Cited by 50Interactive and Immersive DisplaysUsability and User Interface DesignData Visualization and Analytics

Testing the robustness and performance of spatially consistent interfaces

Open access
Scarr, Joey, Cockburn, Andy, Gutwin, Carl, Malacria, Sylvain·2013·Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Abstract

Relative spatial consistency - that is, the stable arrangement of objects in a 2D presentation - provides several benefits for interactive interfaces. Spatial consistency allows users to develop memory of object locations, reducing the time needed for visual search, and because spatial memory is long lasting and has a large capacity these performance benefits are enduring and scalable. This suggests that spatial consistency could be used as a fundamental principle for the design of interfaces. However, there are many display situations where the standard presentation is altered in some way: e.g., a window is moved to a new location, scaled, or rotated on a mobile or tabletop display. It is not known whether the benefits of spatial organization are robust to these common kinds of view transformation. To assess these effects, we tested user performance with a spatial interface that had been transformed in several ways, including different degrees of translation, rotation, scaling, and perspective change. We found that performance was not strongly affected by the changes, except in the case of large rotations. To demonstrate the value of spatial consistency over existing mechanisms for dealing with view changes, we compared user performance with a spatially-stable presentation (using scaling) with that of a 'reflowing' presentation (widely used in current interfaces). This study showed that spatial stability with scaling dramatically outperforms reflowing. This research provides new evidence of spatial consistency's value in interface design: it is robust to the view transformations that occur in typical environments, and it provides substantial performance advantages over traditional methods.

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 · 10.1145/2470654.2466430

Cites

34 of 34 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • Scarr et al. found that users were able to quickly locate items in spatially stable views that had undergone a uniform spatial transformation.

    “Scarr et al. [2013] examined the robustness of users' spatial memory to various forms of spatial transformation (including scaling) and found that users were able to quickly locate items in spatially stable views that had undergone a uniform spatial transformation.”

    From Supporting Novice to Expert Transitions in User Interfaces (2015) · cites this paper as Scarr et al. [2013]

Self-check

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

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

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 35 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Scarr, J., Cockburn, A., Gutwin, C., & Malacria, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Canterbury (NZ)
  • University of Saskatchewan (CA)
Venue
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Publisher
ACM
Published
2013-04-27
Pages
3139-3148
OpenAlex
W2105123831
Cited by
50
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 2 · 2024: 4 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 3 · 2020: 6 · 2019: 1 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 3 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 5 · 2014: 4 · 2013: 1 · 2012: 1
FWCI
3.16
Type
conference paper
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
  • HAL (submittedVersion, other-oa)
  • Libraries and Cultural Resources (University of Calgary) (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Interactive and Immersive Displays
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Computer Vision and Pattern Recognition › Data Visualization and Analytics
Keywords
spatial consistency, spatial memory, visual search, view transformation, scaling, rotation, perspective shift, interface design, object location memory, mobile displays, tabletop displays

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