Direct manipulation interface

Abstract: Direct manipulation has been lauded as a good form of interface design, and some interfaces that have this property have been well received by users. In this article we seek a cognitive account of both the advantages and disadvantages of direct manipulation interfaces. We identify two underlying phenomena that give rise to the feeling of directness. One deals with the information processing distance between the user's intentions and the facilities provided by the machine. Reduction of this distance makes the interface feel direct by reducing the effort required of the user to accomplish goals. The second phenomenon concerns the relation between the input and output vocabularies of the interface language. In particular, direct manipulation requires that the system provide representations of objects that behave as if they are the objects themselves. This provides the feeling of directness of manipulation.

Abstract: This paper suggests three motivations for the strong interest in human factors' aspects of user interfaces and reviews five design issues: command language versus menu selection, response time and display rates, wording of system messages, on-line tutorials, explanations and help messages and hardware devices. Five methods and tools for system development are considered: participatory design, specification methods, software implementation tools, pilot studies and acceptance tests and evolutionary refinement based on user feedback. The final portion of the paper presents direct manipulation, an approach which promises to become widely used in interactive systems. Direct manipulation involves representation of the object of interest, rapid incremental reversible actions and physical action instead of complex syntax.

Abstract: A method and apparatus that translates a natural language query into a Boolean expression to be used to search a database. The Boolean expression is displayed on a screen so that the user can alter the Boolean expression using a mouse or similar input device and re-execute the search. The manipulations performed by the user include moving terms of the query, changing the order in which query terms are evaluated, adding terms, deleting terms, and selecting alternate versions of terms.

Abstract: Many existing interface representation techniques, especially those associated with UIMS, are constructional and focused on interface implementation, and therefore do not adequately support a user-centered focus. But it is in the behavioral domain of the user that interface designers and evaluators do their work. We are seeking to complement constructional methods by providing a tool-supported technique capable of specifying the behavioral aspects of an interactive system–the tasks and the actions a user performs to accomplish those tasks. In particular, this paper is a practical introduction to use of the User Action Notation (UAN), a task- and user-oriented notation for behavioral representation of asynchronous, direct manipulation interface designs. Interfaces are specified in UAN as a quasihierarchy of asynchronous tasks. At the lower levels, user actions are associated with feedback and system state changes. The notation makes use of visually onomatopoeic symbols and is simple enough to read with little instruction. UAN is being used by growing numbers of interface developers and researchers. In addition to its design role, current research is investigating how UAN can support production and maintenance of code and documentation.