An interaction technique, user interface technique or input technique is a combination of hardware and software elements that provides a way for computer users to accomplish a single task. For example, one can go back to the previously visited page on a Web browser by either clicking a button, pressing a key, performing a mouse gesture or uttering a speech command. It is a widely used term in human-computer interaction. In particular, the term "new interaction technique" is frequently used to introduce a novel user interface design idea.
Definition
Although there is no general agreement on the exact meaning of the term "interaction technique", the most popular definition is from the computer graphics literature:
Interaction tasks and domain objects
An interaction task is "the unit of an entry of information by the user",[1] such as entering a piece of text, issuing a command, or specifying a 2D position. A similar concept is that of domain object, which is a piece of application data that can be manipulated by the user.[5]
Interaction techniques are the glue between physical I/O devices and interaction tasks or domain objects.[5][6] Different types of interaction techniques can be used to map a specific device to a specific domain object. For example, different gesture alphabets exist for pen-based text input.
In general, the less compatible the device is with the domain object, the more complex the interaction technique.[7] For example, using a mouse to specify a 2D point involves a trivial interaction technique, whereas using a mouse to rotate a 3D object requires more creativity to design the technique and more lines of code to implement it.
A current trend is to avoid complex interaction techniques by matching physical devices with the task as close as possible,[7] such as exemplified by the field of tangible computing. But this is not always a feasible solution. Furthermore, device/task incompatibilities are unavoidable in computer accessibility, where a single switch can be used to control the whole computer environment.
Interaction style
Interaction techniques that share the same metaphor or design principles can be seen as belonging to the same interaction style.[8] General examples are command line and direct manipulation user interfaces.
Interaction patterns
While interaction techniques are typically technology-, platform-, and implementation-dependent (see § Level of granularity above), human-computer or human-information interactions can be characterized at higher levels of abstraction that are independent of particular technologies and platforms. At such levels of abstraction, the concern is not precisely how an interaction is performed; rather, the concern is a conceptual characterization of what the interaction is, and what the general utility of the interaction is for the user(s). Thus, any single interaction pattern may be instantiated by any number of interaction techniques, on any number of different technologies and platforms. Interaction patterns are more concerned with the timeless, invariant qualities of an interaction.[4]
Visualization technique
Interaction techniques essentially involve data entry and manipulation, and thus place greater emphasis on input than output. Output is merely used to convey affordances and provide user feedback. The use of the term input technique further reinforces the central role of input. Conversely, techniques that mainly involve data exploration and thus place greater emphasis on output are called visualization techniques. They are studied in the field of information visualization.
Research and innovation
A large part of research in human-computer interaction involves exploring easier-to-learn or more efficient interaction techniques for common computing tasks. This includes inventing new (post-WIMP) interaction techniques, possibly relying on methods from user interface design, and assessing their efficiency with respect to existing techniques using methods from experimental psychology. Examples of scientific venues in these topics are the UIST and the CHI conferences. Other research focuses on the specification of interaction techniques, sometimes using formalisms such as Petri nets for the purposes of formal verification.[9]
See also
References
- 1 2 J.D. Foley, A. van Dam, S.K. Feiner and J.F. Hughes (1990), Computer Graphics: Principles and Practice, Addison–Wesley.
- ↑ A.B. Tucker (2004), Computer Science Handbook, Second Edition. Chapman & Hall/CRC. pp 20–2.
- ↑ Sedig, K., Parsons, P., Dittmer, M., & Haworth, R. (2013). Human–centered interactivity of visualization tools: Micro– and macro–level considerations. In W. Huang (Ed.), Handbook of Human-Centric Visualization (pp. 717–743). Springer, New York.
- 1 2 Sedig, K. & Parsons, P. (2013). Interaction design for complex cognitive activities with visual representations: A pattern-based approach. AIS Transactions on Human-Computer Interaction, 5(2), 84–133.
- 1 2 M. Beaudouin-Lafon (2000) Instrumental interaction: an interaction model for designing post-WIMP user interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems.
- ↑ P. Dragicevic and J-D Fekete (2004) The Input Configurator toolkit: towards high input adaptability in interactive applications[dead link]. In Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual interfaces.
- 1 2 W. Buxton (1986) There's More to Interaction than Meets the Eye: Some Issues in Manual Input. In Norman, D. A. and Draper, S. W. (Eds.), User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human–Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, New Jersey, 319–337.
- ↑ http://www.interaction-design.org/encyclopedia/interaction_styles.html
- ↑ Schyn, A., Navarre, D., Palanque, P., and Porcher Nedel, L. 2003. Formal description of a multimodal interaction technique in an immersive virtual reality application. In Proceedings of the 15th French-Speaking Conference on Human–Computer interaction on 15eme Conference Francophone Sur L'interaction Homme–Machine (Caen, France, November 25–28, 2003). T. Baudel, Ed. IHM 2003, vol. 51. ACM, New York, NY, 150–157.