The article takes inspirations from one of the recent books on interaction and makes an effort to support the stand that interaction needs attention and research than its sibling-representation. I feel this article and the "The Eyes Have It" article go hand in hand and stress that the interaction component of information visuation given relatively more importance.
It gives an account of the different taxonomies of interaction techniques which touch different aspects and areas of interaction from the system and the user point of view.
The authors have done a comprehensive analysis of past papers and commercial articles to select different interaction techniques. They found that grouping the articles by "user intent" is more pratical and sound than any other classification.
Again, the paper coincides with the idea of providing abstract details and then drilling down to the finer details and filtering out unwanted details, reconfiguring. All these methods help to understand what the user is trying to achieve at each point by going to and fro in the representation.
In its discussion section, the article exposes some interaction techniques which cannot be classified fully because of their ability to fulfill multiple user intents in one go. The article is based on categorization of the different interaction techniques to understand them extensively based on common and uncommon features.
I found the article to be really informative than the 'Eyes have it' article even though they relate to the same idea and concepts. This article I find has more finer details and the area where this article wins over is that in its very outlook is user centric. The article acknowledges that this paper is one of the initial steps in establiship interaction as a full fledged science in itself.
0 comments:
Post a Comment