A fisheye follow-up: further reflections on focus + context Export

@inproceedings{citeulike:828279, abstract = {Information worlds continue to grow, posing daunting challenges for interfaces. This paper tries to increase our understanding of approaches to the problem, building on the Generalized Fisheye View framework. Three issues are discussed. First a number of existing techniques are unified by the commonality of what they show, certain fisheye-related subsets, with the techniques differing only in how they show those subsets. Then the elevated importance of these subsets, and their generality, is used to discuss the possibility of non-visual fisheye-views, to attack problems not so amenable to visualization. Finally, several models are given for why these subsets might be important in user interactions, with the goal of better informing design rationales.}, address = {New York, NY, USA}, author = {Furnas, George W.}, booktitle = {CHI '06: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems}, citeulike-article-id = {828279}, citeulike-linkout-0 = {http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=1124921}, citeulike-linkout-1 = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124921}, comment = {retrospective 20 yrs later by author who originated idea... DOI<fe>(x|.) = F (API(x), D(., x)) * what are fc techniques trying to show? - use equation to decide what to show or how large to make things - distortion, non-distortion (e.g. map insert); differential resolution One outcome of this analysis: Distortion (e.g. magnification) makes the assumption that size corresponds to importance, which may not always be true (e.g. the paragraph breaks in a miniature document are highly visible, the content is not). * how is stuff shown? distortion shows everything; others (e.g. zooming) spread info over time; multiple views at diff. scales; * beyond visualization * - need static structure; differing levels of detail/importance; interaction focused on a subset of data * why? (does it work) * - spheres of influence hypothesis * - Nearly decomposable systems * - meaning from context * - navigational support * - human physiological characteristics (memory, vision) Matt: is DOI a way of representing issues in ubicomp (such as when things should be "invisible")}, doi = {10.1145/1124772.1124921}, isbn = {1-59593-372-7}, keywords = {context, cs-mini, distance, distortion, fisheye, focus, hcii-minis, importance, infovis, periphery, selection}, location = {Montr\'{e}al, Qu\'{e}bec, Canada}, pages = {999--1008}, posted-at = {2007-01-15 19:31:12}, priority = {0}, publisher = {ACM}, title = {A fisheye follow-up: further reflections on focus + context}, url = {http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124921}, year = {2006} }

TY - CONF ID - citeulike:828279 L3 - citeulike-article-id:828279 N2 - Information worlds continue to grow, posing daunting challenges for interfaces. This paper tries to increase our understanding of approaches to the problem, building on the Generalized Fisheye View framework. Three issues are discussed. First a number of existing techniques are unified by the commonality of what they show, certain fisheye-related subsets, with the techniques differing only in how they show those subsets. Then the elevated importance of these subsets, and their generality, is used to discuss the possibility of non-visual fisheye-views, to attack problems not so amenable to visualization. Finally, several models are given for why these subsets might be important in user interactions, with the goal of better informing design rationales. CY - Montr\'{e}al, Qu\'{e}bec, Canada SN - 1-59593-372-7 AD - New York, NY, USA EP - 1008 TI - A fisheye follow-up: further reflections on focus + context PB - ACM T2 - CHI '06: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing systems SP - 999 KW - context KW - cs-mini KW - distance KW - distortion KW - fisheye KW - focus KW - hcii-minis KW - importance KW - infovis KW - periphery KW - selection N1 - retrospective 20 yrs later by author who originated idea... DOI<fe>(x|.) = F (API(x), D(., x)) * what are fc techniques trying to show? - use equation to decide what to show or how large to make things - distortion, non-distortion (e.g. map insert); differential resolution One outcome of this analysis: Distortion (e.g. magnification) makes the assumption that size corresponds to importance, which may not always be true (e.g. the paragraph breaks in a miniature document are highly visible, the content is not). * how is stuff shown? distortion shows everything; others (e.g. zooming) spread info over time; multiple views at diff. scales; * beyond visualization * - need static structure; differing levels of detail/importance; interaction focused on a subset of data * why? (does it work) * - spheres of influence hypothesis * - Nearly decomposable systems * - meaning from context * - navigational support * - human physiological characteristics (memory, vision) Matt: is DOI a way of representing issues in ubicomp (such as when things should be "invisible") AU - Furnas, George PY - 2006/// UR - http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/1124772.1124921 ER -