Publication statistics
Pub. period:1989-2012
Pub. count:7
Number of co-authors:13
Co-authors
Number of publications with 3 favourite co-authors:
P. Farrell:2M. Taylor:2H. Thiruvengada:1 Productive colleagues
J. G. Hollands's 3 most productive colleagues in number of publications:
T. T. Carey:9Byron J. Pierce:3M. Taylor:3
“
For a list of all the ways technology has failed to improve the quality of life, please press three.
”
-- Alice Kahn
Featured chapter
Read the fascinating history of Wearable Computing, told by its father, Steve Mann
Read Steve's chapter !
J. G. Hollands
Publications by J. G. Hollands (bibliography)
Grier, R. A., Thiruvengada, H., Ellis, S. R., Havig, P., Hale, K. S. and Hollands, J. G. (2012): Augmented Reality -- Implications toward Virtual Reality, Human Perception and Performance. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 2012 Annual Meeting 2012. pp. 1351-1355.
“Augmented reality (AR) is defined as 'a live direct or an indirect view of a physical, real-world environment whose elements are augmented by computer-generated sensory input, such as sound, graphics or GPS data.' It is not uncommon to come face-to-face with smart devices that are equipped with multiple embedded sensory inputs such as mega pixel camera, microphones, speakers, high definition (e.g. Retina) displays, 3D displays, holographic displays and pico-projection technologies. Such technology has enabled application designers and developers to package information succinctly and efficiently without loss of clarity. Recently, AR applications (e.g. iPhone World Lens, Google goggles) have drawn mainstream attention. The military also has programs that represent a leap forward (e.g. DARPA Sandblaster program). These advances in AR have been influenced by developments in variety of technologies including low cost of advanced processors, light weight displays, ubiquitous computing afforded by omnipresent devices such as smart phones, tablets, etc. However, there are currently no human factors standards to aid the development. These technologies have great potential to enhance our abilities, but there is also the risk that they represent an annoyance or a significant safety risk. Specifically, improper system lag, reliability, display design (e.g., clutter or resolution) could lead to errors. The goal of this session is to discuss what research is needed to define these standards. It is likely that there is no one set of standards, but developing a framework for these standards will go a long way towards bridging the research-application gap.”
© All rights reserved Grier et al. and/or Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
Hollands, J. G. (2002): Book review. In Behaviour and Information Technology, 21 (3) pp. 231-233.
Farrell, P., Hollands, J. G., Taylor, M. and Gamble, H. (1999): Perceptual Control and Layered protocols in Interface Design: I. Fundamental Concepts. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 50 (6) pp. 489-520.
“Perceptual Control Theory (PCT) is a general psychological theory based on the tenet, "All behaviour is the control of perception". Layered Protocol Theory (LPT) can be seen as PCT applied to the special case of communication between cooperating partners, both controlling their own perceptions. PCT and LPT can be applied to the design and analysis of human x machine interfaces, although LPT may be more tractable in many cases. LPT is discussed in the context of the analysis and redesign of the interaction between a pilot and a Control Display Unit (CDU) in an operational helicopter.”
© All rights reserved Farrell et al. and/or Academic Press
Taylor, M., Farrell, P. and Hollands, J. G. (1999): Perceptual Control and Layered Protocols in Interface Design: II. The General Protocol Grammar. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 50 (6) pp. 521-555.
“Perceptual control theory (PCT) is a framework theory for psychology, based on the tenet "All behaviour is the control of perception." Layered protocol theory (LPT) is PCT applied to the special case of communication between cooperating partners, each controlling their own perceptions and many levels of abstraction within a dialogue. This paper discusses some perceptual control processes that occur within a single dialogue level, in the form of a General Protocol Grammar that is asserted to be valid for every level of every dialogue. A companion paper is concerned with LPT applied to the design and analysis of human-machine interfaces.”
© All rights reserved Taylor et al. and/or Academic Press
Hollands, J. G., Pierce, Byron J. and Magee, Lochlan E. (1995): Displaying Quantitative Information in Two and Three Dimensions. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting 1995. pp. 1425-1429.
“Subjects made trend and difference estimates in an experiment with three display types: two-dimensional (2D), three-dimensional with monocular cues (3D mono), and three-dimensional with monocular cues and stereopsis (3D stereo). The results showed a general accuracy advantage for 2D displays, even for global trend estimates. Binocular stereopsis appeared to provide a slight advantage in accuracy for trend estimation. The data are partially consistent with the predictions of the Proximity Compatibility Principle. Possible mental operations used with the various displays are discussed.”
© All rights reserved Hollands et al. and/or Human Factors Society
Hollands, J. G. (1992): Alignment, Scaling, and Size Effects in Discrimination of Graphical Elements. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting 1992. pp. 1393-1397.
“Recent work in graphical perception has attempted to identify the mental operations used by an observer when extracting information from a graphical display (e.g., Hollands and Spence, in press; Simkin and Hastie, 1987). The current research varied the alignment, scaling, and size of proportions shown in pie charts and divided bar graphs. Subjects were required to discriminate between two proportions (i.e., which proportion is larger?), each shown relative to its own whole. Response times and errors were measured. Results from Experiment 1 show that for both pies and divided bars, the time penalty for discriminating unaligned proportions was dependent on the size difference between the two proportions, with a greater penalty with a smaller percent difference. Results from Experiment 2 show that different scaling slowed subjects considerably, especially when the size difference was small, and especially with divided bars. The results are interpreted in terms of hypothesized alignment, scaling, and discrimination operations. The practical implications for graphical design are also discussed.”
© All rights reserved Hollands and/or Human Factors Society
Hollands, J. G., Carey, T. T., Matthews, M. L. and McCann, C. A. (1989): Presenting a Graphical Network: A Comparison of Performance Using Fisheye and Scrolling Views. In: Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction 1989. pp. 313-320.
“We have experimented with the impact of a fisheye view on graphical presentations for topographic networks. Subjects selected optimal routes between stations on a fictional subway network, using either a scrolling view or a fisheye view. Performance using a fisheye view was superior when the destination station was not visible in the initial display; performance with scrolling was superior when both stations were visible and when more complex itineraries were required. Scrolling performance improved over time with two-station routes; the fisheye performance improved in the (later) itinerary task.”
© All rights reserved Hollands et al. and/or Lawrence Erlbaum Associates
Show this list on your homepage
Join the technology elite and advance:
Changes to this page (author)
10 Nov 2012: Added26 Feb 2010: Modified28 Jun 2007: Added
27 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
28 Apr 2003: Added
Page Information
Page maintainer:
The Editorial Team
URL: http://www.interaction-design.org/references/authors/j__g__hollands.html
Log in !
