Direct Manipulation Interfaces

Hutchins, Edwin L., James D. Hollan, and Donald A. Norman. "Direct Manipulation Interfaces." HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION. University of Culijirnia, Sun Diego. Volume 1. (1985): 311-338. Print. Copyright Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. http://cleo.ics.uci.edu/teaching/Winter10/231/readings/1-HutchinsHollanNorman-DirectManipulation-HCI.pdf.

Notes
Section:

1. Direct Manipulation
1.1. Early Examples of Direct Manipulation
1.2. The Goal: A Cognitive Account of Direct Manipulation
2. Two Aspects of Directness: Distance and Engagement
2.1. Distance
2.2. Direct Engagement
3. Two Forms of Distance: Semantic and Articulatory
3.1. Semantic Distance
3.2. Semantic Distance in the Gulfs of Execution and Evaluation
3.3. Reducing the Semantic Distance That Must Be Spanned
3.4. Articulatory Distance
3.5. Articulatory Distance in the Gulfs of Execution and Evaluation
4. Direct Engagement
5. A Space of Interfaces
6. Problems with Direct Manipulation

Summary

Notes

1985:

"...a cognitive account of both the advantages and disadvantages of direct manipulation interfaces."

• "...cognitive account of both the advantages and disadvantages of direct manipulation interfaces."
• "...input and output vocabularies of the interface language." Require "the system provide representations of objects that behave as if they are the objects themselves."

The work is broken into six sections.

1. Direct Manipulation

Interface example: A set of data stored in a matrix.
Goal: Analyze the data to find relations between the rows and columns.

• Connect any given row or column to an axis of a graph.
• Multiple graphs may be used.
• Functions may be applied to data streams as need on the connection lines.
• Groups of points on the graph may be selected and pulled out into a new matrix dataset.

The data can be 'manipulated' back and forth as connections are made and inferences are discovered.

"The term direct manipulation was coined by Shneiderman (1974, 1982, 1983)..."

Properties:

1. Continuous representation of the object
2. Physical actions
3. Rapid incremental reversible operations are immediately visible

Virtues:

1. Basic functionality can be learned quickly
2. Experts can work rapidly and even define new functions and features
3. Intermittent users can retain operational concepts.
   
4. Error messages are rarely needed.
   
5. Users can see immediately if their actions are furthering their goals

1.1. Early Examples of Direct Manipulation

• Sutherland - Sketchpad (1963)
• Borning - ThingLab (1979)
• Bill Budge - Pinball Construction Set (1983)
• Hollan, Hutchins, & Weitzman (1984); Hollan, Stevens, & Williams (1980) - Steamer system
• Kay - dynamic spreadsheet system (1984)

1.2. The Goal: A Cognitive Account of Direct Manipulation

• "What is it that provides the feeling of directness?"
• "Why do direct manipulation systems feel so natural?"
• "What is so compelling about the notion?"
• "Why can using such systems sometimes seem so tedious?"

2. Two Aspects of Directness: Distance and Engagement

Using "...the term directness to refer to the feeling that results from interaction with an interface. The term distance will be used to describe factors which underlie the generation of the feeling of directness."

Engagement:

• conversation : assumed, but not represented world
• model-world : a world which changes states in response to the user

2.1. Distance

"...gulfs between a person's goals and knowledge and the level of description provided by the systems..."

• gulf of execution
• golf of evaluation

2.2. Direct Engagement

• "...relationship between the input interface language and the output interface language."
• "...a direct manipulation output language must behave [so] that the user can assume that they [...] are the things they refer to."
• "...an output expression can serve as a component of an input expression."

3. Two Forms of Distance: Semantic and Articulatory

"Semantic distance reflects the relationship between the user intentions and the meaning of expressions in the interface languages [...]."

"Articulatory distance reflects the relationship between the physical form [...] and its meaning [...]. The easier it is to go from [one to the other], the smaller the articulatory distance."

3.1. Semantic Distance

3.2. Semantic Distance in the Gulfs of Execution and Evaluation

Subsections:

• The Gulf of Execution
• The Gulf of Evaluation

3.3. Reducing the Semantic Distance That Must Be Spanned

Subsections:

• Higher-Level Languages
• Make the Output Show Semantic Concepts Directly
• Automated Behavior Does Not Reduce Semantic Distance
• The User Can Adapt to the System Representation
• Virtuosity and Semantic Distance

3.4. Articulatory Distance

3.5. Articulatory Distance in the Gulfs of Execution and Evaluation

4. Direct Engagement

5. A Space of Interfaces

"A space of interfaces. The dimensions of distance from user goals and degree of engagement form a space of interfaces within which we can locate some familiar types of interfaces. Direct manipulation interfaces are those that minimize the distances and maximize engagement. As always, the distance between user intentions and the interface language depends on the nature of the task the user is performing."

6. Problems with Direct Manipulation

"...immediacy of feedback and the natural translation of intentions to actions make some tasks easy."

"...a repetitive operation is probably best done [...] through a symbolic description of the tasks that are to be accomplished."

"Direct manipulation interfaces have difficulty..." with:

• variables
• distinguishing individual elements from surroundings
• accuracy

"...if we restrict ourselves to only building [...] things we can already do and to think in ways we already think, we will miss [...] new ways to think of and to interact with a domain."

Summary

To me, this paper argues the importance of the design decisions involved with how a system is interacted with. It cites in great detail the difference between input and output, as well as relationships between a physical form of expression and intentions for users. A good system is one that where user goals and the physical forms of expression are close to the meaning interpreted by the system.