Zoom interaction design for pen-operated portable devices

Abstract

Maps are currently the most common application domain for ZUIs. Standard techniques for controlling such interfaces on pen-operated devices usually rely on sequential interaction, i.e. the users can either zoom or pan. A more advanced technique is speed-dependent automatic zooming (SDAZ), which combines rate-based panning and zooming into a single operation and thus enables concurrent interaction. Yet another navigation strategy is to allow for concurrent, but separate, zooming and panning. However, due to the limitations of stylus input, this feature requires the pen-operated device to be enhanced with additional input dimensions. We propose one unimanual approach based on pen pressure, and one bimanual approach in which users pan the view with the pen while manipulating the scale by tilting the device. In total, we developed four interfaces (standard, SDAZ, pressure, and tilting) and compared them in a usability study with 32 participants. The results show that SDAZ performed well for both simple speed tasks and more complex navigation scenarios, but that the coupled interaction led to much user frustration. In a preference vote, the participants strongly rejected the interface and stated that they found it difficult and irksome to control. This result enhances previous research, which in most cases found a high user preference for SDAZ, but focused solely on simple speed tasks. In contrast, the pressure and tilt interfaces were much appreciated, which, considering the novelty of these approaches, is highly encouraging. However, in solving the test tasks the participants took hardly any advantage of parallel interaction. For a map view of 600x600 pixels, this resulted in task-completion times comparable to those for the standard interface. For a smaller 300x300 pixels view, the standard interface was actually significantly faster than the two novel techniques. This ratio is also reflected in the preference votes. While for the larger 600x600 pixels view the tilt interface was the most popular, the standard interface was rated highest for the 300x300 pixels view. Hence, on a smaller display, precise interaction may have an increased impact on the interface usability. Overall, we believe that the alternative interaction techniques show great potential for further development. In particular, a redesign should encourage parallel interaction more strongly and also provide improved support for precise navigation.

Spatial Knowledge Acquisition with Mobile Maps: Effects of Map Size on Users’ Wayfinding Performance with Interactive Interfaces

“…Subjective preference for the interfaces was therefore dependent on the map size. Büring et al [21] used a mobile device for map-viewing. A small view of 300 × 300 pixels and a large view of 600 × 600 pixels were examined.…”

Comparing Touch and Tilt Interaction using an iPhone Game for Children

“…In the lasts few years, the advances in mobile technology has made possible the popularisation of interaction forms that use the accelerometer and the touch-screen display. Since then, several interaction studies related to mobile devices comparing tilt or touch-screen interaction to other interaction methods have been presented (van Tonder and Wesson, 2010;Büring et al, 2008;Schwarten et al, 2008;Cho et al, 2007), but to our knowledge no work that compares tilt and touch-screen interaction for children has been submitted.…”

“…In van Tonder and Wesson and Büring, Gerken, and Reiterer studies map navigation applications were developed (van Tonder and Wesson, 2010;Büring et al, 2008). Schwarten et al, and Cho et al, developed image editing or manipulation applications (Schwarten et al, 2008;Cho et al, 2007).…”

Semi-automatic zooming for mobile map navigation

“…A study comparing pen-based rate control for map scrolling using SDAZ, pen-pressure-based zooming and tilt-based zooming was conducted by Büring et al [3]. The authors conducted their study on a tablet PC with the content scaled to the screen resolutions of mobile devices.…”

“…By having two types of map scale, we could measure the performance of the input techniques over a wider range of zoom levels and geographic areas. The follow route task was designed to evaluate the panning functionality whereas in the landmark finder task participants had to make additional use of the zooming functionality [3].…”