Calendar

May 22

Knowing (by) Designing 2013

May 27

13th Intl. Conf. on New Interfaces for Musical Expression

May 28

Graphics Interface 2013

May 20

“ The moment clients realize that revisions are not an all-you-can-eat buffet, suddenly they realize they are not hungry. ”

-- Lester Beall

Share this quote on...
Get more quotes via RSS or by joining our Usability Quote of the Day Facebook Page

Featured chapter

Read the fascinating history of Wearable Computing, told by its father, Steve Mann

Read Steve's chapter !

Help us help you!

Spread the word:
Donate
Other ways to help

Frank Montaniz

After completing his M.S. in Industrial/Organizational Psychology at Rennselaer Polytechnic Institute, Frank Montaniz interned at IBM's Thomas J. Watson Research Institute where he conducted basic research on HCI (specifically touch screen and handwriting recognition) and the description, analysis and prediction of usability problems experienced by endusers of software. Research for his master's compared usability fault prediction algorithms used by software developers and HCI professionals. After completing several internships at IBM and his Master's, Frank has worked for over 10 years in software development as a human factors specialist and organizational psychologist with Cheyenne Software (now Computer Associates).

Edit author info

← Button will not work: You have not enabled Javascript. How do I enable it?

Rename / change spelling

Add publication

← Button will not work: You have not enabled Javascript. How do I enable it?

Publications by Frank Montaniz (bibliography)

1995

Edit | Del

Montaniz, Frank and Kissel, George V. (1995): Reversing the Charges. In Interactions, 2 (3) pp. 29-33.

“Finding a business justification for a new software project is often easy. Finding the business justification for human factors activities is sometimes harder, but, as the authors show, some extra thinking about dollars and sense might pay off.”

1991

Edit | Del

Mack, Robert L. and Montaniz, Frank (1991): A Comparison of Touch and Mouse Interaction Techniques for a Graphical Windowing Software Environment. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting 1991. pp. 286-289.

“This paper reports a behavioral evaluation of touch interface techniques intended to be used with highly interactive, graphical, windowing software environments. Previous research (Mack and Lang, 1989) indicated that touch interface techniques can produce levels of task performance in such environments comparable to that obtained using conventional mouse pointing devices. The touch technology in that study enabled users to emulate the basic interactions associated with using a mouse: that is, to emulate click, double click and dragging techniques using taps, double taps and tap, hold and drag. While encouraging, problems remained, especially when the finger was used as the input device. The purpose of this study was to compare mouse and touch techniques using an alternative to mouse emulation for controlling touch interactions. Instead, users selected one of three possible touch "modes". In each mode, a simple tap (contact and lift-off) was interpreted by the software in ways corresponding to the three basic mouse interaction techniques. Performance on realistic office task scenarios using a finger and stylus touch techniques and the new touch control method, resulted in comparable performance between mouse and touch stylus when the stylus (but not mouse) was used with a tilted display. Experience with mouse pointing devices, or graphical interfaces enabling direct manipulation, did not affect performance.”

Edit | Del

Montaniz, Frank and Mack, Robert L. (1991): A Comparison of Touch Interface Techniques for a Graphical Windowing Software Environment. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting 1991. pp. 290-294.

“This paper reports a behavioral evaluation of touch interface techniques intended for use with highly interactive, graphical, windowing software environments. Previous research (Mack and Lang, 1989) indicated that touch interface techniques can produce levels of task performance in such environments comparable to that obtained using conventional mouse pointing devices. In the Mack and Lang study, touch interactions emulated mouse techniques such that single and double taps (contact and lift-off), and tap, hold and drag corresponded to mouse clicks and double-clicks, and dragging with the mouse. While the results were encouraging, problems with the touch techniques remain. The purpose of this study was to compare two alternatives to direct mouse emulation for controlling the interpretation of touch interactions using a stylus or finger as input devices. This study also evaluated two touch-tailored interface techniques: gesture-based commands and pop-up (display) keyboard. Finger performance improved to levels comparable to those for stylus when an alternative protocol for controlling interaction modes was employed. Gestures led to performance comparable to conventional menu bar and pull-down menu techniques. The pop-up keyboard significantly slowed performance.”

Add publication