Direct Manipulation Interfaces

1
Direct Manipulation Interfaces

• Edwin L. Hutchins, James D. Hollan, and Donald A.
  Norman

2
Direct Manipulation Interfaces

• Continuous representation of the object of
  interest
• Physical actions or labeled button presses
  instead of complex syntax
• Rapid incremental reversible operations whose
  impact on the object of interest is immediately
  visible

3
Directness and distance

• The gulf of execution
• The gulf of evaluation
• Semantic Distance
• Articulatory Distance

• Reduce the semantic Distance
• High level language
• Make the output show semantic concepts directly
• Automated Behavior does not reduce semantic
  distance
• The user can adapt the system representation
• Virtuosity and semantic distance
• Articulatory Distance
• Looooong day

4
Role of Interface Manipulation Style and
Scaffolding on Cognition and Concept Learning in
Learn ware

• Kamran Sedig
• Maria Klame and Marvin Westrom
• TOCHI Vol. 8 No. 1 2001

5
Educational Software

• Purpose is not optimize effort or speedup
  performance
• Engage the users conscious attention
• Ease of use low cognition effort might not good

6
DCM and RDCM

• Users attention to concept
• Visualize the concept along with the objects
• Highly abstract
• Greater interiority
• ScaffoldingRDCM

• Questions
• Is DCM more effective
• DCM afford more of the concept
• cognition process
• Conscious process
• How RDCM enhance DCM

7
Task

• A tangrams puzzle
• Seven pieces
• Rich composition pattern
• Task
• Given a target pattern
• Manipulate pieces to complete the pattern
• Three setting
• DOM
• DCM
• RDCM

8
DOM

• Simple easy interaction
• Translation
• Rotation (22.5)
• Reflection
• Low engagement
• Easy to learn

9
DCM

• More button
• More geometric artifacts
• High engagement
• Take longer to learn
• The geometric concept in UI
• Help grasp geometric concepts

10
RDCM

• Gradual Fading
• Incrementally remove feedback and increase
  difficulty. i.e.
• With ghost image
• Without ghost image
• User must concentrate more on numbers

11
Study

• Subject
• Grade 6 students (N44), 21 female, 23 male
• 11-12 years old
• No previous experience with the software
• Data
• Transformation Geometric Test (TGT)
• Design Questionare
• Video Recordings of interviews
• Direct Observation
• Log files

12
Study

• Subjects divided into 3 groups
• DOM
• DCM
• RDCM
• Procedure
• Start with TGT test
• Work on computer in pairs for 10 40 minutes
  sessions
• Complete TGT and DQ test
• Interview and questionnaires (2030 minutes each)

13
Result
14
Result
15
Results
16
Conclusion

• Interface style in learning ware

• Implications of Direct Manipulation
• Reflective Direct Concept Manipulation

17
After thinking

• Are there other context difference makes the
  difference
• Is it because of scaffolding or switching context
  that makes the difference
• How does it apply to object manipulation and
  medical education.