Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Cursor caging: enhancing focus targeting in interactive fisheye views

  • Research Paper
  • Special Focus
  • Published:
Science China Information Sciences Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Fisheye view is an effective approach to visualizing and navigating large data sets by offering both local details and global context in the same view. However, by using different magnification factors for detail and context information, fisheye view also leads to new usability issues, one of which is the focus targeting difficulty. This challenge happens when a user tries to select a target to either shift the focus to a new place or chooses the target. Because of the magnification factors applied to the fisheye view, the target moves when the cursor moves, and consequently, the moving distance the cursor actually needs to travel to reach the target does not match the distance between the cursor and target shown on the screen. Task accuracy and efficiency can be affected. This paper analyzes the mechanism of this difficulty and proposes a new technique, cursor caging, as a method to alleviate the focus targeting difficulty in interactive fisheye views. This technique extends the fisheye magnification approach from one element to a focal region, which can contain several elements, and allows the mouse cursor to move freely inside this region without affecting the magnification of objects inside the focal region. In addition to the mathematical representation of this technique, we also develop two designs that incorporate the cursor caging concept in fisheye views, and describe a usability study on the technique. Our results showed that cursor caging can significantly improve the task completion time and reduce the error rate in focusing targeting tasks.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Furnas G W. The fisheye view: a new look at structured files. Technical Report, Bell Laboratories Technical Memorandum #81-11221-9, 1982

    Google Scholar 

  2. Furnas G W. Generalized fisheye views. SIGCHI Bull, 1986, 17: 16–23

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Sarkar M, Brown M H. Graphical fisheye views of graphs. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM, 1992. 83–91

    Google Scholar 

  4. Rao R, Card S K. The table lens: merging graphical and symbolic representations in an interactive focus + context visualization for tabular information. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM, 1994. 318–322

    Google Scholar 

  5. Bederson B B. Fisheye menus. In: Proceedings of the 13th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. New York: ACM, 2000. 217–225

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  6. Pirolli P, Card S K, van der Wege M M. The effects of information scent on visual search in the hyperbolic tree browser. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact, 2003, 10: 20–53

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Bederson B B, Clamage A, Czerwinski M P, et al. Datelens: A fisheye calendar interface for pdas. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact, 2004, 11: 90–119

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Carpendale S, Ligh J, Pattison E. Achieving higher magnification in context. In: Proceedings of the 17th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. New York: ACM, 2004. 71–80

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  9. Gutwin C. Improving focus targeting in interactive fisheye views. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM, 2002. 267–274

    Google Scholar 

  10. Hornbaek K, Hertzum M. Untangling the usability of fisheye menus. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact, 2007, 14: 6–32

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Spence R, Apperley M. Data base navigation: an office environment for the professional. Behav Inf Technol, 1982, 1: 43–54

    Article  Google Scholar 

  12. Kadmon N, Shlomi E. A polyfocal projection for statistical surfaces. Cartogra J, 1978, 15: 36–41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Lamping J, Rao R. Laying out and visualizing large trees using a hyperbolic space. In: Proceedings of the 7th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. New York: ACM, 1994. 13–14

    Google Scholar 

  14. Mackinlay J D, Robertson G G, Card S K. The perspective wall: detail and context smoothly integrated. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Reaching through Technology. New York: ACM, 1991. 173–176

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  15. Robertson G G, Mackinlay J D. The document lens. In: Proceedings of the 6th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. New York: ACM, 1993. 101–108

    Google Scholar 

  16. Sarkar M, Snibbe S S, Tversky O J, et al. Stretching the rubber sheet: a metaphor for viewing large layouts on small screens. In: Proceedings of the 6th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. New York: ACM, 1993. 81–91

    Google Scholar 

  17. Song H, Cai X, Fu Y. Rectangular tree browser: A navigation and visualization tool for large hierarchies. J Inf Comput Sci, 2011, 8: 354–361

    Google Scholar 

  18. Carpendale M S T, Cowperthwaite D J, Fracchia F D. 3-dimensional pliable surfaces: for the effective presentation of visual information. In: Proceedings of the 8th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface and Software Technology. New York: ACM, 1995. 217–226

    Google Scholar 

  19. Carpendale M S T, Tigges M, Cowperthwaite D J, et al. Bringing the advantages of 3D distortion viewing into focus. In: Proceedings of the 4th Information Visualization Symposium, Research Triangle Park, NC, 1998. 17–20

  20. Carpendale M S T, Montagnese C. A framework for unifying presentation space. In: Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. New York: ACM, 2001. 61–70

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  21. Pietriga E, Appert C. Sigma lenses: focus-context transitions combining space, time and translucence. In: Proceedings of the 26th Annual SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM, 2008. 1343–1352

    Google Scholar 

  22. Card S K, English W K, Burr B J. Evaluation of mouse, rate-controlled isometric joystick, step keys, and text keys for text selection on a CRT. Ergonomics, 1978, 21: 601–613

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. MacKenzie I S. Fitts’ law as a research and design tool in human-computer interaction. Hum-Comput Interact, 1992, 7: 91–139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. MacKenzie I S, Sellen A, Buxton W A S. A comparison of input devices in element pointing and dragging tasks. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM, 1991. 161–166

    Google Scholar 

  25. McGuffin M J, Balakrishnan R. Acquisition of expanding targets. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM, 2002. 57–64

    Google Scholar 

  26. McGuffin M J, Balakrishnan R. Fitts’ law and expanding targets: Experimental studies and designs for user interfaces. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact, 2005, 12: 388–422

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Zhai S, Conversy S, Lafon M B, et al. Human on-line response to target expansion. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM, 2003. 177–184

    Google Scholar 

  28. Cockburn A, Firth A. Improving the acquisition of small targets. In: Proceedings of the British Computer Society Conference on Human Computer Interaction. Bath, UK: University of Canterbury, 2003. 181–196

    Google Scholar 

  29. Appert C, Chapuis O, Pietriga E. High-precision magnification lenses. In: Proceedings of the 28th International Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM, 2010. 273–282

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  30. Mandryk R L, Gutwin C. Perceptibility and utility of sticky targets. In: Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2008. Toronto: Canadian Information Processing Society, 2008. 65–72

    Google Scholar 

  31. Grossman T, Balakrishnan R. The bubble cursor: enhancing target acquisition by dynamic resizing of the cursor’s activation area. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM, 2005. 281–290

    Google Scholar 

  32. Song H, Fu Y, Qi Y, et al. A length compensation method to eliminate the varying length defect in one dimensional fisheye views. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Information and Automation, Harbin, 2010. 811–816

  33. Worden A, Walker N, Bharat K, et al. Making computers easier for older adults to use: area cursors and sticky icons. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM, 1997. 266–271

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Informatics, South China Agricultural University, Guangzhou, 510642, China

    HongZhi Song, Yi Fu & Liang Zhang

  2. College of Information Sciences and Technology, Pennsylvania State University, 307D IST Building, University Park, PA, 16802, USA

    XiaoLong Zhang

Authors
  1. HongZhi Song
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Yi Fu
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Liang Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. XiaoLong Zhang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to HongZhi Song.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Song, H., Fu, Y., Zhang, L. et al. Cursor caging: enhancing focus targeting in interactive fisheye views. Sci. China Inf. Sci. 56, 1–16 (2013). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-013-4868-8

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11432-013-4868-8

Keywords

Search

Navigation