ExperiScope: An analysis tool for interaction data

Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings

Volumn , Issue , 2007, Pages 1333-1342

  Guimbretiére, François ^a   Dixon, Morgan ^a   Hinckley, Ken ^b  

^a University of Maryland   (United States)

^b MICROSOFT RESEARCH   (United States)

Author keywords

Data analysis tool; Empirical evaluation; ExperiScope; Interaction design

Indexed keywords

COMPUTER AIDED SOFTWARE ENGINEERING; DATA ACQUISITION; DATA REDUCTION; DATA VISUALIZATION; SOFTWARE DESIGN; USER INTERFACES;

DATA ANALYSIS TOOLS; EMPIRICAL EVALUATION; EXPERISCOPE; INTERACTION DESIGNS;

INTERACTIVE COMPUTER GRAPHICS;

EID: 35348831812     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1240624.1240826     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (32)

1. Accot, J. and S. Zhai. Refining Fitts' law models for bivariate pointing. Proceedings of CHI'03, pp. 193-200.
2. Anderson, J.R. and M. Matessa, An Overview of the EPIC Architecture for Cognition and Performance With Application to Human-Computer Interaction. Human-Computer Interaction, 1997. 12(4): p. 391-438.
3. Beaudouin-Lafon, M. Instrumental interaction: an interaction model for designing post-WIMP user interfaces. Proceedings of CHI'00, pp. 446-453.
4. Bederson, B.B. and J.D. Hollan. Pad++: a zooming graphical interface for exploring alternate interface physics. Proceedings of UIST'94, pp. 17-26.
5. Bier, E.A., M.C. Stone, K. Pier, W. Buxton, and T.D. DeRose. Toolglass and magic lenses: the see-through interface. Proceedings of SigGraph'93, pp. 73-80.
6. Buxton, B., Lexical and Pragmatic Considerations of Input Structures. Computer Graphics, 1983. 17(1): p. 31-37.
7. Buxton, B. Chunking and Phrasing and the Design of Human-Computer Dialogues. Proceedings of IFIP World Computer Congress, pp. 475-480.
8. Buxton, W. Three-State Model of Graphical Input. Proceedings of INTERACT'90, pp. 449-456.
9. Card, S.K., T.P. Moran, and A. Newell, The psychology of human-computer interaction. 1983: Erlbaum Associates.
10. Card, S.K., J.D. Mackinlay, and G.G. Robertson, A morphological analysis of the design space of input devices. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 1991. 9(2): p. 99-122.
11. Douglas, S.A. and A.K. Mithal. The effect of reducing homing time on the speed of a finger-controlled isometric pointing device. Proceedings of CHI'94, pp. 411-416.
12. Fitts, P.M., The infomation capacity of the human motor system in controlling amplitude of movement Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1954. 47: p. 381-391.
13. Fitzmaurice, G., A. Khan, R. Pieké, B. Buxton, and G. Kurtenbach. Tracking Menus. Proceedings of UIST'03, pp. 71-80.
14. Gray, W.D., B.E. John, and M.E. Atwood, Project Ernestine: Validating a GOMS Analysis for Predicting and Explaining Real-World Task Performance. Human-Computer Interaction, 1993. 8: p. 237-309.
15. Grossman, T., K. Hinckley, P. Baudisch, M. Agrawala, and R. Balakrishnan. Hover widgets: using the tracking state to extend the capabilities of pen-operated devices. Proceedings of CHI'06, pp. 861-870.
16. Guimbretiere, F., Fluid Interaction for High Resolution Wall-size Displays, PhD thesis, Stanford University. 2002
17. Guimbretière, F., A. Martin, and T. Winograd, Benefits of Merging Command Selection and Direct Manipulation. Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 2005. 12(3): p. 460-476.
18. Hinckley, K., M. Czerwinski, and M. Sinclair. Interaction and modeling techniques for desktop two-handed input. Proceedings of UIST'98, pp. 49-58.
19. Hinckley, K., F. Guimbretierre, P. Baudisch, R. Sarin, M. Agrawala, and E. Cutrell. The springboard: multiple modes in one spring-loaded control. Proceedings of CHI'06, pp. 181-190.
20. Hutchings, D.R., G. Smith, B. Meyers, M. Czerwinski, and G. Robertson. Display space usage and window management operation comparisons between single monitor and multiple monitor users. Proceedings of AVI'04, pp.32-39.
21. John, B., A. Vera, M. Matessa, M. Freed, and R. Remington. Automating CPM-GOMS. Proceedings of CHI'02, pp. 147-154.
22. Kieras, D.E., S.D. Wood, K. Abotel, and A. Hornof. GLEAN: a computer-based tool for rapid GOMS model usability evaluation of user interface designs. Proceedings of UIST'95, pp. 91-100.
23. Kurtenbach, G., The Design and Evaluation of Marking Menus, PhD thesis, University of Toronto. 1993
24. Lank, E., J. Ruiz, and W. Cowan. Concurrent bimanual stylus interaction: a study of non-preferred hand mode manipulation. Proceedings of GI'06, pp. 17-24.
25. Li, Y., K. Hinckley, Z. Guan, and J.A. Landay. Experimental analysis of mode switching techniques in pen-based user interfaces. Proceedings of CHI'05, pp. 461-470.
26. Luckham, D. and J. Vera, An Event-Based architecture Definition Language. IEEE Transaction on Software Engineering, 1995. 21(9): p. 717-734.
27. Mackay, W.E. Which Interaction Technique Works When? Floating Palettes, Marking Menus and Toolglasses support different task strategies. Proceedings of AVI'02., pp. 203-209.
28. Ramos, G., M. Boulos, and R. Balakrishnan. Pressure Widgets. Proceedings of CHI'04, pp. 527-534.
29. Raskin, J., The Humane Interface: New Direction for Designing Interactive Systems. 2000: ACM Press.
30. Sellen, A., G Kurtenbach, and B. Buxton, The Prevention of Mode Errors Through Sensory Feedback. Human-Computer Interaction, 1992. 7(2): p. 141-164.
31. Vicente, K.J. and GL. Torenvliet, The Earth is spherical (p < 0.05): alternative methods of statistical inference. Theoritical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 2000.1(3): p. 248-271.
32. Zeleznik, R., T. Miller, and A. Forsberg. Pop through mouse button interactions. Proceedings of UIST'01, pp. 195-196.