Rate
Breadth/depth/speed/accuracy trade-off
[Kurtenbach and Buxton, 1993]
Compass4 Compass4-4
13
Limitations – Error Rate
Breadth/depth/speed/accuracy trade-off
[Kurtenbach and Buxton, 1993]
Compass8
14
Limitations – Error Rate
Breadth/depth/speed/accuracy trade-off
[Kurtenbach and Buxton, 1993]
Compass8 Compass8-2
15
Limitations – Ambiguous Marks
S-S-N
16
Limitations – Ambiguous Marks
S-S-N = S-N-N
17
Limitations – Ambiguous Marks
S-S-N = S-N-N
compass8-3: 22% ambiguous
compass4-4: 57% ambiguous
18
Limitations – Physical Space
NE-E -NE -E
19
Compound Mark Technique
20
Simple Mark Technique
21
Simple Mark Technique
22
Simple Mark Technique
23
Simple Mark Technique
24
Simple Mark Technique
25
Simple Mark Technique
26
Simple Mark Technique
27
Compound vs. Simple
Compound Mark Technique
Simple Mark Technique
Breadth vs. DepthCompass4:max. depth 4
Compass8:max. depth 2 Possibly more depth
Ambiguity Yes NO
Space usage Grows quadratically Theoretical constant
Physical Motion Single zig-zag stroke Multiple simple strokes
28
Compound vs. Simple
Compound Mark Technique
Simple Mark Technique
Breadth vs. DepthCompass4:max. depth 4
Compass8:max. depth 2 Possibly more depth
Ambiguity Yes NO
Space usage Grows quadratically Theoretical constant
Physical Motion Single zig-zag stroke Multiple simple strokes
29
Compound vs. Simple
Compound Mark Technique
Simple Mark Technique
Breadth vs. DepthCompass4:max. depth 4
Compass8:max. depth 2 Possibly more depth
Ambiguity Yes NO
Space usage Grows quadratically Theoretical constant
Physical Motion Single zig-zag stroke Multiple simple strokes
30
Compound vs. Simple
Compound Mark Technique
Simple Mark Technique
Breadth vs. DepthCompass4:max. depth 4
Compass8:max. depth 2 Possibly more depth
Ambiguity Yes NO
Space usage Grows quadratically Theoretical constant
Physical Motion Single zig-zag stroke Multiple simple strokes
31
Research IssuesSpeed and accuracy
Hierarchy depth
Input footprint
Spatial overlap
Timeout threshold
Mark directions
on-axis off-axis
32
Experimental Setup
33
Input Footprint
1.25’’ x 1.25’’
3.5’’ x 4.25’’
7.8’’ x 8.8’’
34
Experimental Design
35
12 participants x
Experimental Design
36
12 participants x
2 techniques (compound, simple) x
Experimental Design
37
12 participants x
2 techniques (compound, simple) x
3 input footprint (small, medium, large) x
Experimental Design
38
12 participants x
2 techniques (compound, simple) x
3 input footprint (small, medium, large) x
4 layouts (compass4-2, 4-3 , 8-2 , 8-3)
Experimental Design
39
12 participants x
2 techniques (compound, simple) x
3 input footprint (small, medium, large) x
4 layouts (compass4-2, 4-3 , 8-2 , 8-3)
= 9216 menu selections in total.
Experimental Design
40
Accuracy
Overall: Compound (80%) vs. Simple (93%)
100%90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%
0%
Acc
ura
cy(%
)
4,2 4,3 8,2 8,3 4,2 4,3 8,2 8,3 4,2 4,3 8,2 8,3
Menu Layout (breadth, depth)
41
Accuracy100%
90%80%70%60%50%40%30%20%10%
0%
Acc
ura
cy(%
)
Off
On
Mix
Off
On
Mix
Off
On
Mix
Off
On
Mix
Off
On
Mix
Off
On
Mix
Level 2 Level 3 Level 2 Level 3 Level 2 Level 3
Large Medium Small
42
Speed
4,2 4,3 8,2 8,3 4,2 4,3 8,2 8,3 4,2 4,3 8,2 8,3
Menu Layout (breadth, depth)
4
3.5
3
2.5
2
1.5
1
0.5
0
Tim
e (
in s
eco
nd
)
43
Speed
Off
On
Mix
Off
On
Mix
Off
On
Mix
Off
On
Mix
Off
On
Mix
Off
On
Mix
Level 2 Level 3 Level 2 Level 3 Level 2 Level 3
Large Medium Small
Tim
e (
in s
eco
nd
)
5
4
3
2
1
0
44
Input Space Usage
0
20
40
60
80
100
120
140
160
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
Participant ID
Are
a (K
ilo
Pix
els
)
compound
simple
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Are
a (K
ilo P
ixe
ls)
Large Medium Small
Comp4 Comp8 Comp4 Comp8 Comp4 Comp8
2 2 2 2 2 23 3 3 3 3 3
45
Results SummaryFaster, more accurate
Increased hierarchy depth
Mark direction no effect on accuracy
Unaffected by input footprint
Space efficient
Timeout threshold: 2s upper bound
46
Menu Transition Alternatives
Furniture
Fruit
ToolAuto
Furniture
Fruit
ToolAuto
Hammer
Nail
ScrewSaw
Furniture
Fruit
ToolAuto
Hammer
Nail
ScrewSaw
Furniture
Fruit
Auto Tool
Nail
ScrewSaw
HammerFurniture
Fruit
Auto Tool
Furniture
Fruit
ToolAuto
Nail
ScrewSaw
Hammer
47
Backtracking Alternatives
Sun
Thurs
Tues
Mon
Wes
Sat
Fri
Season
Month
Date Day
Furniture
Fruit
Auto
Hammer
Nail
ScrewSawTool
48
Future Directions
Novice to expert transition
Mode errors
49
Acknowledgements
Mark Chignell, Michael McGuffin,Jingnan Yang, Xiao Wu, Faye Baron, Rick
Bodner
Experiment participants
Members of DGP and MIE lab
UIST Reviewers
50
Questions
51
Formula for Calculating Ambiguity
Let B be the branching factor of the menu (e.g., 4, 8)Let D be the depth of the menu (i.e., number of levels)Then, the total number of leaf nodes = B^DNumber of leaf nodes with unambiguous marks =(number of marks with maximal number D-1 inflections) +(number of marks with no inflections at all) =
B*(B-1)^(D-1) + BExample calculations:compass8-2 layout = 8*(7^1) + 8 = 64 (i.e., all leaves)compass4-4 layout = 4*(3^3) + 4 = 112 (43% of all leaves)compass8-3 layout = 8*(7^2) + 8 = 400 (78% of all leaves)
52
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4,2 4,3 8,2 8,3 4,2 4,3 8,2 8,3 4,2 4,3 8,2 8,3
Menu Layout (Number of items, depth)
Tim
e (in
sec
ond)
compound
simple
Large Medium Small
0
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4,2 4,3 8,2 8,3 4,2 4,3 8,2 8,3 4,2 4,3 8,2 8,3
Menu Layout (Number of items, depth)Tim
e (in
seco
nd)
compound
simple
Large Medium Small
Drawing TimeReaction Time
53
Drawing TimeReaction Time
54
Experimental Setup