skip to main content
10.1145/1124772.1124965acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Keepin' it real: pushing the desktop metaphor with physics, piles and the pen

Published:22 April 2006Publication History

ABSTRACT

We explore making virtual desktops behave in a more physically realistic manner by adding physics simulation and using piling instead of filing as the fundamental organizational structure. Objects can be casually dragged and tossed around, influenced by physical characteristics such as friction and mass, much like we would manipulate lightweight objects in the real world. We present a prototype, called BumpTop, that coherently integrates a variety of interaction and visualization techniques optimized for pen input we have developed to support this new style of desktop organization.

References

  1. Accot, J. & Zhai, S. (2002). More than dotting the i's - foundations for crossing-based interfaces. CHI. p. 73--80. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Apitz, G. & Guimbretièère, F. (2004). CrossY: a crossing-based drawing application. UIST. p. 3--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Baraff, D., Witkin, A., & Kass, M. (1997). An introduction to physically based modeling: particle system dynamics. SIGGRAPH Course Notes.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Bartram, L. (1997). Can motion increase user interface bandwidth. IEEE Systems, Man and Cybernetics. p. 1686--1692.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Bauer, D., Fastrez, P., & Hollan, J. (2004). Computationally-enriched ""piles"" for managing digital photo collections. IEEE VLHCC. p. 193--195. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Beaudouin-Lafon, M. (2001). Novel interaction techniques for overlapping windows. UIST. p. 152--154. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Bederson, B. & Hollan, J. (1994). Pad++: a zooming graphical interface for exploring alternate interface physics. UIST. p. 17--26. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Bell, B., Feiner, S., & Hööllerer, T. (2001). View management for virtual and augmented reality. UIST. p. 101--110. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Carpendale, M.S.T. & Montagnese, C.A. (2001). A framework for unifying presentation space. UIST. p. 61--70. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Carpendale, S., Cowperthwaite, D., Tigges, M., Fall, A., & Fracchia, D. (1999). The Tardis: A visual exploration environment for landscape dynamics. SPIE Conf. on Visual Data Exploration & Analysis VI. p. 110--119.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Chang, B. & Ungar, D. (1993). Animation: From cartoons to the user interface. UIST. p. 45--55. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Czerwinski, M., van Dantzich, M., Robertson, G., & Hoffmann, H. (1999). The contribution of thumbnail image, mouse-over text, and spatial location memory to web page retrival in 3D. Interact. p. 163--170.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Denoue, L., Nelson, L., & Churchill, E. (2003). A fast, interactive 3D paper-flier metaphor for digital bulletin boards. UIST. p. 169--172. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. DiGioia, P. & Dourish, P. (2005). Social navigation as a model for usable security. ACM SOUPS. p. 101--108. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Dragicevic, P. (2004). Combining crossing-based and paper-based interaction paradigms for dragging and dropping between overlapping windows. UIST. p. 193--196. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Fitzmaurice, G., Khan, A., Pieke, R., Buxton, B., & Kurtenbach, G. (2003). Tracking menus. UIST. p. 71--79. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Forlines, C. & Shen, C. (2005). Glimpse: a novel input model for multi-level devices. CHI Ext. Abs. p. 1375--1378. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Gonzalez, C. (1996). Does animation in user interfaces improve decision making. CHI. p. 27--34. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Grossman, T., Balakrishnan, R., Kurtenbach, G., Fitzmaurice, G., Khan, A., & Buxton, B. (2001). Interaction techniques for 3D modeling on large displays. ACM Symp. on Int. 3D Graphics. p. 17--23. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Herndon, K., Zeleznik, R., Robbins, D., Conner, B., Snibbe, S., & van Dam, A. (1992). Interactive shadows. UIST. p. 1--6. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Hinckley, K., Baudisch, P., Ramos, G., & Guimbretiere, F. (2005). Design and analysis of delimiters for selection-action pen gesture phrases in Scriboli. CHI. p. 451--460. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Kurtenbach, G. & Buxton, W. (1991). Issues in combining marking and direct manipulation techniques. UIST. p. 137--144. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Kurtenbach, G. & Buxton, W. (1993). The limits of expert performance using hierarchical marking menus. CHI. p. 35--42.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  24. Malone, T. (1983). How do people organize their desks?: Implications for the design of office information systems. ACM Trans. on Info. Systems, 1(1). p. 99--112. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Mander, R., Salomon, G., & Wong, Y. (1992). A ""pile"" metaphor for supporting casual organization of information. CHI. p. 260--269. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. McGuffin, M., Burtnyk, N., & Kurtenbach, G. (2002). FaST Sliders: Integrating marking menus and the adjustment of continuous values. Graphics Interface. p. 35--42.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  27. McGuffin, M., Tancau, L., & Balakrishnan, R. (2003). Using deformations for browsing volumetric data. IEEE Visualization. p. 401--408.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Miller, L. (2005). Case study of customer input for a successful product. Agile2005. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Pook, S., Lecolinet, E., Vaysseix, G., & Barillot, E. (2000). Control menus: Execution and control in a single interactor. CHI Ext. Abs. p. 263--264. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  30. Ramos, G., Boulos, M., & Balakrishnan, R. (2004). Pressure widgets. CHI. p. 487--494. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  31. Robertson, G., Czerwinski, M., Larson, K., Robbins, D., Thiel, D., & van Dantzich, M. (1998). Data mountain: Using spatial memory for document management. UIST. p. 153--162. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Robertson, G., van Dantzich, M., Robbins, D., Czerwinski, M., Hinckley, K., Risden, K., Gorokhovsky, V., & Thiel, D. (2000). The Task Gallery: A 3D Window Manager. CHI. p. 494--501. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Robertson, G., Mackinlay, J., & Card, S. (1991). Cone trees: Animated 3D visualization of hierarchical information. CHI. p.189-194. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  34. Sellen, A. & Harper, R. (2003). The myth of the paperless office: MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Sonnet, H., Carpendale, S., & Strothotte, T. (2004). Integrating expanding annotations with a 3D explosion probe. AVI. p. 63--70. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  36. Streitz, N., Geißler, J., Holmer, T., Konomi, S.i., Müller-Tomfelde, C., Reischl, W., Rexroth, P., Seitz, P., & Steinmetz, R. (1999). i-LAND: an interactive landscape for creativity and innovation. CHI. p. 120--127. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  37. Thorne, M., Burke, D., & van de Panne, M. (2004). Motion doodles: an interface for sketching character motion. ACM Trns. on Graphics, 23(3). p. 424--431. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Tristram, C. (2001). The next computer interface. MIT Technology Review, December.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  39. Whittaker, S. & Hirschberg, J. (2001). The character, value, and management of personal paper archives. ACM Trans on CHI, 8(2). p. 150--170. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Woods, D. (1984). Visual momentum: a concept to improve the cognitive coupling of person and computer. Intl. Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 21. p. 229--244. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  41. Yatani, K., Tamura, K., Hiroki, K., Sugimoto, M., & Hasizume, H. (2005). Toss-it: intuitive information transfer techniques for mobile devices. CHI Ext. Abs. p. 1881--1884. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Keepin' it real: pushing the desktop metaphor with physics, piles and the pen

    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
      CHI '06: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2006
      1353 pages
      ISBN:1595933727
      DOI:10.1145/1124772

      Copyright © 2006 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part 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 components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 22 April 2006

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • Article

      Acceptance Rates

      Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader