Science China Information Sciences

, Volume 56, Issue 5, pp 1–16 | Cite as

Cursor caging: enhancing focus targeting in interactive fisheye views

Research Paper Special Focus
  • 82 Downloads

Abstract

Fisheye view is an effective approach to visualizing and navigating large data sets by offering both local details and global context in the same view. However, by using different magnification factors for detail and context information, fisheye view also leads to new usability issues, one of which is the focus targeting difficulty. This challenge happens when a user tries to select a target to either shift the focus to a new place or chooses the target. Because of the magnification factors applied to the fisheye view, the target moves when the cursor moves, and consequently, the moving distance the cursor actually needs to travel to reach the target does not match the distance between the cursor and target shown on the screen. Task accuracy and efficiency can be affected. This paper analyzes the mechanism of this difficulty and proposes a new technique, cursor caging, as a method to alleviate the focus targeting difficulty in interactive fisheye views. This technique extends the fisheye magnification approach from one element to a focal region, which can contain several elements, and allows the mouse cursor to move freely inside this region without affecting the magnification of objects inside the focal region. In addition to the mathematical representation of this technique, we also develop two designs that incorporate the cursor caging concept in fisheye views, and describe a usability study on the technique. Our results showed that cursor caging can significantly improve the task completion time and reduce the error rate in focusing targeting tasks.

Keywords

fisheye view non-linear magnification focus targeting formal analysis cursor caging 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Furnas G W. The fisheye view: a new look at structured files. Technical Report, Bell Laboratories Technical Memorandum #81-11221-9, 1982Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Furnas G W. Generalized fisheye views. SIGCHI Bull, 1986, 17: 16–23CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Sarkar M, Brown M H. Graphical fisheye views of graphs. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM, 1992. 83–91Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Rao R, Card S K. The table lens: merging graphical and symbolic representations in an interactive focus + context visualization for tabular information. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM, 1994. 318–322Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bederson B B. Fisheye menus. In: Proceedings of the 13th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. New York: ACM, 2000. 217–225CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pirolli P, Card S K, van der Wege M M. The effects of information scent on visual search in the hyperbolic tree browser. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact, 2003, 10: 20–53CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bederson B B, Clamage A, Czerwinski M P, et al. Datelens: A fisheye calendar interface for pdas. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact, 2004, 11: 90–119CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Carpendale S, Ligh J, Pattison E. Achieving higher magnification in context. In: Proceedings of the 17th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. New York: ACM, 2004. 71–80CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gutwin C. Improving focus targeting in interactive fisheye views. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM, 2002. 267–274Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hornbaek K, Hertzum M. Untangling the usability of fisheye menus. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact, 2007, 14: 6–32CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Spence R, Apperley M. Data base navigation: an office environment for the professional. Behav Inf Technol, 1982, 1: 43–54CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kadmon N, Shlomi E. A polyfocal projection for statistical surfaces. Cartogra J, 1978, 15: 36–41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lamping J, Rao R. Laying out and visualizing large trees using a hyperbolic space. In: Proceedings of the 7th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. New York: ACM, 1994. 13–14Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Mackinlay J D, Robertson G G, Card S K. The perspective wall: detail and context smoothly integrated. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Reaching through Technology. New York: ACM, 1991. 173–176CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Robertson G G, Mackinlay J D. The document lens. In: Proceedings of the 6th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. New York: ACM, 1993. 101–108Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Sarkar M, Snibbe S S, Tversky O J, et al. Stretching the rubber sheet: a metaphor for viewing large layouts on small screens. In: Proceedings of the 6th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. New York: ACM, 1993. 81–91Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Song H, Cai X, Fu Y. Rectangular tree browser: A navigation and visualization tool for large hierarchies. J Inf Comput Sci, 2011, 8: 354–361Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Carpendale M S T, Cowperthwaite D J, Fracchia F D. 3-dimensional pliable surfaces: for the effective presentation of visual information. In: Proceedings of the 8th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface and Software Technology. New York: ACM, 1995. 217–226Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Carpendale M S T, Tigges M, Cowperthwaite D J, et al. Bringing the advantages of 3D distortion viewing into focus. In: Proceedings of the 4th Information Visualization Symposium, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1998. 17–20Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Carpendale M S T, Montagnese C. A framework for unifying presentation space. In: Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. New York: ACM, 2001. 61–70CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pietriga E, Appert C. Sigma lenses: focus-context transitions combining space, time and translucence. In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM, 2008. 1343–1352Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Card S K, English W K, Burr B J. Evaluation of mouse, rate-controlled isometric joystick, step keys, and text keys for text selection on a CRT. Ergonomics, 1978, 21: 601–613CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    MacKenzie I S. Fitts’ law as a research and design tool in human-computer interaction. Hum-Comput Interact, 1992, 7: 91–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    MacKenzie I S, Sellen A, Buxton W A S. A comparison of input devices in element pointing and dragging tasks. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM, 1991. 161–166Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    McGuffin M J, Balakrishnan R. Acquisition of expanding targets. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM, 2002. 57–64Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    McGuffin M J, Balakrishnan R. Fitts’ law and expanding targets: Experimental studies and designs for user interfaces. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact, 2005, 12: 388–422CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zhai S, Conversy S, Lafon M B, et al. Human on-line response to target expansion. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM, 2003. 177–184Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Cockburn A, Firth A. Improving the acquisition of small targets. In: Proceedings of the British Computer Society Conference on Human Computer Interaction. Bath, UK: University of Canterbury, 2003. 181–196Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Appert C, Chapuis O, Pietriga E. High-precision magnification lenses. In: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM, 2010. 273–282CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Mandryk R L, Gutwin C. Perceptibility and utility of sticky targets. In: Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2008. Toronto: Canadian Information Processing Society, 2008. 65–72Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Grossman T, Balakrishnan R. The bubble cursor: enhancing target acquisition by dynamic resizing of the cursor’s activation area. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM, 2005. 281–290Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Song H, Fu Y, Qi Y, et al. A length compensation method to eliminate the varying length defect in one dimensional fisheye views. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Information and Automation, Harbin, 2010. 811–816Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Worden A, Walker N, Bharat K, et al. Making computers easier for older adults to use: area cursors and sticky icons. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM, 1997. 266–271CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Science China Press and Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • HongZhi Song
    • 1
  • Yi Fu
    • 1
  • Liang Zhang
    • 1
  • XiaoLong Zhang
    • 2
  1. 1.College of InformaticsSouth China Agricultural UniversityGuangzhouChina
  2. 2.College of Information Sciences and TechnologyPennsylvania State UniversityUniversity ParkUSA

Personalised recommendations