G. Michael Poor
Skip Abstract Section
Skip Supplemental Material SectionAbstract
In recent decades, “post-WIMP” interactions have revolutionized user interfaces (UIs) and led to improved user experiences. However, accounts of post-WIMP UIs typically do not provide theoretical explanations of why these UIs lead to superior performance. In this article, we use Norman’s 1986 model of interaction to describe how post-WIMP UIs enhance users’ mental representations of UI and task. In addition, we present an empirical study of three UIs; in the study, participants completed a standard three-dimensional object manipulation task. We found that the post-WIMP UI condition led to enhancements of mental representation of UI and task. We conclude that the Norman model is a good theoretical framework to study post-WIMP UIs. In addition, by studying post-WIMP UIs in the context of the Norman model, we conclude that mental representation of task may be influenced by the interaction itself; this supposition is an extension of the original Norman model.
Supplemental Material
- Christian Battista and Michael Peters. 2010. Ecological aspects of mental rotation around the vertical and horizontal axis. J. Individ. Differ. 31, 2 (2010), 110--113.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- Michel Beaudouin-Lafon. 2000. Instrumental interaction: An interaction model for designing post-WIMP user interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 446--453. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Charles E. Bethell-Fox and Roger N. Shepard. 1988. Mental rotation: Effects of stimulus complexity and familiarity. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 14, 1 (1988), 12--23.Google ScholarCross Ref
- John B. Carroll. 1993. Human Cognitive Abilities: A Survey of Factor-Analytic Studies. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
- William G. Chase and Herbert A. Simon. 1973. Perception in chess. Cogn. Psychol. 4, 1 (1973), 55--81.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Michelene T. H. Chi, Paul J. Feltovich, and Robert Glaser. 1981. Categorization and representation of physics problems by experts and novices. Cogn. Sci. 5, 2 (1981), 121--152.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Lynn A. Cooper and Roger N. Shepard. 1975. Mental transformation in the identification of left and right hands. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 1, 1 (1975), 48.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Andrea diSessa. 1986. Models of computation. In User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction, D. A. Norman and S. W. Draper (Eds.). Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 201--218.Google Scholar
- Thomas J. Donahue, G. Michael Poor, Martez E. Mott, Laura Marie Leventhal, Guy Zimmerman, and Dale Klopfer. 2013. On interface closeness and problem solving. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction. ACM, 139--146. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Randolph D. Easton, Anthony J. Greene, and Kavitha Srinivas. 1997a. Transfer between vision and haptics: Memory for 2-d patterns and 3-d objects. Psychol. Bull. Rev. 4, 3 (1997), 403--410.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Randolph D. Easton, Kavitha Srinivas, and Anthony J. Greene. 1997b. Do vision and haptics share common representations? Implicit and explicit memory within and between modalities. J. Psychol. Appl. Learn. Mem. Cognit. 23, 1 (1997), 153.Google ScholarCross Ref
- R. B. Ekstrom, John W. French, Harry H. Harman, and Diran Derman. 1976. Manual for Kit of Factor-Referenced Cognitive Tests. Educational Testing Services, Princeton, NJ.Google Scholar
- Ronald A. Finke. 1980. Levels of equivalence in imagery and perception. Psychol. Rev. 87, 2 (1980), 113--132.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Alinda Friedman and David Lawrence Hall. 1996. The importance of being upright: Use of environmental and viewer-centered reference frames in shape discriminations of novel three-dimensional objects. Mem. Cognit. 24, 3 (1996), 285--295.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Jennie J. Gallimore and Michael E. Brown. 1993. Visualization of 3-d computer-aided design objects. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Int. 5, 4 (1993), 361--382.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Isabel Gauthier, William G. Hayward, Michael J. Tarr, Adam W. Anderson, Pawel Skudlarski, and John C. Gore. 2002. BOLD activity during mental rotation and viewpoint-dependent object recognition. Neuron 34, 1 (2002), 161--171.Google ScholarCross Ref
- James Jerome Gibson. 1979. 1986. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception (1979). Houghton Mifflin, Boston.Google Scholar
- Rachelle Hippler, Dale Klopfer, Laura Leventhal, G. Michael Poor, Brandi Klein, and Samuel D. Jaffee. 2011. More than speed? An empirical study of touchscreens and body awareness on an object manipulation task. HCI International 2011. Orlando, FL, 33--42. Google ScholarDigital Library
- James Hollan, Edwin Hutchins, and David Kirsh. 2000. Distributed cognition: Toward a new foundation for human-computer interaction research. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 7, 2 (June 2000), 174--196. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/353485.353487 Google ScholarDigital Library
- Michael Horn. 2012. Topcodes: Tangible Object Placement Codes. (2012). Retrieved January 15, 2012 from http://users.eecs.northwestern.edu/∼mhorn/topcodes/.Google Scholar
- Edwin L. Hutchins, James D. Hollan, and Donald A. Norman. 1986. Direct manipulation interfaces. In User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction. D. A. Norman and S. W. Draper (Eds.). ACM, 87--125.Google Scholar
- Robert K. Jacob, Audrey Girouard, Leanne M. Hirshfield, Michael S. Horn, Orit Shaer, Erin Treacy Solovey, and Jamie Zigelbaum. 2008. Reality-based interaction: A framework for post-WIMP interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 201--210. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Samuel D. Jaffee, Dena Battaglia, and Dale S. Klopfer. 2010. Tipping cubes: The effect of project on performance and strategy in a mental rotation task in a virtual environment. Poster Session at the Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL (May 2010).Google Scholar
- Samuel D. Jaffee, Laura M. Leventhal, Brandi A. Klein, and T. J. Donahue. 2013. Once again comparing cube rotations around axes inclined relative to the environment or to the cube: Shiffrar and Shepard (1991) revisited. Paper Presented at the Annual Meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL (May 2013).Google Scholar
- Marcel A. Just and Patricia A. Carpenter. 1985. Cognitive coordinate systems: Accounts of mental rotation and individual differences in spatial ability. Psychol. Rev. 92, 2 (1985), 137.Google ScholarCross Ref
- D. Kirsh and P. Maglio. 1994. On distinguishing epistemic from pragmatic action. Cogn. Sci. 18 (1994), 513--549.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Dale Klopfer, Jeremy Athy, and Laura Leventhal. 2007. Working memory: Just and Carpenter (1985) revisited. In Proceedings of the 48th Annual Meeting of the Psychonomic Society. ACM, 251--258.Google Scholar
- Heidi Lam. 2008. A framework of interaction costs in information visualization. Trans. Vis. Comput. Graphics, 6 (2008), 1149--1156. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Seungyon Lee and Shumin Zhai. 2009. The performance of touch screen soft buttons. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM, 309--318. Google ScholarDigital Library
- David F. Lohman. 1996. Spatial ability and g. Hum. Abilities., Nature Meas. 97 (1996), 116.Google Scholar
- David Marr and Herbert Keith Nishihara. 1978. Representation and recognition of the spatial organization of three dimensional shapes. Proc. R. Soc. London 200 (1978), 269--294.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Roxana Moreno and Richard Mayer. 2007. Interactive multimodal learning environments. Educ. Psychol. Rev. 19, 3 (2007), 309--326.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Tomer Moscovich. 2009. Contact area interaction with sliding widgets. In Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. 13--22. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Martez Mott, Thomas Donahue, G. Michael Poor, and Laura Leventhal. 2012. Leveraging motor learning for a tangible password system. Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'12). ACM, 2597--2602. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Allen Newell and Herbert Alexander Simon. 1972. Human Problem Solving. Vol. 104. Prentice-Hall Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Google Scholar
- Donald A. Norman. 1986. Cognitive engineering. In User centered system design: New perspectives on human-computer interaction. Donald A. Norman and Stephen W. Draper (Eds.). Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, NJ, 31--61.Google Scholar
- Donald A. Norman. 1990. The design of everyday things. (1990). Doubleday, New York, NY.Google Scholar
- Nancy Pennington. 1987. Stimulus structures and mental representation in expert comprehension of computer programs. Cogn. Psychol. 19 (1987), 295--341.Google ScholarCross Ref
- G. M. Poor, Brianna J. Tomlinson, Darren Guinness, Samuel D. Jaffee, Laura M. Leventhal, Guy Zimmerman, and Dale S. Klopfer. 2013. Tangible or gestural: comparing tangible vs. KinectTM interactions with an object manipulation task. In 7th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction. Barcelona, Spain.Google Scholar
- G. Michael Poor. 2008. The effects of varying levels of reality-based interaction styles on a subject’s ability to perform a 3d construction task. Unpublished Doctoral Dissertation, Tufts University, MA. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Michael Poor, Laura Marie Leventhal, Scott Kelley, Jordan Ringenberg, and Samuel D. Jaffee. 2011. Thought cubes: Exploring the use of an inexpensive brain-computer interface on a mental rotation task. In Proceedings of the 13th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS'11). ACM New York, NY, 291--292. Google ScholarDigital Library
- G. Michael Poor, Guy Zimmerman, Dale S. fer, Samuel D. Jaffee, Laura Marie Leventhal, and Julie Barnes. 2013a. Mobility matters: Identifying cognitive demands that are sensitive to orientation. In Human-Computer Interaction--INTERACT 2013. Springer, 193--210.Google Scholar
- G. Michael Poor, Guy W. Zimmerman, Dale S. Klopfer, Samuel D. Jaffee, Laura Marie Leventhal, and Julie Barnes. 2013b. Mobility matters: Identifying cognitive demands that are sensitive to orientation. (2013), 193--210. DOI:http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-40483-2_14Google Scholar
- Andrew Sears and Ben Shneiderman. 1991. High precision touchscreens: Design strategies and comparisons with a mouse. Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 34, 4 (1991), 593--613. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Roger N. Shepard. 1984. Ecological constraints on internal representation: Resonant kinematics of perceiving, imagining, thinking, and dreaming. Psychol. Rev. 91, 4 (1984), 417--447.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Roger N. Shepard and Jacqueline Metzler. 1971. Mental rotation of three-dimensional objects. Science 171, 3972 (1971), 701--703.Google Scholar
- Margaret M. Shiffrar and Roger N. Shepard. 1991. Comparison of cube rotations around axes inclined relative to the environment or to the cube. J. Exp. Psychol. Hum. Percept. Perform. 17, 1 (1991), 44--54.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Benjamin Shneiderman. 1982. The future of interactive systems and the emergence of direct manipulation. Behav. Inf. Technol. 1, 3 (1982), 237--256.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gunnvald B. Svendsen. 1991. The influence of interface style on problem solving. Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 35, 3 (1991), 379--397. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Louis Leon Thurstone. 1938. Primary mental abilities. (1938). The University of Chicago Press, Chicago.Google Scholar
- Brygg Ullmer, Hiroshi Ishii, and Robert J. K. Jacob. 2005. Token+ constraint systems for tangible interaction with digital information. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. (TOCHI) 12, 1 (2005), 81--118. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Manuel Vidal, Alexandre Lehmann, and Heinrich H. Bülthoff. 2009. A multisensory approach to spatial updating: The case of mental rotations. Exp. Brain Res. 197, 1 (2009), 59--68.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Florian Waszak, Knut Drewing, and Rainer Mausfeld. 2005. Viewer-external frames of reference in the mental transformation of 3-d objects. Percept. Psychophys. 67, 7 (2005), 1269--1279.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Mark Wexler, Stephen M. Kosslyn, and Alain Berthoz. 1998. Motor processes in mental rotation. Cognition 68, 1 (1998), 77--94.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Gunnar Wiedenbauer, Juliane Schmid, and Petra Jansen-Osmann. 2007. Manual training of mental rotation. Eur. J. Cognit. Psychol. 19, 1 (2007), 17--36.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Andrew T. Woods, Allison Moore, and Fiona N. NewellÙ. 2008. Canonical views in haptic object perception. Perception 37 (2008), 1867--1878.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Maryjane Wraga, Sarah H. Creem, and Dennis R. Proffitt. 2000. Updating displays after imagined object and viewer rotations. J. Exp. Psychol. Learn. Mem. Cognit. 26, 1 (2000), 151.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Yan Zhang. 2012. The impact of task complexity on peoples mental models of MedlinePlus. Inf. Process. Manag. 48, 1 (2012), 107--119. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Applying the Norman 1986 User-Centered Model to Post-WIMP UIs: Theoretical Predictions and Empirical Outcomes
Recommendations
The MaggLite post-WIMP toolkit: draw it, connect it and run it
UIST '04: Proceedings of the 17th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technologyThis article presents MaggLite, a toolkit and sketch-based interface builder allowing fast and interactive design of post-WIMP user interfaces. MaggLite improves design of advanced UIs thanks to its novel <i>mixed-graph</i> architecture that dynamically ...
Towards a sensible integration of paper-based tangible user interfaces into creative work processes
CHI EA '09: CHI '09 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing SystemsWe live in a hybrid world where standard computers with graphical user interfaces (GUIs) have become an integral part of our daily life. Additionally, novel user interfaces like tangible user interfaces (TUIs) are among emerging interaction styles that ...
Automated generation of device-specific WIMP UIs: weaving of structural and behavioral models
EICS '11: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGCHI symposium on Engineering interactive computing systemsAny graphical user interface needs to have defined structure and behavior. So, in particular, models of Window / Icon / Menu / Pointing Device (WIMP) UIs need to represent structure and behavior at some level of abstraction, possibly in separate models. ...
Comments