Brian D. FisherBrian Fisher
Has also published under the name of:
"Brian Fisher"
Personal Homepage:
http://www.cs.ubc.ca/~fisher/Current place of employment:
Simon Fraser UniversityBrian Fisher is Associate Professor of Interactive Arts and Technology and Cognitive Science at Simon Fraser University and the Associate Director of the Media and Graphics Interdisciplinary Centre (MAGIC) at the University of British Columbia. He is also a member of the SFU Centre for Interdisciplinary Research in the Mathematical and Computational Sciences, and the UBC Brain Research Centre and Institute for Computing, Intelligent and Cognitive Systems. His research focuses on the cognitive science of human interaction with visual information systems, with the goal of developing new theories, methods, and methodologies for development and evaluation of technology to support human understanding, decision-making, and coordination of operations. This work is supported by the US Department of Homeland Security Command, Control and Interoperability Center of Excellence for applications in disaster relief and anti-terrorism with matching funding from the Natural Science and Engineering Research Council of Canada and by the Boeing Company on understanding aircraft safety, reliability, and maintainability data with matching funding from the Mathematics of Information Technology and Complex Systems Network of Centres of Excellence (Canada). In addition to his SIAT courses Brian has taught in Business, Computer Science, Engineering, Kinesiology, and Psychology.
Publications by Brian D. Fisher (bibliography)
Nobarany, Syavash, Haraty, Mona, Fels, Sidney S. and Fisher, Brian D. (2011): Leveraging trust relationships in digital backchannel communications. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI 2011 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2011. pp. 1579-1584.
“Discussions during lecture can clarify lecture points for audience members and help them deepen their understanding. However, the fast-pace of lectures and the large number of attendees can make these discussions impossible. Although digital backchannels have been used to address this problem, they present some drawbacks such as increasing distractions and not providing valuable information. We suggest incorporating audience members' levels of trust in the knowledge of other members into the design of backchannel communication systems. Based on this approach, we present methods and design considerations to overcome the aforementioned drawbacks of the previous backchannel communication systems.”
© All rights reserved Nobarany et al. and/or their publisher
Nobarany, Syavash, Haraty, Mona, Fisher, Brian D. and DiPaola, Steve (2009): Epistemically Active Adaptive User Interfaces. In: Supplementary Proceedings of ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology UIST October 7-11, 2009, Victoria, BC, Canada. .
“An accurate model of the user is one of the most important
factors impacting the success of adaptive user interfaces.
However, the input information from the user may not be
sufficient for construction of accurate user models. We
propose epistemically active adaptive user interfaces that
initiate subtle interactions with the user in order to collect
new information about the user’s state based on his responses
(as in mixed initiative systems) or reactions to the
probe. These epistemic actions can increase accuracy and
decrease the computational cost of user modeling while
requiring only low cost responses from the user.”
© All rights reserved Nobarany et al. and/or their publisher
Butz, Andreas, Fisher, Brian D., Krüger, Antonio and Olivier, Patrick (eds.) (2007): Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Smart graphics 7th international symposium. Heidelberg, Springer-Verlag
Botta, David, Werlinger, Rodrigo, Gagné, André, Beznosov, Konstantin, Iverson, Lee, Fels, Sidney and Fisher, Brian D. (2007): Towards understanding IT security professionals and their tools. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Symposium on Usable Privacy and Security 2007. pp. 100-111.
“We report preliminary results of our ongoing field study of IT professionals who are involved in security management. We interviewed a dozen practitioners from five organizations to understand their workplace and tools. We analyzed the interviews using a variation of Grounded Theory and predesigned themes. Our results suggest that the job of IT security management is distributed across multiple employees, often affiliated with different organizational units or groups within a unit and responsible for different aspects of it. The workplace of our participants can be characterized by their responsibilities, goals, tasks, and skills. Three skills stand out as significant in the IT security management workplace: inferential analysis, pattern recognition, and bricolage.”
© All rights reserved Botta et al. and/or ACM Press
Butz, Andreas, Fisher, Brian D., Krüger, Antonio and Olivier, Patrick (eds.) (2006): Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Smart graphics : 6th international symposium. Berlin, Heidelberg, New York. , Springer-Verlag
Butz, Andreas, Fisher, Brian D., Kruger, Antonio and Olivier, Patrick (eds.) Proceedings of the Sixth International Symposium on Smart Graphics July 23-25, 2006, Vancouver, Canada.
Po, Barry A., Fisher, Brian D. and Booth, Kellogg S. (2005): Comparing cursor orientations for mouse, pointer, and pen interaction. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI 2005 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2005. pp. 291-300.
“Most graphical user interfaces provide visual cursors to facilitate interaction with input devices such as mice, pointers, and pens. These cursors often include directional cues that could influence the stimulus-response compatibility of user input. We conducted a controlled evaluation of four cursor orientations and an orientation-neutral cursor in a circular menu selection task. Mouse interaction on a desktop, pointer (i.e. wand) interaction on a large screen, and pen interaction on a Tablet PC were evaluated. Our results suggest that choosing appropriate cursors is especially important for pointer interaction, but may be less important for mice or pens. Cursors oriented toward the lower-right corner of a display yielded the poorest performance overall while orientation-neutral cursors were generally the best. Advantages were found for orientations aligned with the direction of movement. We discuss these results and suggest guidelines for the appropriate use of cursors in various input and display configurations.”
© All rights reserved Po et al. and/or ACM Press
Butz, Andreas, Fisher, Brian D., Krüger, Antonio and Olivier, Patrick (2005): Lecture Notes in Computer Science: Smart graphics : 5th international symposium. Berlin ,Heidelberg, New York, Springer-Verlag
Lam, Heidi, Fisher, Brian D. and Dill, John (2005): A Pilot Study of CZTalk: A Graphical Tool for Collaborative Knowledge Work. In: HICSS 2005 - 38th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences 3-6 January, 2005, Big Island, HI, USA. .
Po, Barry A., Fisher, Brian D. and Booth, Kellogg S. (2005): A two visual systems approach to understanding voice and gestural interaction. In Virtual Reality, 8 (4) pp. 231-241.
Po, Barry A., Fisher, Brian D. and Booth, Kellogg S. (2004): Mouse and touchscreen selection in the upper and lower visual fields. In: Dykstra-Erickson, Elizabeth and Tscheligi, Manfred (eds.) Proceedings of ACM CHI 2004 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems April 24-29, 2004, Vienna, Austria. pp. 359-366.
“Neuroanatomical evidence indicates the human eye's visual field can be functionally divided into two vertical hemifields, each specialized for specific functions. The upper visual field (UVF) is specialized to support perceptual tasks in the distance, while the lower visual field (LVF) is specialized to support visually-guided motor tasks, such as pointing. We present a user study comparing mouse- and touchscreen-based pointing for items presented in the UVF and LVF on an interactive display. Consistent with the neuroscience literature, we found that mouse and touchscreen pointing were faster and more accurate for items presented in the LVF when compared to pointing at identical targets presented in the UVF. Further analysis found previously unreported performance differences between the visual fields for touchscreen pointing that were not observed for mouse pointing. This indicates that a placement of interactive items favorable to the LVF yields superior user performance, especially for systems dependent on direct touch interactions.”
© All rights reserved Po et al. and/or ACM Press
Booth, Kellogg S., Fisher, Brian D., Lin, Chi Jui Raymond and Argue, Ritchie (2002): The "mighty mouse" multi-screen collaboration tool. In: Beaudouin-Lafon, Michel (ed.) Proceedings of the 15th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology October 27-30, 2002, Paris, France. pp. 209-212.
“Many computer operating systems provide seamless support for multiple
display screens, but there are few cross-platform tools for collaborative use
of multiple computers in a shared display environment. Mighty Mouse is a novel
groupware tool built on the public domain VNC protocol. It is tailored
specifically for face-to-face collaboration where multiple heterogeneous
computers (usually laptops) are viewed simultaneously (usually via projectors)
by people working together on a variety of applications under various operating
systems. Mighty Mouse uses only the remote input capability of VNC, but
enhances this with various features to support flexible movement between the
various platforms, "floor control" to facilitate smooth collaboration, and
customization features to accommodate different user, platform, and application
preferences in a relatively seamless manner. The design rationale arises from
specific observations about how people collaborate in meetings, which allows
certain simplifying assumptions to be made in the implementation.”
© All rights reserved Booth et al. and/or ACM Press
Fisher, Brian D. (2002): University of British Columbia. In Interactions, 9 (2) pp. 33-36.
Fisher, Brian D., Agelidis, Makrina, Dill, John, Tan, Paul, Collaud, Gérald and Jones, Chris (1997): CZWeb: Fish-Eye Views for Visualizing the World-Wide Web. In: Smith, Michael J., Salvendy, Gavriel and Koubek, Richard J. (eds.) HCI International 1997 - Proceedings of the Seventh International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction - Volume 2 August 24-29, 1997, San Francisco, California, USA. pp. 719-722.
Show this list on your homepage
Knowledge wants to be free !
We have decided to give away world-class educational materials
because we believe that universal access to high quality education is key to the building
of peace, sustainable social and economic development, and intercultural dialogue.
To calculate just have much we have saved you, our wonderful readers, we compare our free encyclopedia to two
books we love:
$110: Human-Computer Interaction by Dix et al (a great textbook but without video interviews)
$116: Shneiderman's Designing the User Interface
(a great textbook but without video interviews).
As you are reading our encyclopedia on your iPad/tablet (and saving a few trees), we estimate that the price would be $90 if sold as an eBook.
With that number, we can calculate how much money we have saved our readers, based on calculating the number of readers.
How we calculate readership
Because of our online and tablet/iPad approach to publishing, we are able to precisely measure reading behaviour across hundreds of parameters in realtime: Anything from reading
speed, drop-off points in the text, reader demographics, and much more.
Based on our server logs and the Google Analytics API,
we calculate the number of readers as described in the calculation method below.
A reader is not the same as a simple pageview and a reader is not the same as a
website visitor (as described in our calculation method below).
We calculate readership for two types of readers:
- Readers that have read our whole encyclopedia, much the same way you read a printed book
- Readers that have reader an individual chapter
Calcalution method: How we define a reader
- First we use the Google Analytics API to get a report of the number of unique human visitors to a chapter/page. Google runs its business on ads and thus completely relies on the ability to distinguish between a human visitor and an automated request. If not, you could earn millions on automating clicks on Google Ads.
- We then compare that number to our Apache webserver logs, which report the much higher number of actual visits to a chapter/page (both human and automated). We calculate the difference in percent, which we call an "exaggeration factor", which we use in step 6 below.
- With a large part of the visitors excluded, we further exclude any visitor who:
- has not remained on the page for at least 3 minutes (this factor is calculated by recording visit durations of 1000 randomly selected visitors) or has not printed the page (i.e. has not visited the printerfriendly version of the chapter/page)
- has not scrolled the page (this factor is calculated by recording scroll movements on 1000 randomly selected visitors)
- We then further exclude "double readers", i.e. readers who read a portion of a chapter and then returns in,
say, a week or a month to read the rest.
Although this person's reading activity spans multiple server sessions, the person is only counted as a single reader.
We categorize a "double reader" as a visitor who:
- visits a page, or multiple pages, across multiple server sessions
- qualifies to be defined as a reader, cf step 1-3 above, in all server sessions
- uses the same originating IP address
- We then subtract 5% from the final number to counter-balance a last remaining factor, namely the situation where one reader reads a chapter on his/her tablet
using a WiFi connection (and counted as one reader) but then picks up his other tablet using a 3G dongle
(with another IP address) and re-reads some of the chapter. That will equal two readers, not one. We have no way
of calculating how many times this situation arises, but to be on the safe side we subtract 5%
from the final number.
- We then take half of the "exaggeration factor" from step 2 and substract from the final number. We do this for no rational reason. We do it only as a further measure to be certain that our number of readers is not inflated.
- To qualify as a reader who has read our whole encyclopedia - much the same way you read a printed book - that person must have qualified as a reader (cf. 1-6 above) of at least 80% of the encyclopedia chapters.
As a result, we have eliminated everything from automated requests to the more casual visitors. That leaves us with what we can safely call readers.
Changes to this page (author)
05 Jul 2011: Author was edited 29 Apr 2011: Author was edited 14 Feb 2010: Enabled abstracts to be shown on Brian D. Fisher's author page.
01 Feb 2010: Author was added to the bibliography (approved by an editor)
31 Aug 2009: Page was edited
20 Aug 2009: Added a picture of Brian D. Fisher
12 Jun 2009: Author was edited
05 Jun 2009: Author was edited
12 May 2008: Author was edited
09 Dec 2007: Author was added to the bibliography (approved by an editor)
13 Aug 2007: Book was added to the page (approved by an editor)
13 Aug 2007: Author was added to the bibliography (approved by an editor)
13 Aug 2007: Book was added to the page (approved by an editor)
13 Aug 2007: Author was added to the bibliography (approved by an editor)
13 Aug 2007: Page was edited
12 Aug 2007: Author was added to the bibliography (approved by an editor)
12 Aug 2007: Book was added to the page (approved by an editor)
29 Jun 2007: Author was edited
28 Apr 2003: Added the author to the bibliography
28 Apr 2003: Added the author to the bibliography
Page Information
Page maintainer:
The Editorial TeamHow to cite/reference this page
URL: http://www.interaction-design.org/references/authors/brian_d__fisher.html
