skip to main content
10.1145/1357054.1357179acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Wedge: clutter-free visualization of off-screen locations

Published: 06 April 2008 Publication History

Abstract

To overcome display limitations of small-screen devices, researchers have proposed techniques that point users to objects located off-screen. Arrow-based techniques such as City Lights convey only direction. Halo conveys direction and distance, but is susceptible to clutter resulting from overlapping halos. We present Wedge, a visualization technique that conveys direction and distance, yet avoids overlap and clutter. Wedge represents each off-screen location using an acute isosceles triangle: the tip coincides with the off-screen locations, and the two corners are located on-screen. A wedge conveys location awareness primarily by means of its two legs pointing towards the target. Wedges avoid overlap programmatically by repelling each other, causing them to rotate until overlap is resolved. As a result, wedges can be applied to numbers and configurations of targets that would lead to clutter if visualized using halos. We report on a user study comparing Wedge and Halo for three off-screen tasks. Participants were significantly more accurate when using Wedge than when using Halo.

References

[1]
Baudisch, P. and Rosenholtz, R. (2003). Halo: A technique for visualizing off-screen locations. Proc. CHI 2003, 481--488.
[2]
Baudisch, P., Good, N., Bellotti, V., and Schraedley, P. (2002). Keeping things in context: A comparative evaluation of focus plus context screens, overviews, and zooming. Proc. CHI 2002, 259--266.
[3]
Bederson, B. B., Hollan, J. D., Perlin, K., Meyer, J., Bacon, D., and Furnas, G. (1996). Pad++: A zoomable graphical sketchpad for exploring alternate interface physics, Visual Languages and Computation, 7, 3--31.
[4]
Burigat S., Chittaro L., and Gabrielli S. (2006). Visualizing locations of off-screen objects on mobile devices: A comparative evaluation of three approaches, Proc. MobileHCI 2006, 239--246.
[5]
Carpendale, M. S. T. and Montagnese, C. (2001). A framework for unifying presentation space. Proc. UIST 2001, 61--70.
[6]
Elder, J. and Zucker, S. (1993). The effect of contour closure on the rapid discrimination of two-dimensional shapes. Vision Research, 33(7), 981--991.
[7]
Gustafson, S. and Irani, P. (2007). Comparing visualizations for tracking off-screen moving targets. Proc. CHI 2007, 2399--2404.
[8]
Guttman, S. E., and Kellman, P. J. (2002). Do spatial factors influence the microgenesis of illusory contours? Journal of Vision, 2, 355a.
[9]
Hornbæk, K. and Frøkjær, E. (2001). Reading of electronic documents: the usability of linear, fisheye, and overview+detail interfaces. Proc. CHI 2001, 293--300.
[10]
Irani, P., Gutwin, C., and Yang, X. D. (2006). Improving selection of off-screen targets with hopping. Proc. CHI 2006, 299--308.
[11]
Lam, H. and Baudisch, P. (2005). Summary Thumbnails: Readable overviews for small screen web browsers. Proc. CHI 2005, 681--690.
[12]
Mackinlay, J. D., Good, L., Zellweger, P. T., Stefik, M., and Baudisch, P. (2003). City Lights: Contextual views in minimal space. Proc. CHI 2003, 838--839.
[13]
Marsh, T. and Wright, P. (2000) Using cinematography conventions to inform guidelines for the design and evaluation of virtual off-screen space. Proc. AAAI 2000 Spring Symp. Ser. Smart Graphics, 123--127.
[14]
Murray, R., Sekuler, A., and Bennett, P. (2001). Time course of amodal completion revealed by a shape discrimination task. Psychonomic Bulletin, 8, 713--720.
[15]
Nacenta, M., Subramanian, S., Sallam, S., Champoux, B., and Gutwin, C. (2006). Perspective Cursor: Perspective-based interaction for multi-display environments. Proc. CHI 2006, 289--298.
[16]
Nekrasovski, D., Bodnar, A., McGrenere, J., Guimbretière, F., and Munzner, T. (2006). An evaluation of pan & zoom and rubber sheet navigation with and without an overview. Proc. CHI 2006, 11--20.
[17]
Rohs, M. and Essl, G. (2006). Which one is better? - Information navigation techniques for spatially aware handheld displays. Proc. ICMI 2006, 100--107.
[18]
Sarkar, M. and Brown, M. (1992). Graphical fisheye views of graphs. Proc. CHI 1992, 83--91.
[19]
Sekuler, A. and Murray, R. (2001). Amodal completion: A case studying grouping. In T. Shipley & P. Kellman (Eds.), From Fragments to Objects: Segmentation and Grouping in Vision, New York: Elsevier, 265--293.
[20]
Sekuler, A. and Palmer, S. (1992). Perception of partly occluded objects: A microgenetic analysis. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 121, 95--111.
[21]
Sekuler, A., Palmer, S., and Flynn, C. (1994). Local and global processes in visual completion. Psychological Science, 5, 260--267.
[22]
Shore, D. and Enns, T. (1997). Shape completion time depends on the size of the occluded region. Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 23, 980--998.
[23]
Skopik, A. and Gutwin, C. (2005). Improving revisitation in fisheye views with visit wear. Proc. CHI 2005, 771--780.
[24]
Ware, C. and Lewis, M. (1995). The DragMag image magnifier. Proc. CHI 1995, 407--408.

Cited By

View all

Index Terms

  1. Wedge: clutter-free visualization of off-screen locations

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    CHI '08: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
    April 2008
    1870 pages
    ISBN:9781605580111
    DOI:10.1145/1357054
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 06 April 2008

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. maps
    2. off-screen
    3. peripheral awareness
    4. small screens
    5. spatial cognition
    6. visualization

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Conference

    CHI '08
    Sponsor:

    Acceptance Rates

    CHI '08 Paper Acceptance Rate 157 of 714 submissions, 22%;
    Overall Acceptance Rate 6,199 of 26,314 submissions, 24%

    Upcoming Conference

    CHI 2025
    ACM CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
    April 26 - May 1, 2025
    Yokohama , Japan

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)88
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)5
    Reflects downloads up to 24 Dec 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all

    View Options

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media