Advertisement

From Metaphors to Simulations to Idioms: Supporting the Conceptualisation Process

  • Antti Pirhonen
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3295)

Abstract

The concept of metaphor has been used in UI design in a loose manner. There is a need to conceptually separate it from related concepts to restore the power it used to have in rhetoric. It is also important to understand the life cycle of metaphor, how it changes over time in the conceptualisation process. This is especially topical in ubiquitous computing, in which entirely new concepts and interaction styles are introduced. In this paper, we describe the use of metaphors and related concepts in theory and apply the approach in a mobile application.

Keywords

Ubiquitous Computing Touch Screen Oxford English Dictionary Success Percentage Computer Science Student 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Apple Computer, Macintosh human interface guidelines. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1992)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Aristotle: The complete works of Aristotle: The revised Oxford translation / ed. by Jonathan Barnes (1 ed. Vol. 2), Princeton University Press, Princeton (1984)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Brewster, S.A., Wright, P.C., Edwards, A.D.N.: Experimentally derived guidelines for the creation of earcons. In: Adjunct Proceedings of HCI 1995, Huddersfield, UK (1995)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Carroll, J.M., Mack, R.L.: Metaphor, computing systems, and active learning. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 22(1), 39–57 (1985)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cooper, D.E.: Metaphor. Billing & Sons, Worcester (1986)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gentner, D., Nielson, J.: The anti-mac interface. Communications of the ACM 39(8), 70–82 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Hamilton, A.: Metaphor in theory and practice: the influence of metaphors on expectations. ACM Journal of Computer Documentation 24(4), 237–253 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Harrison, B.L., Fishkin, K.P., Gujar, A., Mochon, C., Want, R.: Squeeze me, hold me, tilt me! An exploration of manipulative user interfaces. In: Conference proceedings on Human factors in computing systems, CHI 1998, Los Angeles, CA, pp. 17–24 (1998)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hazari, S.I., Reaves, R.R.: Student preferences toward microcomputer user interfaces. Computers & Education 22(3), 225–229 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Johnson, J.: How faithfully should the electronic office simulate the real one? SIGCHI Bulletin 19(2), 21–25 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jones, W.P., Dumais, S.T.: The spatial metaphor for user interfaces: experimental tests of reference by location versus name. ACM Transactions on Information Systems 4(1), 42–63 (1986)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lakoff, G.: The contemporary theory of metaphor. In: Ortony, A. (ed.) Metaphor and thought, 2nd edn., Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1993)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Lakoff, G., Johnson, M.: Metaphors we live by. The University of Chicago Press, Chicago (1980)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lakoff, G., Johnson, M.: Philosophy in the flesh: the embodied mind and its challenge to western thought. Basic Books, New York (1999)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Laurel, B.: Computers as theatre. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1991)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Nardi, B.A., Zarmer, C.L.: Beyond models and metaphors: Visual formalisms in user interface design. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 4, 5–33 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Neale, D.C., Carroll, J.M.: The role of metaphors in user interface design. In: Helander, M., Landauer, T.K., Prabhu, P. (eds.) Handbook of human-computer interaction, 2nd edn., Elsevier, Amsterdam (1997)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Norman, D.A.: Emotion & design: Attractive things work better. Interactions 9(4), 36–42 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Petre, M., Green, T.R.G.: Is graphical notation really superior to text, or just different? Some claims by logic designers about graphics in notation. In: Proceedings in the Fifth Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics, Urbino, Italy, September 3-6 (1990)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Pirhonen, A.: What do learning curves tell us about learnability? In: Vetere, F., Johnston, L., Kushinsky, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the HF 2002 Human Factors Conference, Design for the whole person - integrating physical, cognitive and social aspects, Melbourne, Australia, November 25-27 (2002)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Pirhonen, A., Brewster, S.: Metaphors and imitation. In: Rachovides, D., Swiderski, Z., Parkes, A. (eds.) Workshop proceedings in PC-HCI 2001: Integrating Metaphors, Multimodality and Multimedia, Patras, Greece, December 7-9, pp. 27–32 (2001)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Pirhonen, A., Brewster, S., Holguin, C.: Gestural and audio metaphors as a means of control for mobile devices. In: Proceedings of CHI 2002, Minneapolis, Minnesota, April 20-25, pp. 291–298. ACM Press, New York (2002)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antti Pirhonen
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. of Computer Science and Information SystemsUniversity of JyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations