DOCSLIB.ORG

Interface Metaphors Foundations of HCI Usability

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Interface Metaphors Foundations of HCI Usability Assignment 2 Interface Metaphors prepared by Gerwin Schalk, MS [email protected] http://www.gerv.org Foundations of HCI Usability Dr. Roger Grice Rensselaer Polytechnic Institute Albany, NY October 2000 Contents 1 Introduction 1 2 The Metaphor 2 2.1Description................................ 2 2.2Users.................................... 3 3 Metaphor Assessment 5 4 Metaphor - Properly Implemented 6 4.1TheTrashcan............................... 6 4.2Folders................................... 6 4.3MovingFiles/Folders........................... 7 5 Metaphor Violations 8 5.1DataTypes................................ 8 5.2Shortcuts................................. 9 5.3DriveLetters............................... 9 5.4InappropriateUseofVisualEffects................... 10 5.5WebPageasDesktop?.......................... 11 6 Suggestions 12 6.1DataTypes................................ 12 6.2Shortcuts................................. 12 6.3DriveLetters............................... 12 6.4InappropriateUseofVisualEffects................... 13 6.5WebPageasDesktop?.......................... 13 i Chapter 1 Introduction This paper describes the desktop metaphor that was used to guide the implementa- tion of the user interface of the MS-Windows operating systems (in particular, the metaphor used starting with Windows 95 ). Windows 95 has been introduced in 1995 and it or its successors (which all sport the same interface) has/have a domi- nant market share. While commercially successful, the interface has been target of constant criticism from technology professionals, who claim that it is a bad copy of the Macintosh interface rather than new innovation (interestingly, Apple has filed a lawsuit against Microsoft in that regard that they ultimately lost1). We will describe the exact nature of the used metaphor and the users who will use the interface. We will discuss how appropriate the choice of the metaphor was for the interface and discuss suitable and inappropriate implementations of the metaphor. We will conclude with some concrete suggestions for improving the interface. 1Every, D.K. Microsoft, Apple and Xerox. The History of the Graphical User Interface. http://www.mackido.com/Interface/ui history.html 1 Chapter 2 The Metaphor 2.1 Description The metaphor underlying Windows’ interface is the ”desktop metaphor.” As the desktop is a real-world and well conceptualized object, so should the virtual desktop. The desktop metaphor contains a lot of structure, that is, a lot of implications, items andactionsrelatedtoanactualdesktop: It contains a large working space It contains drawers Drawers can be opened, closed, and can contain documents or subcompart- ments The look-a-like of a document implies its use Documents can be moved into other drawers One can place documents, folders, or items anywhere on the desktop A desktop can have a certain style or ”theme” Actions are executed by specifying the document, and then, subsequently, the action As noted in1, a metaphor is useful to conceptualize the model behind the inter- face, given that its structure is appropriate. Although the global applicability of this idea is somewhat under debate, it seems that it certainly holds true for novice users. On the other hand, a metaphor can be dangerous by providing false or inapplicable 1Laurel, B. The Art of Human-Computer Interface Design, p. 70-71. Addison Wesley, 1990. ISBN 0-201-51797-3 2 CHAPTER 2. THE METAPHOR 3 Figure 2.1: The ’desktop’ of any MS-Windows operating system implications, or if the structure of the interface is not compatible with the structure of the metaphor. In any case, the MS-Windows interface tries to implement this metaphor, some- times successfully, but it also sometimes fails. It might fail, because not enough resources have been spent for designing the interface, because of backwards compat- ibility issues, or because the desktop metaphor does not, or inappropriately, cover a specific wanted feature. 2.2 Users The targeted average user for the interface of MS-Windows is certainly the non-tech savvy user. First of all (and maybe most importantly), this might be because they represent the majority of all users. As an interface can never cover the needs of all users, why not optimize it for the majority ? Certainly, this explains some of CHAPTER 2. THE METAPHOR 4 the inappropriate implementations discussed in chapter 5. Power users will not be satisfied by the limited power of the ”select-and-define action” execution scheme, and might therefore have to use more sophisticated interfaces, e.g., programming languages, other operating systems (e.g., Unix). We listed some of the implied characteristics of the typical user: Feature Description Age Group above reading age Race not implied Gender not implied Education not implied Occupation not implied Culture Western Reason for using a computer mostly business Technical experience low to moderate Task profile maybe repetitive, but simple Derives satisfaction from understanding the interface Table 2.1: User Profile Chapter 3 Metaphor Assessment First of all, it is likely that it is not possible to create an easy-to-use or conceptu- alizable interface that can account for all degrees of freedom of a modern personal computer. However, one of the goals for the implementation of Windows’ user in- terface was that it should appeal to the majority of the users. In addition, it should be as easy as possible to use, hide unnecessary technical details from the user, and provide a conceptual model that, even though it might not reflect the system model of a computer, allows for inferences made from real-world experiences. In this sense, and at least for the current generation of available input devices, choosing a desktop as the interface metaphor certainly serves the intended purpose. 5 Chapter 4 Metaphor - Properly Implemented Of all the various structural implications of the metaphor described in chapter 2, MS-Windows implements many: the desktop encompasses a large working space, drawers, documents, and it can have a certain style. In addition, documents can be moved, executed, or stored in the trashcan. The following examples represent good implementations of the desktop metaphor: 4.1 The Trashcan The trashcan is actually an extension of the desktop metaphor – who (except Prof. Grice ;-)) has a trashcan on his/her desk ? Still, the trashcan correctly implies its functionality. Documents can be thrown away, or trashed, and they can also be restored, if the trashcan has not been emptied. Also, the trashcan can be full. Figure 4.1: One possible icon for the MS-Windows trashcan, or ”Recycle Bin,” if empty,orfull 4.2 Folders Folders in MS-Windows are another example of a good implementation of the desk- top metaphor. Folders can contain documents, and even share the look-a-like with their real-world counterparts: 6 CHAPTER 4. METAPHOR - PROPERLY IMPLEMENTED 7 Figure 4.2: One possible icon for a folder in MS-Windows 4.3 Moving Files/Folders As in the real world, files or folders can be moved to another location. The im- plementation provides feedback that is oriented towards the desktop metaphor, by showing documents flying from one folder into another. Figure 4.3: Graphical feedback while files/folders are moved in MS-Windows Chapter 5 Metaphor Violations In this chapter, we discuss specific examples of instances, in which the desktop metaphor is particularly inappropriate, or where it was implemented especially poorly. 5.1 Data Types In any MS-Windows operating system, the type of a file is solely determined by the file’s extension. A user, on the other hand, is likely to link a file to its semantical context, e.g., he or she will expect a text document to look (its icon) and behave (double-clicking invokes text editor or word processor) like a text document, regard- less of its name or extension (especially, since the definition of the extension as ”the dot and the three characters after it,” itself is arbitrary). Now, let’s see how this poor implementation can result in major problems: in figure 5.1, there is a file (”GRAZ BCI.JPG”), which contains an image. Its icon correctly symbolizes a picture (although the icon itself is generic and the same for any picture). After renaming the file to ”GRAZ BCI.TXT,” the file’s icon changes to a generic text document icon. Clicking on it incorrectly starts a text editor that brings up a window containing only trash. On the Macintosh, however, data and context are seperated into a ”data fork,” containing the actual data, and a ”resource fork” that contains the actual icon, the type of the data file (e.g., image, sound, text) and the creating application of this file. These two seperate parts are transparent to the user and the operating system will always launch the correct application, even if the file is transferred to a different computer containing a different set of applications. 8 CHAPTER 5. METAPHOR VIOLATIONS 9 double click rename Figure 5.1: Windows’ improper data type handling Figure 5.2: Windows’ attempt to locate the file the shortcut is pointing to 5.2 Shortcuts Another example of poor implementation is Windows’ shortcut system: creating a shortcut to a file in a computer is similar to, for example, labeling a divider in a folder. In both cases, activation of the reference pulls out the actual file. In the real-world, the reference would always point to the actual file, i.e., in abovementioned example, it would not matter, if the whole folder would be moved to a different place. Accessing the same divider would still reveal the same document. On the MS-Windows platform, however, a shortcut contains a ”hard-coded” link to the actual file. If this file would subsequently be moved, the link will not be updated, and accessing it will prompt Windows’ pathetic attempt to locate the original file (see figure 5.2). 5.3 Drive Letters For backward compatibility reasons, even current versions of the MS-Windows oper- ating system contain the notion of a ”drive letter.” Clicking on the ”My Computer” dialog box reveals several (nicely looking) icons (see figure 5.3), most of them cap- tioned by a letter.
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Metaphor and Metonymy
    A SEMIOTIC APPROACH TO THE USE OF METAPHOR IN HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERFACES A thesis submitted for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy by C.Condon IRpartrrent of Information System; and Computing, BruneI University October 1999 Abstract Although metaphors are common in computing, particularly in human-computer interfaces, opinion is divided on their usefulness to users and little evidence is available to help the designer in choosing or implementing them. Effective use of metaphors depends on understanding their role in the computer interface, which in tum means building a model of the metaphor process. This thesis examines some of the approaches which might be taken in constructing such a model before choosing one and testing its applicability to interface design. Earlier research into interface metaphors used experimental psychology techniques. which proved useful in showing the benefits or drawbacks of specific metaphors, but did not give a general model of the metaphor process. A cognitive approach based on mental models has proved more successful in offering an overall model of the process, although this thesis questions whether the researchers tested it adequately. Other approaches which have examined the metaphor process (though not in the context of human-computer interaction) have come from linguistic fields, most notably semiotics, which extends linguistics to non-verbal communication and thus could cover graphical user interfaces (GUls). The main work described in this thesis was the construction of a semiotic model of human-computer interaction. The basic principle of this is that even the simplest element of the user interface will signify many simultaneous meanings to the user.
    [Show full text]
  • Conceptual Models & Interface Metaphors
    CSE440 – User Interface Design, Prototyping, & Evaluation Autumn 2008 Prof. James A. Landay, University of Washington, CSE Interface Hall of Fame or Shame? Conceptual Models & Interface Metaphors • Tabbed dialog for setting options in MS Web Studio – more tabs than space to display them • Clicking on the right arrow once gives Prof. James A. Landay University of Washington Autumn 2008 October 23, 2008 CSE 440 User Interface Design, Prototyping, and Evaluation 2 Interface Hall of Shame! Conceptual Models & Interface Metaphors • Tabbed dialog for setting options in MS Web Studio – more tabs than space to display them • Clicking on the right arrow once gives: Prof. James A. Landay University of Washington Autumn 2008 • Inconsistent display of possible tabs – Where did the “Editor” tab go? • Position of arrows awkward (split to each side?) October 23, 2008 – also, small targets near each other (Fitts’ Law) CSE 440 User Interface Design, Prototyping, and Evaluation 3 Outline Human Abilities Review • Color can be helpful, but pay attention to ? – how colors combine • Review – limitations of human perception – people with color deficiency • Meetings • Model Human Processor ? – perceptual, motor, cognitive processors + memory • Design of Everyday Things – model allows us to make predictions • e.g., perceive distinct events in same cycle as one • Conceptual models • Memory ? – three types: sensor, WM, & LTM – interference can make hard to access LTM • Interface metaphors – cues in WM can make it easier to access LTM • Key time to remember? • Ubiquitous computing – 100 ms (~processor cycle time & memory access) • Fitts’ Law ? – moving hand is a series of microcorrections predicted by D & S • Tpos = a + b log2 (D/S + 1) – time to move hand depends only on relative precision required CSE 440 User Interface Design, Prototyping, and Evaluation 5 CSE 440 User Interface Design, Prototyping, and Evaluation 6 James Landay CSE440 – User Interface Design, Prototyping, & Evaluation Autumn 2008 Prof.
    [Show full text]
  • Beyond the Desktop: a New Look at the Pad Metaphor for Information Organization
    Beyond the Desktop: A new look at the Pad metaphor for Information Organization By Isaac Fehr Abstract Digital User interface design is currently dominated by the windows metaphor. However, alternatives for this metaphor, as the core of large user interfaces have been proposed in the history of Human-computer interaction and thoroughly explored. One of these is the Pad metaphor, which has spawned many examples such as Pad++. While the the Pad metaphor, implemented as zoomable user interfaces, has shown some serious drawbacks as the basis for an operating system, and limited success outside of image-based environments, literature has pointed to an opportunity for innovation in other domains. In this study, we apply the the design and interactions of a ZUI to Wikipedia, a platform consisting mostly of lengthy, linear, hypertext-based documents. We utilize a human centered design approach, and create an alternative, ZUI-based interface for Wikipedia, and observe the use by real users using mixed methods. These methods include qualitative user research, as well as a novel paradigm used to measure a user’s comprehension of the structure of a document. We validate some assumptions about the strengths of ZUIs in a new domain, and look forward to future research questions and methods. Introduction and Background Windows-based user interfaces have dominated the market of multipurpose, screen-based computers since the introduction of the first windowed system in the Stanford oN-Line System (NLS)[3]. From Desktop computers to smartphones, most popular operating systems are based upon at least the window and icon aspects of the WIMP (Window, Icon, Menu, Pointer) paradigm.
    [Show full text]
  • Interacting with Signifier-Less Designs - the Case of Swhidgets Nicole Ke Cheng Pong
    Interacting with signifier-less designs - the case of swhidgets Nicole Ke Cheng Pong To cite this version: Nicole Ke Cheng Pong. Interacting with signifier-less designs - the case of swhidgets. Human- Computer Interaction [cs.HC]. Université de Lille (2018-..), 2020. English. tel-03133122 HAL Id: tel-03133122 https://hal.inria.fr/tel-03133122 Submitted on 10 Feb 2021 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. École Doctorale Sciences Pour l’Ingénieur Laboratoire CRIStAL UMR 9189 INTERACTINGWITH SIGNIFIER-LESSDESIGNS – the case of swhidgets – Thèse présentée par nicole ke chen pong en vue de l’obtention du grade de docteur en informatique de l’Université de Lille Sous la direction de : Stéphane Huot directeur Nicolas Roussel co-directeur Sylvain Malacria encadrant Thèse soutenue le 21 octobre 2020 devant un jury composé de : Rapporteurs Nadine Couture Professeure des universités, École Supérieure des Technologies Industrielles Avancées (ESTIA) Kris Luyten Full Professor, Hasselt University Examinateurs Caroline Appert Directrice de recherche, CNRS Laurent Grisoni Professeur des universités, Université de Lille, président du jury Sylvain Malacria Chargé de recherche, Inria, encadrant de thèse Directeur de thèse Stéphane Huot Directeur de recherche, Inria Invité Nicolas Roussel Directeur de recherche, Inria RÉSUMÉ Le cas d’un utilisateur confronté à une interface qui ne l’informe pas d’une possibilité d’interaction au moment où il en a besoin est un problème fondamental d’IHM.
    [Show full text]
  • A Classification of User Interface Metaphors in B2C Ecommerce Website Design
    Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Retrospective Theses and Dissertations Dissertations 1-1-2003 A classification of user interface metaphors in B2C ecommerce website design Vanitha Alagirisamy Iowa State University Follow this and additional works at: https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd Recommended Citation Alagirisamy, Vanitha, "A classification of user interface metaphors in B2C ecommerce website design" (2003). Retrospective Theses and Dissertations. 19889. https://lib.dr.iastate.edu/rtd/19889 This Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the Iowa State University Capstones, Theses and Dissertations at Iowa State University Digital Repository. It has been accepted for inclusion in Retrospective Theses and Dissertations by an authorized administrator of Iowa State University Digital Repository. For more information, please contact [email protected]. A classification of user interface metaphors in B2C ecommerce website design by Vanitha Alagirisamy A thesis submitted to the graduate faculty in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of MASTER OF FINE ARTS Major: Graphic Design Program of Study Committee: Sungyun Ryoo Kang Roger Baer Scott Chadwick Iowa State University Ames, Iowa 2003 Copyright D Vanitha Alagirisamy, 2003. All rights reserved. 11 Graduate College Iowa State University This is to certify that the master's thesis of Vanitha Alagirisamy has met the thesis requirements of Iowa State University Signatures have been redacted for privacy TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES v LIST TABLES vii LIST OF V'i~EBSITES V111 ABSTRACT ix CHAPTER 1. INTRODUCTION 1 CHAPTER 2. METHODOLOGY 6 Process 6 Measuring The Reliability of the Research 8 Process of Reliability 8 Thesis Organization 10 CHAPTER 3.
    [Show full text]
  • As We May Communicate Carson Reynolds Department of Technical Communication University of Washington
    As We May Communicate Carson Reynolds Department of Technical Communication University of Washington Abstract The purpose of this article is to critique and reshape one of the fundamental paradigms of Human-Computer Interaction: the workspace. This treatise argues that the concept of a workspace—as an interaction metaphor—has certain intrinsic defects. As an alternative, a new interaction model, the communication space is offered in the hope that it will bring user interfaces closer to the ideal of human-computer symbiosis. Keywords: Workspace, Communication Space, Human-Computer Interaction Our computer systems and corresponding interfaces have come quite a long way in recent years. We no longer patiently punch cards or type obscure and unintelligible commands to interact with our computers. However, out current graphical user interfaces, for all of their advantages, still have shortcomings. It is the purpose of this paper to attempt to deduce these flaws by carefully examining our earliest and most basic formulation of what a computer should be: a workspace. The History of the Workspace The modern computerized workspace has its beginning in Vannevar Bush’s landmark article, “As We May Think.” Bush presented the MEMEX: his vision of an ideal workspace for researchers and scholars that was capable of retrieving and managing information. Bush thought that machines capable of manipulating information could transform the way that humans think. What did Bush’s idealized workspace involve? It consists of a desk, and while it can presumably be operated from a distance, it is primarily the piece of furniture at which he works. On top are slanting translucent screens, on which material can be projected for convenient reading.
    [Show full text]
  • Metaphor in User Interface Design: a View from the Trenches
    METAPHOR IN USER INTERFACE DESIGN: A VIEW FROM THE TRENCHES William Hudson Syntagm Ltd 10 Oxford Road Abingdon, UK, OX14 2DS [email protected] ABSTRACT mental models. While different theories of metaphor and The application of metaphor to user interface design is analogy abound, Dedre Gentner’s structure-mapping poorly understood and with only a few exceptions, badly theory is one of the most compelling for UI design executed. Yet metaphor has great potential to help users purposes [3]. In structure mapping, Gentner suggests it is acquire appropriate mental models of interactive systems. the relationship between entities that carries useful In this paper I examine some of the issues that plague information from the source domain to the target, not metaphoric user interfaces and suggest solutions that could similarities between the entities themselves. In her example lead to greater rates of success. of Rutherford’s analogy between the hydrogen atom and the solar system, it is the relationship between the planets Keywords and the sun that provides the mental model useful in the Metaphor; user-interface design; mental models; structure- target domain of the hydrogen atom. The physical mapping theory attributes of the entities are of no concern. Naturally, we are interested in the surface aspects of a 1. INTRODUCTION metaphor when it comes to designing a GUI, but this The popularity of metaphor in user interface design largely should always take a secondary role to that of structure. In coincided with the development of graphical user particular, metaphors that offer attractive graphics at the interfaces, most notably the desktop metaphor from Xerox expense of a useful structure or efficient interface are PARC [1].
    [Show full text]
  • Re-Framing the Desktop Interface Around the Activities of Knowledge Work
    Re-framing the Desktop Interface Around the Activities of Knowledge Work Stephen Voida Elizabeth D. Mynatt, W. Keith Edwards Department of Computer Science GVU Center, College of Computing University of Calgary Georgia Institute of Technology Calgary, AB, Canada T2N 1N4 Atlanta, GA, USA 33032-0760 [email protected] {mynatt, keith}@cc.gatech.edu ABSTRACT Our prototype system, Giornata, demonstrates how the The venerable desktop metaphor is beginning to show signs traditional desktop metaphor can be re-framed to retain the of strain in supporting modern knowledge work. In this spirit of simplified interaction with applications and files paper, we examine how the desktop metaphor can be re- and yet better support contemporary knowledge workers’ framed, shifting the focus away from a low-level (and practices by emphasizing activity as the primary organizing increasingly obsolete) focus on documents and applications principle in the interface. Giornata’s enhanced desktop to an interface based upon the creation of and interaction serves not only as a display space for application windows, with manually declared, semantically meaningful activities. but also serves as an active folder for documents and other We begin by unpacking some of the foundational information items associated with the current activity assumptions of desktop interface design, describe an (Figure 1). Giornata utilizes lightweight activity- and activity-based model for organizing the desktop interface document-tagging capabilities that enable informal and based on theories of cognition and observations of real- evolutionary resource organization. Finally, Giornata world practice, and identify a series of high-level system integrates collaboration tools directly into the desktop to requirements for interfaces that use activity as their primary support group information sharing and activity awareness.
    [Show full text]
  • Preparation of Papers in Two-Column Format for the Proceedings in A4
    PakPao 3D: The Design and Implementation of a Three-Dimensional User Interface for an Operating System Using a Game Engine Satidchoke Phosaard and Jessada Tanthanuch School of Information Technology, Institute of Social Technology School of Mathematics, Institute of Science Suranaree University of Technology 111 University Ave., Muang District, Nakhon Ratchasima 30000, THAILAND [email protected], [email protected] Abstract-PakPao 3D is a novel 3-dimensional user interface. We propose a complement of a 3D user interface desktop metaphor of the operating system. The augmented virtual reality replaces the 2-dimensional desktop user interface, while the launched applications are still in 2D windows. This allows the user to immerse oneself in the screen, viewing as the first person, and travel through the world instead of looking at the screen as from a bird’s-eye view over the desktop. To interact with the interface, basic input devices are used. Traveling in the virtual environment utilizes the keyboard, while selecting and manipulating objects employs a mouse. The distinction of this 3D interface is that the application and file icons are also true 3D objects which can be manipulated in addition to the animated and realistic environment elements added to the interface. General functionalities of the desktop can be performed including creating customized application shortcuts. To accomplish this, a state-of-the-art game engine is used to Figure 1. PakPao 3D: The beach virtual environment. implement the interface. While introduced as an augmented virtual reality environment desktop and maintaining full usage system in the world, Microsoft Windows. Windows Vista, of unaltered launched applications in 2D windows, the users the latest version of Microsoft Windows released in early found the interface attractive and demonstrated that using 2007, has a new eye-catching task switching utility using such an interface was enjoyable.
    [Show full text]
  • An Evaluation of Stacking and Tiling Features Within the Traditional Desktop Metaphor Clemens Zeidler, Christof Lutteroth, Gerald Weber
    An Evaluation of Stacking and Tiling Features within the Traditional Desktop Metaphor Clemens Zeidler, Christof Lutteroth, Gerald Weber To cite this version: Clemens Zeidler, Christof Lutteroth, Gerald Weber. An Evaluation of Stacking and Tiling Features within the Traditional Desktop Metaphor. 14th International Conference on Human-Computer In- teraction (INTERACT), Sep 2013, Cape Town, South Africa. pp.702-719, 10.1007/978-3-642-40483- 2_49. hal-01497472 HAL Id: hal-01497472 https://hal.inria.fr/hal-01497472 Submitted on 28 Mar 2017 HAL is a multi-disciplinary open access L’archive ouverte pluridisciplinaire HAL, est archive for the deposit and dissemination of sci- destinée au dépôt et à la diffusion de documents entific research documents, whether they are pub- scientifiques de niveau recherche, publiés ou non, lished or not. The documents may come from émanant des établissements d’enseignement et de teaching and research institutions in France or recherche français ou étrangers, des laboratoires abroad, or from public or private research centers. publics ou privés. Distributed under a Creative Commons Attribution| 4.0 International License An Evaluation of Stacking and Tiling Features within the Traditional Desktop Metaphor Clemens Zeidler1, Christof Lutteroth1 and Gerald Weber1 1 University of Auckland, 38 Princes Street, Auckland 1010, New Zealand [email protected], {lutteroth,g.weber}@cs.auckland.ac.nz Abstract. Having many open windows on the desktop can lead to various usa- bility problems. Window content may get occluded by other windows and working with multiple windows may get cumbersome. In this paper, we evalu- ate the idea to integrate stacking and tiling features into the traditional desktop metaphor.
    [Show full text]
  • User Interface Metaphors
    User Interface Metaphors Rainer Brockerhoff Abstract: Cognitive science is taking a revolutionary turn, away from abstract theories of the mind and towards a recognition of the essentially embodied nature of human thought, processing concepts in terms of conceptual metaphors. Computer user inter- faces, as complex metaphors in their own right, can now be discussed in terms of their relationship to our basic cognitive processes. As a rule, user interface metaphors that are solidly grounded in physical concepts and experiences may be considered more “intuitive”. A Brief Introduction, Inter- · We can know our own minds by in- spersed with Warnings, Dis- trospection, claimers, Apologies, and · Most of our thinking about the Miscellaneous Weaseling world is literal, and Up to a few decades ago, western phi- · Reason is disembodied and univer- losophers and scientists have been sal, working from a foundation which has usually been considered too obvious to However, PitF demonstrates empirically state explicitly; namely, that reason is an that: abstract, disembodied, universal and purely formal entity. This underlying · Most thought is unconscious. What assumption is so pervasive that I at first is available to introspection is a very wrote “philosophy and science” instead small portion of the mind’s proc- of “philosophers and scientists”! esses. A recent revolution in cognitive science · Abstract concepts are mostly meta- has pulled the carpet out from under phorical. Basic metaphors derived this assumption. I hasten to add that my from bodily conditions and experi- academic qualifications are insufficient ences are necessary to form even a to do more than give a brief summation simple thought.
    [Show full text]
  • Chapter 7 Overview Metaphor
    Chapter 7 Overview • Metaphors – verbal metaphors – interface metaphors • Ubiquitous computing • Conceptual models – user’s models, design models, system image Metaphor A figure of speech in which a term is transferred from the object it ordinarily designates to one it can designate only by implicit comparison or analogy, as in the phrase evening of life. conveys an abstract concept in a more familiar and accessible form Verbal Metaphors • Knowledge about a familiar domain in terms of elements and their relation to each other is mapped onto elements and relations in an unfamiliar domain • Example: typewriters and word processors – Elements: keyboard, spacebar, return key, ... – Relations: only one key at a time, hitting a key results in a character display, ... • Dissimilarities also are present – once users are aware of discrepancies and differences they can develop a new mental model Verbal Metaphors • Verbal metaphors can be useful tools to help new users understand a new system – explicitly providing a verbal metaphor in training – but also needs to describe aspects of the system as a computer system. Need to incorporate aspects of the system’s structure and function. Interface Metaphors • Combine a familiar domain with the system structure to make a concrete system image • Beyond use of verbal metaphor as training tool; creates electronic counterparts to physical objects • Interface metaphor is the model that is learned • Example: Xerox Star user interface and the desktop metaphor • Issue: incorporating functionality that is not
    [Show full text]