Number of co-authors:13
Number of publications with 3 favourite co-authors:J. Savage:2B. McKenzie:2W. Wong:1
A. Cockburn's 3 most productive colleagues in number of publications:Mark Apperley:40M. Jones:3B. McKenzie:2
For a list of all the ways technology has failed to improve the quality of life, please press three.
-- Alice Kahn
Read the fascinating history of Wearable Computing, told by its father, Steve Mann
Read Steve's chapter !
Publications by A. Cockburn (bibliography)
Cockburn, A., Ahlström, D. and Gutwin, C. (2012): Understanding performance in touch selections: Tap, drag and radial pointing drag with finger, stylus and mouse. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 70 (3) pp. 218-233.
Touch-based interaction with computing devices is becoming more and more common. In order to design for this setting, it is critical to understand the basic human factors of touch interactions such as tapping and dragging; however, there is relatively little empirical research in this area, particularly for touch-based dragging. To provide foundational knowledge in this area, and to help designers understand the human factors of touch-based interactions, we conducted an experiment using three input devices (the finger, a stylus, and a mouse as a performance baseline) and three different pointing activities. The pointing activities were bidirectional tapping, one-dimensional dragging, and radial dragging (pointing to items arranged in a circle around the cursor). Tapping activities represent the elemental target selection method and are analysed as a performance baseline. Dragging is also a basic interaction method and understanding its performance is important for touch-based interfaces because it involves relatively high contact friction. Radial dragging is also important for touch-based systems as this technique is claimed to be well suited to direct input yet radial selections normally involve the relatively unstudied dragging action, and there have been few studies of the interaction mechanics of radial dragging. Performance models of tap, drag, and radial dragging are analysed. For tapping tasks, we confirm prior results showing finger pointing to be faster than the stylus/mouse but inaccurate, particularly with small targets. In dragging tasks, we also confirm that finger input is slower than the mouse and stylus, probably due to the relatively high surface friction. Dragging errors were low in all conditions. As expected, performance conformed to Fitts' Law. Our results for radial dragging are new, showing that errors, task time and movement distance are all linearly correlated with number of items available. We demonstrate that this performance is modelled by the Steering Law (where the tunnel width increases with movement distance) rather than Fitts' Law. Other radial dragging results showed that the stylus is fastest, followed by the mouse and finger, but that the stylus has the highest error rate of the three devices. Finger selections in the North-West direction were particularly slow and error prone, possibly due to a tendency for the finger to stick -- slip when dragging in that direction.
© All rights reserved Cockburn et al. and/or Academic Press
Savage, J. and Cockburn, A. (2005): Comparing Automatic and Manual Zooming Methods for Acquiring Off-screen Targets. In: Proceedings of the HCI05 Conference on People and Computers XIX 2005. pp. 439-454.
Cockburn, A. and McKenzie, B. (2004): Evaluating spatial memory in two and three dimensions. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 61 (3) pp. 359-373.
Prior research has shown that the efficient use of graphical user interfaces is strongly dependent on human capabilities for spatial cognition. One facet of spatial cognition is the ability to quickly and accurately recall and access the location of objects in a spatial arrangement. This paper describes a series of experiments aimed at determining whether three-dimensional user interfaces better support spatial memory than their more traditional two-dimensional counterparts. The experiments are conducted using both computer-supported systems and physical models that vary the depth and perspective cues in spatial arrangements of interface items. The physical models were used to escape some of the dimensional ambiguities that are hard to control using computer displays. Results strongly suggest that adding a third dimension to computer displays does not aid users' spatial memory. Although there were no significant differences between the effectiveness of spatial memory when using two- and three-dimensional computer interfaces, participants' memory for the location of cards representing web-pages was reliably better when using a two-dimensional physical model than when using an equivalent three-dimensional physical model.
© All rights reserved Cockburn and McKenzie and/or Academic Press
Apperley, Mark, Carter, P., Churcher, C., Cockburn, A., Jones, M., Lobb, B., Novins, K., Phillips, C. and Wong, W. (2003): State of the Art: HCI in New Zealand. In: Proceedings of IFIP INTERACT03: Human-Computer Interaction 2003, Zurich, Switzerland. p. 1079.
Cockburn, A. and Savage, J. (2003): Comparing Speed-dependent Automatic Zooming with Traditional Scroll, Pan and Zoom Methods. In: Proceedings of the HCI03 Conference on People and Computers XVII 2003. pp. 87-102.
Cockburn, A. and Firth, A. (2003): Improving the Acquisition of Small Targets. In: Proceedings of the HCI03 Conference on People and Computers XVII 2003. pp. 181-196.
Cockburn, A. and McKenzie, B. (2000): An Evaluation of Cone Trees. In: Proceedings of the HCI00 Conference on People and Computers XIV 2000. pp. 425-436.
Show this list on your homepage
Join the technology elite and advance:
Changes to this page (author)23 Nov 2012: Added15 Feb 2010: Modified
26 Jul 2007: Added
26 Jul 2007: Added
26 Jul 2007: Added
26 Jul 2007: Added
24 Jul 2007: Added
27 Jun 2007: Added
Page maintainer: The Editorial Team