Quantifying Object- and Command-Oriented Interaction

  • Alix GogueyEmail author
  • Julie Wagner
  • Géry Casiez
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9299)


In spite of previous work showing the importance of understanding users’ strategies when performing tasks, i.e. the order in which users perform actions on objects using commands, HCI researchers evaluating and comparing interaction techniques remain mainly focused on performance (e.g. time, error rate). This can be explained to some extent by the difficulty to characterize such strategies.We propose metrics to quantify if an interaction technique introduces a rather object- or command-oriented task strategy, depending if users favor completing the actions on an object before moving to the next one or in contrast if they are reluctant to switch between commands. On an interactive surface, we compared Fixed Palette and Toolglass with two novel techniques that take advantage of finger identification technology, Fixed Palette using Finger Identification and Finger Palette. We evaluated our metrics with previous results on both existing techniques. With the novel techniques we found that (1) minimizing the required physical movement to switch tools does not necessarily lead to more object-oriented strategies and (2) increased cognitive load to access commands can lead to command-oriented strategies.


Interaction sequence Task strategy Metric Theory Finger identification Finger specific 


  1. 1.
    Appert, C., Beaudouin-Lafon, M., Mackay, W.: Context matters: evaluating interaction techniques with the cis model. In: Fincher, S., Markopoulos, P., Moore, D., Ruddle, R. (eds.) People and Computers XVIII — Design for Life, pp. 279–295. Springer, London (2005). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Beaudouin-Lafon, M.: Instrumental interaction: an interaction model for designing postwimp user interfaces. In: Proceedings of CHI 2000, pp. 446–453. ACM (2000).
  3. 3.
    Bhavnani, S.K., John, B.E.: Delegation and circumvention: two faces of efficiency. In: Proceedings. of CHI 1998, pp. 273–280 (1998).
  4. 4.
    Bhavnani, S.K., John, B.E.: The strategic use of complex computer systems. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 15(2), 107–137 (2000). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bier, E.A., Stone, M.C., Pier, K., Buxton, W., DeRose, T.D.: Toolglass and magic lenses: the see-through interface. In: Proceedings of SIGGRAPH 1993, pp. 73–80. ACM (1993).
  6. 6.
    Cockburn, A., Gutwin, C., Scarr, J., Malacria, S.: Supporting novice to expert transitions in user interfaces. ACM Comput. Surv. (CSUR) 47(2), 31 (2014). CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mackay, W.: Which interaction technique works when? floating palettes, marking menus and toolglasses support different task strategies. In: Proceedings of AVI 2002, pp. 203–208. ACM.
  8. 8.
    Malacria, S., Scarr, J., Cockburn, A., Gutwin, C., Grossman, T.: Skillometers: reflective widgets that motivate and help users to improve performance. In: Proceedings of UIST 2013, pp. 321–330. ACM (2013).

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.InriaLilleFrance
  2. 2.Human-Computer Interaction GroupUniversity of Munich (LMU)MunichGermany
  3. 3.University of LilleLilleFrance

Personalised recommendations