Cambridge, Massachusetts

Effects of Display Position and Control Space Orientation on User Preference and Performance

Presented at CHI2006, April, 2006

Daniel WigdorChia Shen

Clifton ForlinesRavin Balakrishnan

2

Problem

3

Motivation

4

Issues

Display Position

Control Space Orientation

5

Related Work

HCI:• Nacenta et al. (2005)

Psychology:• Hemholtz (1866), Stratton (1897): prism glasses• Cunningham (1989)• Cunningham & Welch (1994)

6

Our Goals

Find:• Preferred:

– Display position(s)– Control orientation(s) for each position

• Optimal:– Display position(s)– Control orientation for each position

• Performance penalties

Recommend:– Ideal display position(s)– Ideal control orientation(s)

7

Two Experiments: Preference, Performance

8

Two Experiments: Preference, Performance

9

Task

• Docking task:

10

Study 1: All About Preference

• Setup:– Perform task at all 8 display positions– Participant sets control orientation

• Measure:– Task time & error rate– Control orientation chosen by the participant– Participants’ preferred display position

• Tells us:– Optimal display position– Preferred control orientation for each position– Performance at preferred control orientation

11

Design

• 8 participants (all right handed)• 8 display positions• 40 trials per position• Participant-set control orientation

+

12

Results: Display Position Preference

Participant Most Preferred Least Preferred

1 N S

2 NE S

3 NE & NW S

4 NW S

5 NE S

6 NE SW

7 NE & NW SE & S

8 N SW

• 6 of 8 participants prefer NE or NW position

13

Results: Control Orientation Preference

14

Results: Control Orientation Preference

15

Results: Control Orientation Preference

16

Study 2: All About Performance

• Setup:– Perform task at all 8 display positions– For each position, perform task at 8 control orientations

• Measure:– Task time & error rate– Drag paths

• Tells us:– Optimal control orientation for each position– Penalty for not meeting optimal– Display position and control orientation for shared displays

17

Design

• 8 participants (all right handed)• 4 display positions each (8 total)• 4 fixed control orientations each (8 total)• 80 trials per position

+

18

Results: Performance

19

Results: Performance

20

Screen North

21

Screen North

22

Screen North

23

Screen North

24

Results: Performance

25

Results: Performance

26

Design Recommendations

1 & 2

S

SE

E

NE

N

NW

W

SW

27

Design Recommendations

1 & 2

S 53%

SE 32%

E 62%

NE 46%

N 62%

NW 36%

W 41%

SW 38%

28

Design Recommendations

1 & 2 1 & 3

S 53%

SE 32%

E 62%

NE 46%

N 62%

NW 36%

W 41%

SW 38%

29

Design Recommendations

1 & 2 1 & 3

S 53% 32%

SE 32% 38%

E 62% 18%

NE 46% 75%

N 62% 32%

NW 36% 38%

W 41% 18%

SW 38% 75%

30

Design Recommendations

1 & 2 1 & 3 1,2,3

S 53% 32%

SE 32% 38%

E 62% 18%

NE 46% 75%

N 62% 32%

NW 36% 38%

W 41% 18%

SW 38% 75%

31

Design Recommendations

1 & 2 1 & 3 1,2,3

S 53% 32% 53%

SE 32% 38% 38%

E 62% 18% 62%

NE 46% 75% 75%

N 62% 32% 62%

NW 36% 38% 46%

W 41% 18% 62%

SW 38% 75% 75%

32

Design Recommendations

1 & 2 1 & 3 1,2,3 1,2,3,4

S 53% 32% 53%

SE 32% 38% 38%

E 62% 18% 62%

NE 46% 75% 75%

N 62% 32% 62%

NW 36% 38% 46%

W 41% 18% 62%

SW 38% 75% 75%

33

Design Recommendations

1 & 2 1 & 3 1,2,3 1,2,3,4

S 53% 32% 53% 183%

SE 32% 38% 38% 273%

E 62% 18% 62% 183%

NE 46% 75% 75% 273%

N 62% 32% 62% 183%

NW 36% 38% 46% 273%

W 41% 18% 62% 183%

SW 38% 75% 75% 273%

34

Acknowledgements

• Dr. Helen Cunningham• Experimental participants• John Barnwell • Edward Tse• CHI meta-reviewer• ARDA

35

Questions?