Which interaction technique works when?: floating palettes, marking menus and toolglasses support different task strategies
Which interaction technique works when?: floating palettes, marking menus and toolglasses support different task strategies
复制标题
哪种交互技术适用于何时？：浮动调色板、标记菜单和工具箱支持不同的任务策略
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2002
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
W. Mackay
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
W. Mackay
我们进行了一项实验，比较了WIMP后的三种交互技术：浮动调色板、标记菜单和工具眼镜，在真实世界的彩色Petri网编辑器CPN2000中进行了比较。我们创造了六种情景，在这些情景中，用户使用同样复杂的网络执行相同的动作集，但具有不同的认知背景。我们发现，不同的交互技术在性能和偏好上存在显著差异。当用户处于“复制”环境中时，浮动调色板效率更高。如果用户正在解决问题，则首选工具眼镜或标记菜单。没有一种单一的交互技术是明显优越的：每种技术在不同的背景下都有长处。由于单个应用程序必须支持不同类型的认知任务，交互设计者应该考虑集成多种交互技术，而不是只选择一种。
We conducted an experiment that compared three post-WIMP interaction techniques: floating palettes, marking menus and toolglasses, in a real-world Coloured Petri-Net editor, CPN2000. We created six situations in which users performed identical sets of actions with equally-complex nets, but with different cognitive contexts. We found significant differences in performance and preferences across interaction techniques. When a user is in a "copy" context, floating palettes are more efficient. If the user is problem solving, toolglasses or marking menus are preferred. No single interaction technique is clearly superior: each has strengths in different contexts. Since a single application must support different kinds of cognitive tasks, interaction designers should consider integrating multiple interaction techniques, rather than selecting only one.