The Large-Display User Experience

Robertson, George G.; Czerwinski, Mary; Baudisch, Patrick; Meyers, Brian; Robbins, Daniel; Smith, Greg; Tan, Desney

doi:10.1109/mcg.2005.88

Cited by 163 publications

(109 citation statements)

References 7 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

106

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…This results in a whole range of new challenges. How can we reduce the cost of switching between display units or help users interacting across distances (Robertson et al, 2005)? How can we represent the seams between the displays in a way that matches the users' cognitive model?…”

Section: Research Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, computing environments are increasingly becoming even more sophisticated, with individual offices containing several heterogeneous displays in a variety of layouts. Although multi-display environments have been shown to offer benefits for individuals (Robertson, Czerwinski, Baudisch, Meyers, Robbins, Smith, & Tan, 2005), they are arguably even more suited to collocated collaboration, as they can better facilitate multiple people working and coordinating synchronously. Collocated collaborative computing differs in many ways from individual computing, including the need to switch back and forth between private and…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…For example, all display units may be connected to the same processing unit or to different processing units that are interconnected by a network (Robertson et al, 2005). The latter allows for the opportunistic creation and breaking apart of display components, providing users with flexibility as required by the task.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Introduction to this Special Issue on Ubiquitous Multi-Display Environments

Balakrishnan

Baudisch

2009

Human–Computer Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Until recently, most of our computing was carried out in environments with a single display. In contrast, modern computing environments are evolving into multi-display environments. Simple dual-monitor setups in personal offices are by now quite common. However, computing environments are increasingly becoming even more sophisticated, with individual offices containing several heterogeneous displays in a variety of layouts. Although multi-display environments have been shown to offer benefits for individuals (Robertson, Czerwinski, Baudisch, Meyers, Robbins, Smith, & Tan, 2005), they are arguably even more suited to collocated collaboration, as they can better facilitate multiple people working and coordinating synchronously. Collocated collaborative computing differs in many ways from individual computing, including the need to switch back and forth between private and

show abstract

Section: Research Issuesmentioning

confidence: 99%

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Introduction to this Special Issue on Ubiquitous Multi-Display Environments

Balakrishnan

Baudisch

2009

Human–Computer Interaction

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Robertson et al presents improved Drag-and-Drop metaphors for wall-size displays for multiple data sets that could be integrated in the future [15].…”

Section: Moving Data With the Digital Pen (Pick-and-drop)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Shared Design Space: Sketching Ideas Using Digital Pens and a Large Augmented Tabletop Setup

Haller

Brandl

Leithinger

et al. 2006

Lecture Notes in Computer Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Collaborative Augmented Reality (AR) setups are becoming increasingly popular. We have developed a collaborative tabletop environment that is designed for brainstorming and discussion meetings. Using a digital pen, participants can annotate not only virtual paper, but also real printouts. By integrating both forms of physical and digital paper, we combine virtual and real 2d drawings, and digital data which are overlaid into a single information space. In this paper, we describe why we have integrated these devices together in a unique way and how they can be used efficiently during a design process.

show abstract

“…Robertson et al [17] have addressed several problems with proposed software solutions. An extensive overview on large display research is given by Czerwinski et al [5].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Image Browsing on a Large Display

Hedman

2007

2007 29th International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract.We conducted a usability study on a 50" plasma display comparing three different browser alternatives (iconic, zoom-and-pan, and bifocal view) Large displays are becoming a reality for an increasing number of users as prices go down. So far, browsing techniques have mainly been studied on regular desktop displays.There are many usability issues to consider when display size differs radically from standard size of desktop displays. Freehand interaction with other input devices than the regular 2D desktop mouse, for instance, is a highly relevant part of interaction with large displays.This study is mainly a comparison of browsing techniques, but we also discuss observations made regarding interaction with a large display and a 3D input device. The browser alternatives included in this study are: an iconic browser, a zoom-and-pan browser, and a fisheye browser [7]. Our iconic browser operates in a manner similar to the standard windowing system. Clicking a thumbnail replaces the bulletin board with a readable-sized version of the note. Our zoomand-pan browser was implemented by using the Piccolo toolkit [3] with modified zoom function. Finally, we implemented a type of fisheye browser called the "bifocal view" [13].In order to determine which had the best performance, we conducted a usability study comparing the iconic, zoom-and-pan, and bifocalview browsers on a 50" plasma display with a 3D mouse. Ten subjects completed our study. Each participant used each browser during the experiment. After a review of related work, we will describe the browsers and the study in detail. This will be followed by a discussion of the results and a summary with a discussion of future work.In their image-browser taxonomy, Plaisant, Carr, and Shneiderman [16] describe different types of tasks and how these benefit from different types of browser characteristics.Several browser studies have been conducted, with various results. No single browser has been better overall than the others for all types of tasks.In a study comparing scroll bars, dragging, a pop-up overview, and a pop-up overview containing a field-of-view indicator, Kaptelinin found that the interfaces with a pop-up overview were significantly faster than both the scroll-bar interface and the drag interface [12].Beard and Walker [2] compared interfaces using scrollbars, zoom, and roam (pan) with and without overview, and found that all techniques gave better results with the overview, and scroll bars were significantly slower than the other two techniques.A study by Hornbaek, Plaisant, and Bederson [11] comparing zooming interfaces with and without an overview found that subjects were faster without the overview, but preferred an interface that had one.

show abstract

The Large-Display User Experience

Cited by 163 publications

References 7 publications

Introduction to this Special Issue on Ubiquitous Multi-Display Environments

Introduction to this Special Issue on Ubiquitous Multi-Display Environments

Shared Design Space: Sketching Ideas Using Digital Pens and a Large Augmented Tabletop Setup

Image Browsing on a Large Display

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About