skip to main content
10.1145/2933242.2935874acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageseicsConference Proceedingsconference-collections
extended-abstract

A design space for engineering graphical adaptive menus

Published:21 June 2016Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper presents a design space for exploring design options of adaptive graphical menus based on Bertin's eight visual variables: position, size, shape, value, color, orientation, texture, and motion. In order to transform a traditional (static) menu into an adaptive one, at least one visual variable should be exploited to convey which menu items have been promoted or demoted depending on five characteristics: select, associative, quantitative, order, and length. The paper reviews selected adaptive menu interaction techniques belonging to each of these variables, classifies them according to the variables and characteristics and suggests not yet explored adaptive menu designs. It then defines four stability properties depending on which variables remain constant after adaptivity. A supporting software for prototyping the rendering of graphical adaptive menus is then introduced.

References

  1. D. Ahlström, A. Cockburn, C. Gutwin, P. Irani, Why it's quick to be square: modelling new and existing hierarchical menu designs. In Proc. of CHI'2010, 1371--1380. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. G. Bailly, E. Lecolinet, L. Nigay. 2009. MenUA: A Design Space of Menu Techniques. Retrieved April 2, 2016 from http://www.gillesbailly.fr/menua/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Bederson, B. B. 2000. Fisheye menus. In Proc. of 13th ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST'2000), 217--225. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. J. Bertin, Sémiologie graphique. Paris, Mouton/Gauthier-Villars, 1967.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. S. Bouzit, D. Chêne, G. Calvary. 2014. From Appearing to Disappearing Ephemeral Adaptation for Small Screens. In Proc. of the 26th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conf. (OzCHI'2014), 41--48. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. S. Bouzit, D. Chêne, G. Calvary. 2015. Evanescent Adaptation on Small Screens. In Proc. of the 27th Australian Computer-Human Int. Conf. (OzCHI'2015), 62--68. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. M. S. T. Carpendale. 2003. Considering Visual Variables as a Basis for Information Visualisation, Univ. of Calgary, Dept. of Computer Science, 2001-693-16.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. A. Cockburn, C. Gutwin, S. Greenberg. 2007. A predictive model of menu performance. In Proc. of ACM Conf. on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'2007), 627--636. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. C.-E. Dessart, V. Genaro Motti, J. Vanderdonckt. 2011. Showing user interface adaptivity by animated transitions. In Proc. of ACM Conf. on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems (EICS'2011), 95--104. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. L. Findlater, K. Moffatt, J. McGrenere, J. Dawson. 2009. Ephemeral Adaptation: The Use of Gradual Onset to Improve Menu Selection Performance. In Proc. of ACM Int. Conf. on Human Aspects in Computing Systems (CHI'2009), 1655--1664. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. J. Francone, G. Bailly, E. Lecolinet, N. Mandran, L. Nigay. 2010. Wavelet Menus on Handheld Devices: Stacking Metaphor for Novice Mode and Eyes-Free Selection for Expert Mode. In Proc. of Working Conf. on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI'2010), 173--180. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. S. Greenberg, I. Witten, I. 1985. Adaptive personalized interfaces-A question of viability. Behaviour and Information Technology 4, 1, 31--45Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. V. Kellen. 2003. Business Performance Measurement. At the Crossroads of Strategy, Decision-Making, Learning and Information Visualization. DePaul Univ., Chicago. Accessible at http://www.kellen.net/bpm.htm.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. K. Z. Gajos, M. Czerwinski, D. S. Tan, D. Weld. 2006. Exploring the Design Space for Adaptive Graphical User Interfaces. In Proc. of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI'2006), 201--208. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. D. S. Lee, W. C. Yoon. 2004. Quantitative results assessing design issues of selection-supportive menus. Int. J. of Industrial Ergonomics 33, 1, 2004, 41--52.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  16. J. Mackinlay. 1986. Automating the Design of Graphical Presentations of Relational Information. ACM Transactions on Graphics 5, 2, 110--141. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. J. Matejka, T. Grossman, G. Fitzmaurice. 2013. Patina: Dynamic Heatmaps for Visualizing Application Usage. In Proc. of ACM Conf. on Human Aspects in Computing Systems (CHI'2013), 3227--3236. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. J. Mitchell, B. Shneiderman. 1989. Dynamic versus static menus: An exploratory comparison. SIGCHI Bulletin 20, 4, 33--37. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. J. Park, S. H. Han, Y. S. Park, Y. Cho. 2007. Usability of Adaptable and Adaptive Menus. In Proc. of 2nd Int. Conf. on Usability and Internationalization (UI-HCII' 2007), LNCS 4559, 405--411. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. A. Ponsard, K. Ardekani, K. Zhang, F. Ren, M. Negulescu, J. McGrenere. 2015. Twist and Pulse: Ephemeral Adaptation to Improve Icon Selection on Smartphones. In Proc. of GI'2015, 219--222. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. A. Roudaut, G. Bailly, E. Lecolinet, L. Nigay. 2009. Leaf Menus: Linear Menus with Stroke Shortcuts for Small Handheld Devices. In Proc. of IFIP Int. Conf. on Human-Computer Int. (Interact'2009), 616--619. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. K. Samp, S. Decker, Supporting menu design with radial layouts. In Proc. of AVI'2010, 155--162. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. A. Sears, B. Shneiderman. 1994. Split menus: Effectively using selection frequency to organize menus. ACM Trans. on Comp.-Human Interaction 1, 1, 27--51. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. B. L. Somberg. 1987. A comparison of rule-based and positionally constant arrangements of computer menu items. In Proc. of CHI'87, 255--260. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. E. Tanvir, J. Cullen, P. Irani, A. Cockburn. 2008. AAMU: Adaptive Activation Area Menus for Improving Selection in Cascading Pull-Down Menus. In Proc. of CHI'2008. 1381--1384. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. T. Tsandilas, M. C. Schraefel. 2005. An empirical assessment of adaptation techniques. In Proc. of CHI'2005, Extended Abstracts, 2009--2012. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A design space for engineering graphical adaptive menus

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      EICS '16: Proceedings of the 8th ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems
      June 2016
      321 pages
      ISBN:9781450343220
      DOI:10.1145/2933242

      Copyright © 2016 Owner/Author

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all 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 third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 21 June 2016

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • extended-abstract

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate73of299submissions,24%

      Upcoming Conference

      EICS '24

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader