A comparison of selection time from walking and pull-down menus
CHI '90 Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
A method for evaluating head-controlled computer input devices using Fitts law
Human Factors - Assisting people with functional impairments
Optimizing speed and accuracy of menu selection: a comparison of walking and pull-down menus
International Journal of Man-Machine Studies
Movement time prediction in human-computer interfaces
Proceedings of the conference on Graphics interface '92
An evaluation of an eye tracker as a device for computer input2
CHI '87 Proceedings of the SIGCHI/GI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems and Graphics Interface
Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction
Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction
User perceptual mechanisms in the search of computer command menus
CHI '82 Proceedings of the 1982 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Examining users' preferences towards vertical graphical toolbars in simple search and point tasks
Computers in Human Behavior
| Hi-index | 0.00 |
Walker and Smelcer (Proceedings of the CHI 90, ACM, New York, 1990, pp. 221-225) found that menus could be selected faster if they were placed against the edge of the screen. Doing so creates an impenetrable border between the menu and the edge of the screen that the mouse cursor cannot penetrate. This changes how users move the mouse, so that selection times quicken compared to menus with a penetrable border. Experiment 1 investigated the effect that practice has on the acquisition of objects with and without impenetrable borders. The findings suggest that excessive practice was not necessary to demonstrate border type differences; thus, the advantage of having impenetrable borders seems to be relatively instantaneous. However, it was not readily apparent whether or not participants would realize the advantages of impenetrable borders without instruction. Thus, the primary purpose of Experiment 2 was to assess whether or not users would discover the benefits of impenetrable borders spontaneously. Participants were assigned to either the penetrable or impenetrable border condition. Additionally, participants received either full instruction concerning the benefits of the target placement, or limited instruction that simply informed the participant about the nature of the task. The results demonstrated that participants receiving limited instruction selected targets with impenetrable borders faster than participants who selected objects with a penetrable border. However, an exploratory comparison suggests that only 50% of participants who received limited instruction actually detected the impenetrable border. An additional comparison suggests that with practice the participants who were successful at detecting the impenetrable border selected the targets as quickly as participants who received full instruction concerning the benefits of impenetrable borders. The findings suggest that with full instruction, all users will perform reduced selection times. Given that not all participants discovered the impenetrable border it suggests that, whenever possible, users should receive instruction pertaining to the benefits of the impenetrable borders.