Miguel A. Nacenta
Has also published under the name of:
"Miguel Nacenta"
Personal Homepage:
http://nacenta.comCurrent place of employment:
University of Calgary Miguel is a Ph.D. candidate at the Interaction Lab, University of Saskatchewan. His research is mostly focused on Multi-display Environments and Co-located collaboration.
Publications by Miguel A. Nacenta (bibliography)
Ledo, David, Nacenta, Miguel A., Marquardt, Nicolai, Boring, Sebastian and Greenberg, Saul (2012): The HapticTouch toolkit: enabling exploration of haptic interactions. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction 2012. pp. 115-122.
“In the real world, touch based interaction relies on haptic feedback (e.g., grasping objects, feeling textures). Unfortunately, such feedback is absent in current tabletop systems. The previously developed Haptic Tabletop Puck (HTP) aims at supporting experimentation with and development of inexpensive tabletop haptic interfaces in a do-it-yourself fashion. The problem is that programming the HTP (and haptics in general) is difficult. To address this problem, we contribute the Haptictouch toolkit, which enables developers to rapidly prototype haptic tabletop applications. Our toolkit is structured in three layers that enable programmers to: (1) directly control the device, (2) create customized combinable haptic behaviors (e.g., softness, oscillation), and (3) use visuals (e.g., shapes, images, buttons) to quickly make use of these behaviors. In our preliminary exploration we found that programmers could use our toolkit to create haptic tabletop applications in a short amount of time.”
© All rights reserved Ledo et al. and/or ACM Press
Xiao, Robert, Nacenta, Miguel A., Mandryk, Regan L., Cockburn, Andy and Gutwin, Carl (2011): Ubiquitous cursor: a comparison of direct and indirect pointing feedback in multi-display environments. In: Proceedings of the 2011 Conference on Graphics Interface 2011. pp. 135-142.
“Multi-display environments (MDEs) connect several displays into a single digital workspace. One of the main problems to be solved in an MDE's design is how to enable movement of objects from one display to another. When the real-world space between displays is modeled as part of the workspace (i.e., Mouse Ether), it becomes difficult for users to keep track of their cursors during a transition between displays. To address this problem, we developed the Ubiquitous Cursor system, which uses a projector and a hemispherical mirror to completely cover the interior of a room with usable low-resolution pixels. Ubiquitous Cursor allows us to provide direct feedback about the location of the cursor between displays. To assess the effectiveness of this direct-feedback approach, we carried out a study that compared Ubiquitous Cursor with two other standard approaches: Halos, which provide indirect feedback about the cursor's location; and Stitching, which warps the cursor between displays, similar to the way that current operating systems address multiple monitors. Our study tested simple cross-display pointing tasks in an MDE; the results showed that Ubiquitous Cursor was significantly faster than both other approaches. Our work shows the feasibility and the value of providing direct feedback for cross-display movement, and adds to our understanding of the principles underlying targeting performance in MDEs.”
© All rights reserved Xiao et al. and/or their publisher
Jota, Ricardo, Nacenta, Miguel A., Jorge, Joaquim A., Carpendale, Sheelagh and Greenberg, Saul (2010): A comparison of ray pointing techniques for very large displays. In: Proceedings of the 2010 Conference on Graphics Interface 2010. pp. 269-276.
“Ray-pointing techniques are often advocated as a way for people to interact with very large displays from several meters away. We are interested in two factors that can affect ray pointing: the particular technique's control type, and parallax. Consequently, we tested four ray pointing variants on a wall display that covers a large part of the user's field of view. Tasks included horizontal and vertical targeting, and tracing. Our results show that (a) techniques based on 'rotational control' perform better for targeting tasks, and (b) techniques with low parallax are best for tracing tasks. We also show that a Fitts's law analysis based on angles (as opposed to linear distances) better approximates people's ray pointing performance.”
© All rights reserved Jota et al. and/or their publisher
Schmidt, Sebastian, Nacenta, Miguel A., Dachselt, Raimund and Carpendale, Sheelagh (2010): A set of multi-touch graph interaction techniques. In: ITS 10 ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces 2010, Saarbrücken, Germany. pp. 113-116.
“Interactive node-link diagrams are useful for describing and exploring data relationships in many domains such as network analysis and transportation planning. We describe a multi-touch interaction technique set (IT set) that focuses on edge interactions for node-link diagrams. The set includes five techniques (TouchPlucking, TouchPinning, TouchStrumming, TouchBundling and PushLens) and provides the flexibility to combine them in either sequential or simultaneous actions in order to address edge congestion.”
© All rights reserved Schmidt et al. and/or ACM Press
Vlaming, Luc, Collins, Christopher, Hancock, Mark, Nacenta, Miguel A., Isenberg, Tobias and Carpendale, Sheelagh (2010): Integrating 2D mouse emulation with 3D manipulation for visualizations on a multi-touch table. In: ITS 10 ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces 2010, Saarbrücken, Germany. pp. 221-230.
“We present the Rizzo, a multi-touch virtual mouse that has been designed to provide the fine grained interaction for information visualization on a multi-touch table. Our solution enables touch interaction for existing mouse-based visualizations. Previously, this transition to a multi-touch environment was difficult because the mouse emulation of touch surfaces is often insufficient to provide full information visualization functionality. We present a unified design, combining many Rizzos that have been designed not only to provide mouse capabilities but also to act as zoomable lenses that make precise information access feasible. The Rizzos and the information visualizations all exist within a touch-enabled 3D window management system. Our approach permits touch interaction with both the 3D windowing environment as well as with the contents of the individual windows contained therein. We describe an implementation of our technique that augments the VisLink 3D visualization environment to demonstrate how to enable multi-touch capabilities on all visualizations written with the popular prefuse visualization toolkit.”
© All rights reserved Vlaming et al. and/or ACM Press
Nacenta, Miguel A., Pinelle, David, Gutwin, Carl and Mandryk, Regan (2010): Individual and Group Support in Tabletop Interaction Techniques. In: Müller-Tomfelde, Thomas (ed.). "Tabletops - Horizontal Interactive Displays". London: pp. 303-333
“A wide range of interaction techniques have been proposed for digital table systems. These techniques can vary in several ways – for example, some can manipulate objects from afar, whereas others require direct touch; some visually connect the cursor to the position of the user, whereas others simply assign different colours to different users. The differences in the way that these techniques are designed can lead to different experiences for the people around the table – particularly in terms of the support that is provided for either a person’s individual actions or the group’s overall aims. This chapter explores this issue – the ways that the design of an interaction technique can affect individual and group processes – and provides a detailed discussion of the design tradeoffs seen in selecting interaction techniques for tables. To organize the design space, we identify three perspectives (that of the action, the individual, and the group) that highlight different aspects of an interaction technique’s design, and six criteria (performance, power, awareness, coordination, use of space, and preference) that allow assessment of a technique’s support for individual and group concerns. We discuss the ways that different designs affect the six criteria, using empirical evidence from our own and others’ previous experiments. Through this analysis, we demonstrate that different design decisions can have a large impact on people’s experience in a tabletop task, and that designers should assess individual and group needs before selecting interaction techniques for tabletop groupware systems. ”
© All rights reserved Nacenta et al. and/or their publisher
Pinelle, David, Barjawi, Mutasem, Nacenta, Miguel A. and Mandryk, Regan (2009): An evaluation of coordination techniques for protecting objects and territories in tabletop groupware. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI 2009 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2009. pp. 2129-2138.
“Indirect input techniques allow users to quickly access all parts of tabletop workspaces without the need for physical access; however, indirect techniques restrict the available social cues that are seen on direct touch tables. This reduced awareness results in impoverished coordination; for example, the number of conflicts might increase since users are more likely to interact with objects that another person is planning to use. Conflicts may also arise because indirect techniques reduce territorial behavior, expanding the interaction space of each collaborator. In this paper, we introduce three new tabletop coordination techniques designed to reduce conflicts arising from indirect input, while still allowing users the flexibility of distant object control. Two techniques were designed to promote territoriality and to allow users to protect objects when they work near their personal areas, and the third technique lets users set their protection levels dynamically. We present the results of an evaluation, which shows that people prefer techniques that automatically provide protection for personal territories, and that these techniques also increase territorial behavior.”
© All rights reserved Pinelle et al. and/or ACM Press
Hancock, Mark S., Nacenta, Miguel A., Gutwin, Carl and Carpendale, Sheelagh (2009): The Effects of Changing Projection Geometry on the Interprestation of 3D Orientation on Tabletops. In: Proceedings of Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces Tabletop 2009, Banff, Canada. pp. 175-182.
Marquardt, Nicolai, Nacenta, Miguel A., Young, James E., Carpendale, Sheelagh, Greenberg, Saul and Sharlin, Ehud (2009): The Haptic Tabletop Puck: Tactile Feedback for Interactive Tabletops. In: Proceedings of Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces, Tabletop 2009, Banff, Canada. .
Nacenta, Miguel A., Baudisch, Patrick, Benko, Hrvoje and Wilson, Andy (2009): Separability of Spatial Manipulations in Multi-touch Interfaces. In: Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2009, Kelowna, Canada. pp. 175-182.
Pinelle, David, Barjawi, Mutasem, Nacenta, Miguel A. and Mandryk, Regan L. (2009): An Evaluation of Coordination Techniques for Protecting Objects and Territories in Tabletop Groupware. In: Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems CHI 2009 2009, Boston, MA, USA. pp. 2129-2138.
Nacenta, Miguel A., Gutwin, Carl, Aliakseyeu, Dima and Subramanian, Sriram (2009): There and Back again: Cross-Display Object Movement in Multi-Display Environments. In Human-Computer Interaction, 24 (1) pp. 170-229.
Marquardt, Nicolai, Nacenta, Miguel A., Young, James E., Carpendale, Sheelagh, Greenberg, Saul and Sharlin, Ehud (2009): The Haptic Tabletop Puck: tactile feedback for interactive tabletops. In: Proceedings of the 2009 ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces 2009. pp. 85-92.
“In everyday life, our interactions with objects on real tables include how our fingertips feel those objects. In comparison, current digital interactive tables present a uniform touch surface that feels the same, regardless of what it presents visually. In this paper, we explore how tactile interaction can be used with digital tabletop surfaces. We present a simple and inexpensive device -- the Haptic Tabletop Puck -- that incorporates dynamic, interactive haptics into tabletop interaction. We created several applications that explore tactile feedback in the area of haptic information visualization, haptic graphical interfaces, and computer supported collaboration. In particular, we focus on how a person may interact with the friction, height, texture and malleability of digital objects.”
© All rights reserved Marquardt et al. and/or their publisher
Marquardt, Nicolai, Nacenta, Miguel A., Young, James E., Carpendale, Sheelagh, Greenberg, Saul and Sharlin, Ehud (2009): The Haptic Tabletop Puck: the video. In: Proceedings of the 2009 ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces 2009. p. D2.
“In everyday life, our interactions with objects on real tables include how our fingertips feel those objects. In comparison, current digital interactive tables present a uniform touch surface that feels the same, regardless of what it presents visually. In this video, we demonstrate how tactile interaction can be used with digital tabletop surfaces. We present a simple and inexpensive device -- the Haptic Tabletop Puck -- that incorporates dynamic, interactive haptics into tabletop interaction. We created several applications that explore tactile feedback in the area of haptic information visualization, haptic graphical interfaces, and computer supported collaboration. In particular, we focus on how a person may interact with the friction, height, texture and malleability of digital objects.”
© All rights reserved Marquardt et al. and/or their publisher
Nacenta, Miguel A., Baudisch, Patrick, Benko, Hrvoje and Wilson, Andy (2009): Separability of spatial manipulations in multi-touch interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 2009 Conference on Graphics Interface 2009. pp. 175-182.
“Multi-touch interfaces allow users to translate, rotate, and scale digital objects in a single interaction. However, this freedom represents a problem when users intend to perform only a subset of manipulations. A user trying to scale an object in a print layout program, for example, might find that the object was also slightly translated and rotated, interfering with what was already carefully laid out earlier. We implemented and tested interaction techniques that allow users to select a subset of manipulations. Magnitude Filtering eliminates transformations (e.g., rotation) that are small in magnitude. Gesture Matching attempts to classify the user's input into a subset of manipulation gestures. Handles adopts a conventional single-touch handles approach for touch input. Our empirical study showed that these techniques significantly reduce errors in layout, while the Handles technique was slowest. A variation of the Gesture Matching technique presented the best combination of speed and control, and was favored by participants.”
© All rights reserved Nacenta et al. and/or their publisher
Nacenta, Miguel A., Gutwin, Carl, Aliakseyeu, Dzmitry and Subramanian, Sriram (2009): There and Back Again: Cross-Display Object Movement in Multi-Display Environments. In Human-Computer Interaction, 24 (1) pp. 170-229.
“Multi-display environments (MDEs) are now becoming common, and are becoming more complex, with more displays and more types of display in the environment. One crucial requirement specific to MDEs is that users must be able to move objects from one display to another; this cross-display movement is a frequent and fundamental part of interaction in any application that spans two or more display surfaces. Although many cross-display movement techniques exist, the differences between MDEs -- the number, location, and mixed orientation of displays, and the characteristics of the task they are being designed for -- require that interaction techniques be chosen carefully to match the constraints of the particular environment. As a way to facilitate interaction design in MDEs, we present a taxonomy that classifies cross-display object movement techniques according to three dimensions: the referential domain that determines how displays are selected, the relationship of the input space to the display configuration, and the control paradigm for executing the movement. These dimensions are based on a descriptive model of the task of cross-display object movement. The taxonomy also provides an analysis of current research that designers and researchers can use to understand the differences between categories of interaction techniques.”
© All rights reserved Nacenta et al. and/or Taylor and Francis
Nacenta, Miguel A., Mandryk, Regan L. and Gutwin, Carl (2008): Targeting across displayless space. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI 2008 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems April 5-10, 2008. pp. 777-786.
“Multi-monitor displays and multi-display environments are now common. Cross-display cursor movement, in which a user moves the pointer from one display to another, occurs frequently in these settings. There are several techniques for supporting this kind of movement, and these differ in the way that they deal with displayless space (the physical space between displays). Stitching is the method used by most operating systems; in this technique, the cursor jumps from the edge of one display directly into the next display. In contrast, Mouse Ether maps the motor space of the mouse exactly to the physical space of the displays, meaning that the cursor has to travel across displayless space until it reaches the next display. To determine which of these approaches is best for cross-display movement, we carried out a study comparing Stitching, Mouse Ether, and a variant of Mouse Ether with Halo for off-screen feedback. We found that Stitching is equivalent to or faster than any variant of Mouse Ether, and that Halo improves Ether's performance (but not enough to outperform Stitching). Results also indicate that the larger the gap between displays, the longer the targeting takes -- even for Stitching. These findings provide valuable guidance for practitioners and raise new interesting questions for research.”
© All rights reserved Nacenta et al. and/or ACM Press
Pinelle, David, Nacenta, Miguel A., Gutwin, Carl and Stach, Tadeusz (2008): The Effects of Co-Present Embodiments on Awareness and Collaboration in Tabletop Groupware. In: Proceedings of the 2008 Conference on Graphics Interface May 28-30, 2008, Windsor, Ontario, Canada. pp. 1-8.
“Most current tabletop groupware systems use direct touch, where people manipulate objects by touching them with a pen or a fingertip. The use of people's real arms and hands provides obvious awareness information, but workspace access is limited by the user's reach. Relative input techniques, where users manipulate a cursor rather than touching objects directly, allow users to reach all areas of the table. However, the only available awareness information comes from the virtual embodiment of the user (e.g., their cursor). This presents designers with a tradeoff: direct-touch techniques have advantages for group awareness; relative input techniques offer additional power but less awareness information. In this paper, we explore this tradeoff, and we explore the design space of virtual embodiments to determine whether factors such as size, realism, and visibility can improve awareness and coordination. We conducted a study in which seven groups carried out a picture-categorizing task using seven techniques: direct touch and relative input with six different virtual embodiments. Our results provide both valuable information to designers of tabletop groupware, and a number of new directions for future research.”
© All rights reserved Pinelle et al. and/or their publisher
Bateman, Scott, Gutwin, Carl and Nacenta, Miguel A. (2008): Seeing things in the clouds: the effect of visual features on tag cloud selections. In: Proceedings of the Nineteenth ACM Conference on Hypertext and Hypermedia 2008. pp. 193-202.
“Tag clouds are a popular method for visualizing and linking socially-organized information on websites. Tag clouds represent variables of interest (such as popularity) in the visual appearance of the keywords themselves -- using text properties such as font size, weight, or colour. Although tag clouds are becoming common, there is still little information about which visual features of tags draw the attention of viewers. As tag clouds attempt to represent a wider range of variables with a wider range of visual properties, it becomes difficult to predict what will appear visually important to a viewer. To investigate this issue, we carried out an exploratory study that asked users to select tags from clouds that manipulated nine visual properties. Our results show that font size and font weight have stronger effects than intensity, number of characters, or tag area; but when several visual properties are manipulated at once, there is no one property that stands out above the others. This study adds to the understanding of how visual properties of text capture the attention of users, indicates general guidelines for designers of tag clouds, and provides a study paradigm and starting points for future studies. In addition, our findings may be applied more generally to the visual presentation of textual hyperlinks as a way to provide more information to web navigators.”
© All rights reserved Bateman et al. and/or ACM Press
Sakurai, Satoshi, Itoh, Yuichi, Kitamura, Yoshifumi, Nacenta, Miguel A., Yamaguchi, Tokuo, Subramanian, Sriram and Kishino, Fumio (2008): A Middleware for Seamless Use of Multiple Displays. In: Graham, T. C. Nicholas and Palanque, Philippe A. (eds.) DSV-IS 2008 - Interactive Systems. Design, Specification, and Verification, 15th International Workshop July 16-18, 2008, Kingston, Canada. pp. 252-266.
Sakurai, Satoshi, Yamaguchi, Tokuo, Kitamura, Yoshifumi, Itoh, Yuichi, Fukazawa, Ryo, Kishino, Fumio, Nacenta, Miguel A. and Subramanian, Sriram (2008): M3: multi-modal interface in multi-display environment for multi-users. In: ACM SIGGRAPH ASIA artgallery emerging technologies 2008, Singapore. p. 45.
Nacenta, Miguel A., Pinelle, David, Stuckel, Dane and Gutwin, Carl (2007): The effects of interaction technique on coordination in tabletop groupware. In: Proceedings of the 2007 Conference on Graphics Interface 2007. pp. 191-198.
“The interaction techniques that are used in tabletop groupware systems (such as pick-and-drop or pantograph) can affect the way that people collaborate. However, little is known about these effects, making it difficult for designers to choose appropriate techniques when building tabletop groupware. We carried out an exploratory study to determine how several different types of interaction techniques (pantograph, telepointers, radar views, drag-and-drop, and laser beam) affected coordination and awareness in two tabletop tasks (a game and a storyboarding activity). We found that the choice of interaction technique significantly affected coordination measures, performance measures, and preference -- but that the effects were different for the two different tasks. Our study shows that the choice of tabletop interaction technique does indeed matter, and provides insight into how tabletop systems can better support group work.”
© All rights reserved Nacenta et al. and/or Canadian Information Processing Society
Nacenta, Miguel A., Sakurai, Satoshi, Yamaguchi, Tokuo, Miki, Yohei, Itoh, Yuichi, Kitamura, Yoshifumi, Subramanian, Sriram and Gutwin, Carl (2007): E-conic: a perspective-aware interface for multi-display environments. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology October 7-10, 2007, Newport, Rhode Island, USA. pp. 279-288.
“Multi-display environments compose displays that can be at different locations from and different angles to the user; as a result, it can become very difficult to manage windows, read text, and manipulate objects. We investigate the idea of perspective as a way to solve these problems in multi-display environments. We first identify basic display and control factors that are affected by perspective, such as visibility, fracture, and sharing. We then present the design and implementation of E-conic, a multi-display multi-user environment that uses location data about displays and users to dynamically correct perspective. We carried out a controlled experiment to test the benefits of perspective correction in basic interaction tasks like targeting, steering, aligning, pattern-matching and reading. Our results show that perspective correction significantly and substantially improves user performance in all these tasks.”
© All rights reserved Nacenta et al. and/or ACM Press
Nacenta, Miguel A., Sallam, Samer, Champoux, Bernard, Subramanian, Sriram and Gutwin, Carl (2006): Perspective cursor: perspective-based interaction for multi-display environments. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI 2006 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2006. pp. 289-298.
“Multi-display environments and smart meeting rooms are now becoming more common. These environments build a shared display space from variety of devices: tablets, projected surfaces, tabletops, and traditional monitors. Since the different display surfaces are usually not organized in a single plane, traditional schemes for stitching the displays together can cause problems for interaction. However, there is a more natural way to compose display space -- using perspective. In this paper, we develop interaction techniques for multi-display environments that are based on the user's perspective on the room. We designed the Perspective Cursor, a mapping of cursor to display space that appears natural and logical from wherever the user is located. We conducted an experiment to compare two perspective-based techniques, the Perspective Cursor and a beam-based technique, with traditional stitched displays. We found that both perspective techniques were significantly faster for targeting tasks than the traditional technique, and that Perspective Cursor was the most preferred method. Our results show that integrating perspective into the design of multi-display environments can substantially improve performance.”
© All rights reserved Nacenta et al. and/or ACM Press
Reetz, Adrian, Gutwin, Carl, Stach, Tadeusz, Nacenta, Miguel A. and Subramanian, Sriram (2006): Superflick: a natural and efficient technique for long-distance object placement on digital tables. In: Proceedings of the 2006 Conference on Graphics Interface 2006. pp. 163-170.
“Moving objects past arms' reach is a common action in both real-world and digital tabletops. In the real world, the most common way to accomplish this task is by throwing or sliding the object across the table. Sliding is natural, easy to do, and fast: however, in digital tabletops, few existing techniques for long-distance movement bear any resemblance to these real-world motions. We have designed and evaluated two tabletop interaction techniques that closely mimic the action of sliding an object across the table. Flick is an open-loop technique that is extremely fast. Superflick is based on Flick, but adds a correction step to improve accuracy for small targets. We carried out two user studies to compare these techniques to a fast and accurate proxy-based technique, the radar view. In the first study, we found that Flick is significantly faster than the radar for large targets, but is inaccurate for small targets. In the second study, we found no differences between Superflick and radar for either time or accuracy. Given the simplicity and learnability of flicking, our results suggest that throwing-based techniques have promise for improving the usability of digital tables.”
© All rights reserved Reetz et al. and/or Canadian Information Processing Society
Aliakseyeu, Dzmitry, Nacenta, Miguel A., Subramanian, Sriram and Gutwin, Carl (2006): Bubble radar: efficient pen-based interaction. In: Celentano, Augusto (ed.) AVI 2006 - Proceedings of the working conference on Advanced visual interfaces May 23-26, 2006, Venezia, Italy. pp. 19-26.
Nacenta, Miguel A., Aliakseyeu, Dzmitry, Subramanian, Sriram and Gutwin, Carl (2005): A comparison of techniques for multi-display reaching. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI 2005 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2005. pp. 371-380.
“Recent advances in multi-user collaboration have seen a proliferation of interaction techniques for moving digital objects from one device to another. However, little is known about how these techniques work in realistic situations, or how they compare to one another. We conducted a study to compare the efficiency of six techniques for moving objects from a tablet to a tabletop display. We compared the techniques in four different distance ranges and with three movement directions. We found that techniques like the Radar View and Pick-and-Drop, that have a control-to-display ratio of 1, are significantly faster for object movement than techniques that have smaller control-to-display ratios. We also found that using spatial manipulation of objects was faster than pressure-based manipulation.”
© All rights reserved Nacenta et al. and/or ACM Press
Show this list on your homepage
Changes to this page (author)
05 Apr 2012: Added04 Apr 2012: Added18 Apr 2011: Modified
18 Apr 2011: Added
11 Apr 2011: Added
11 Apr 2011: Added
11 Apr 2011: Modified
11 Apr 2011: Modified
11 Apr 2011: Modified
16 Jan 2011: Added
18 Nov 2010: Added
03 Nov 2010: Added
03 Nov 2010: Added
03 Nov 2010: Added
19 Feb 2010: Modified
18 Feb 2010: Modified
05 Feb 2010: Modified
18 Jan 2010: Modified
18 Jan 2010: Added
18 Jan 2010: Modified
18 Jan 2010: Added
18 Jan 2010: Modified
18 Jan 2010: Added
18 Jan 2010: Modified
18 Jan 2010: Added
18 Jan 2010: Modified
18 Jan 2010: Added
18 Jan 2010: Modified
18 Jan 2010: Added
20 Jul 2009: Added
17 Jun 2009: Added
09 May 2009: Added
08 Apr 2009: Added
04 Apr 2009: Modified
12 May 2008: Added
12 May 2008: Added
12 May 2008: Added
12 May 2008: Added
06 Nov 2007: Modified
06 Nov 2007: Added
30 Sep 2007: Modified
27 Sep 2007: Modified
25 Jul 2007: Added
29 Jun 2007: Added
23 Jun 2007: Added
19 Jun 2007: Added
Page Information
Page maintainer:
The Editorial TeamHow to cite/reference this page
URL: http://www.interaction-design.org/references/authors/miguel_a__nacenta.html
