Andrew: a distributed personal computing environment
Communications of the ACM - The MIT Press scientific computation series
A comparison of tiled and overlapping windows
CHI '86 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Calculator functions on bitmapped computers
ACM SIGCHI Bulletin
CHI '82 Proceedings of the 1982 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
The Xerox Star: A Retrospective
Computer
Spatial metaphors for a speech-based mobile city guide service
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing
Supporting a user facing a novel application: learnability in OOBE
Personal and Ubiquitous Computing
The distributed studio: towards a theory of virtual place for creative collaboration
Proceedings of the 20th Australasian Conference on Computer-Human Interaction: Designing for Habitus and Habitat
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
The naïve answer to this question --- "as closely as possible" --- is wrong for several reasons. First, it fails to recognize that user dexterity in manipulating simulated objects on a computer screen is not as high as it is in the physical world. Second, it wrongly subordinates users' goals to the actions that they perform in the physical office to achieve those goals. Third, it often results in unnecessary development effort and poor system performance. Fourth, it limits the functionality of the system to that provided by its physical counterpart. Finally, it presents a user interface that, though familiar, may not be optimal. There is no simple rule for determining the correct level of detail that a Desktop Metaphor system should have. Such a determination requires either a careful analysis of the desired functionality (taking into account pragmatic considerations such as the difficulty of implementation) or considerable experience in designing such systems. Many developers lack such experience and are unwilling to do the necessary analysis, and thus wind up applying the naïve approach. Some heuristics are presented to help guide designers away from the naïve approach.