Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 657

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 86 of the 86 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

A review of overview+detail, zooming, and focus+context interfaces

Cockburn, Andy, Karlson, Amy, Bederson, Benjamin B.·2009·ACM Computing Surveys
DOI 10.1145/1456650.1456652
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

There are many interface schemes that allow users to work at, and move between, focused and contextual views of a dataset. We review and categorize these schemes according to the interface mechanisms used to separate and blend views. The four approaches are overview+detail, which uses a spatial separation between focused and contextual views; zooming, which uses a temporal separation; focus+context, which minimizes the seam between views by displaying the focus within the context; and cue-based techniques which selectively highlight or suppress items within the information space. Critical features of these categories, and empirical evidence of their success, are discussed. The aim is to provide a succinct summary of the state-of-the-art, to illuminate both successful and unsuccessful interface strategies, and to identify potentially fruitful areas for further work.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/1456650.1456652

Cites

86 of 86 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Show all 86 references

Research works printed but not linked: 27

  1. 10.1145/503376.503423 · doi:10.1145/503376.503423
  2. 10.1145/989863.989883 · doi:10.1145/989863.989883
  3. 10.1145/502348.502359 · doi:10.1145/502348.502359
  4. Chen , C. 2004 . Information Visualization: Beyond the Horizon . Springer , London . Chen, C. 2004. Information Visualization: Beyond the Horizon. Springer, London.
  5. 10.1002/(SICI)1097-4571(199711)48:11%3C1067::AID-ASI8%3E3.3.CO;2-2 · doi:10.1002/(sici)1097-4571(199711)48:11<1067::aid-asi8>3.3.co;2-2
  6. Czerwinski M. and Larson K. 1997. The new Web browsers: They're cool but are they useful? In Proceedings of the British HCI Conference People and Computers XII. Springer. Czerwinski M. and Larson K. 1997. The new Web browsers: They're cool but are they useful? In Proceedings of the British HCI Conference People and Computers XII. Springer.
  7. 10.1145/1124772.1124921 · doi:10.1145/1124772.1124921
  8. 10.1145/288392.288579 · doi:10.1145/288392.288579
  9. 10.1145/223904.223934 · doi:10.1145/223904.223934
  10. 10.1145/989863.989881 · doi:10.1145/989863.989881
  11. 10.5555/647341.721211 · doi:10.5555/647341.721211
  12. Kosara , R. , Miksch , S. , and Hauser , H . 2001. Semantic depth of field . In Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Symposium on Information Visualization (InfoVis), IEEE Computer Society Press, 97--104 . Kosara, R., Miksch, S., and Hauser, H. 2001. Semantic depth of field. In Proceedings of the IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, Symposium on Information Visualization (InfoVis), IEEE Computer Society Press, 97--104.
  13. 10.1109/38.974515 · doi:10.1109/38.974515
  14. 10.1145/1120212.1120285 · doi:10.1145/1120212.1120285
  15. 10.1145/882262.882291 · doi:10.1145/882262.882291
  16. 10.1109/VLHCC.2005.11 · doi:10.1109/vlhcc.2005.11
  17. 10.1109/52.368260 · doi:10.1109/52.368260
  18. 10.1145/1556262.1556270 · doi:10.1145/1556262.1556270
  19. 10.1145/142750.142763 · doi:10.1145/142750.142763
  20. Summers , K. , Goldsmith , T. , Kubica , S. , and Caudell , T . 2003. An empirical evaluation of continuous semantic zooming in program visualization . In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization (InfoVis), 155--162 . Summers, K., Goldsmith, T., Kubica, S., and Caudell, T. 2003. An empirical evaluation of continuous semantic zooming in program visualization. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization (InfoVis), 155--162.
  21. 10.1111/j.1749-6632.1973.tb41401.x · doi:10.1111/j.1749-6632.1973.tb41401.x
  22. 10.1109/TVCG.2004.1 · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2004.1
  23. Ware , C. 2004 . Information Visualization: Perception for Design. Morgan Kaufmann , San Francisco, CA . Ware, C. 2004. Information Visualization: Perception for Design. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, CA.
  24. 10.1145/253284.253319 · doi:10.1145/253284.253319
  25. 10.1145/223355.223749 · doi:10.1145/223355.223749
  26. Woodson W. and Conover D. 1964. Human Engineering Guide for Equipment Designers. University of California Press Berkeley CA. Woodson W. and Conover D. 1964. Human Engineering Guide for Equipment Designers. University of California Press Berkeley CA. · doi:10.1525/9780520333888
  27. 10.1145/765891.766022 · doi:10.1145/765891.766022

Cited by

See all 657

Metadata

Authors
Cockburn, A., Karlson, A., & Bederson, B. B.
Venue
ACM Computing Surveys
Publisher
Association for Computing Machinery (ACM)
Published
2009-01-15
Volume
41
Issue
1
Pages
1-31
ISSN
  • 0360-0300 (ISSN-L)
  • 1557-7341
DOI
10.1145/1456650.1456652
OpenAlex
W1995923922
Cited by
657
References
86
FWCI
41.78
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
www.acm.org/publications/policies/copyright_policy#Background (vor)
Funders
Royal Society of New Zealand (07-UOC-013)

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review

How to cite

Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.

This page
CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A review of overview+detail, zooming, and focus+context interfaces. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/1456650.1456652
The paper
Cockburn, A., Karlson, A., & Bederson, B. B. (2009). A review of overview+detail, zooming, and focus+context interfaces. ACM Computing Surveys. https://doi.org/10.1145/1456650.1456652

Data sources

Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.

Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).

Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.