From bowman@cc.gatech.edu Mon May 11 14:37:38 1998 Received: from burdell.cc.gatech.edu (root@burdell.cc.gatech.edu [130.207.3.207]) by lennon.cc.gatech.edu (8.8.4/8.6.9) with ESMTP id OAA06620 for ; Mon, 11 May 1998 14:37:36 -0400 (EDT) Received: from wheaten.hitl.washington.edu (zBXsNM2QWfcPfsR4obYADuuzm8DXUhMW@[128.95.73.60]) by burdell.cc.gatech.edu (8.8.4/8.6.9) with ESMTP id OAA26259 for ; Mon, 11 May 1998 14:37:35 -0400 (EDT) Received: from burdell.cc.gatech.edu (root@burdell.cc.gatech.edu [130.207.3.207]) by wheaten.hitl.washington.edu (8.8.8/8.6.12) with ESMTP id LAA10952 for <3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu>; Mon, 11 May 1998 11:37:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lennon.cc.gatech.edu (bowman@lennon.cc.gatech.edu [130.207.9.20]) by burdell.cc.gatech.edu (8.8.4/8.6.9) with ESMTP id OAA26247 for <3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu>; Mon, 11 May 1998 14:37:28 -0400 (EDT) Received: (from bowman@localhost) by lennon.cc.gatech.edu (8.8.4/8.6.9) id OAA06606 for 3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu; Mon, 11 May 1998 14:37:27 -0400 (EDT) From: bowman@cc.gatech.edu (Doug Bowman) Message-Id: <199805111837.OAA06606@lennon.cc.gatech.edu> Subject: Re: doug's navigation taxonomy To: 3d-ui@hitl.washington.edu (3D UI List) Date: Mon, 11 May 1998 14:37:27 -0400 (EDT) In-Reply-To: <5F68209F7E4BD111A5F500805FFE35B905797712@red-msg-54.dns.microsoft.com> from "Ken Hinckley" at May 8, 98 02:04:29 pm X-Mailer: ELM [version 2.4 PL23] Content-Type: text Status: RO A while back, Ken Hinckley wrote: > Doug, I thought your motoric approach to the navigation taxonomy was > interesting. I actually believe this kind of taxonomy should live > side-by-side with the task-oriented approach that Matt was suggesting. They > look at the issues at different levels of granularity and thus should be > good for reasoning about different aspects of the design space. You're probably right about this. One of my thesis cmte. members suggested that a good measure for the utility of any taxonomy would be to see if people actually categorized the techniques in the same way the designer of the taxonomy would. It would be interesting to see that happen for the different taxonomies that Matt and I are proposing. Perhaps someone could come up with a list of 10-20 travel techniques and we could, as an exercise, have list members place these techniques within our frameworks. We could see 1) if the techniques are covered at all, and 2) if people put them in the same places as Matt or I would. Anyone interested? I think we'd probably find that both approaches do a good job of covering the space, but that both are ambiguous when it comes to actually placing the techniques. > A MUST-READ paper for you is: > Buxton, W., "Chunking and Phrasing and the Design of Human-computer Thanks for the ref. > The great insight of this paper is that the "elemental" tasks of an > interaction technique depend entirely on the level of analysis that you > choose (and this level is bound by the capabilities of the input device(s) > you choose). For example, pointing at something on a computer screen is > Your navigation taxonomy has this same flavor; I suspect that if you look at > it more carefully you'll see that the steps that you're proposing are just > one possible way to divide up what is really a hierarchy of interrelated > tasks. This would let you have a general description of the motoric steps > for navigation that is independent of the particular devices used to > implement it. Yes, that is a problem I've struggled with quite a bit. This approach sounds promising. On the other hand, I don't want the framework to be so abstract and divorced from the real world that it becomes useless. Let me read the paper and chew on this for a while. Thanks for the discussion - this will be quite helpful in making my thinking/rationale more concrete. -- Doug Bowman, Ph.D. Candidate College of Computing, GVU Center, Georgia Tech Room 388 CRB, (404) 894-5104 bowman@cc.gatech.edu http://www.cc.gatech.edu/gvu/people/Phd/Doug.Bowman/