Advertisement

User Interfaces for On-Line Diagram Recognition

  • Dorothea Blostein
  • Ed Lank
  • Arlis Rose
  • Richard Zanibbi
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2390)

Abstract

The user interface is critical to the success of a diagram recognition system. It is difficult to define precise goals for a user interface, and even more difficult to quantify performance of a user interface. In this paper, we discuss some of the many research questions related to user interfaces in diagram recognition systems. We relate experiences we have gathered during the construction of two on-line diagram recognition systems, one for UML (Unified Modeling Language) notation and the other for mathematical notation. The goal of this paper is to encourage discussion. The graphics recognition community needs strategies and criteria for designing, implementing, and evaluating user interfaces.

Keywords

diagram recognition graphics recognition user interfaces 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. [1]
    J. Arvo, K. Novins, “Smart Text: A Synthesis of Recognition and Morphing,” Proc. AAAI Spring Symposium on Smart Graphics, Stanford, Cal., March 2000, 140–147.Google Scholar
  2. [2]
    S. Bagley, G. Kopec, “Editing Images of Text,” Communications of the ACM, 37(4), Dec. 1994, 63–72.Google Scholar
  3. [3]
    D. Blostein, L. Haken, “The Lime Music Editor: A Diagram Editor Involving Complex Translations,” Software-Practice and Experience, 24(3), March 1994, 289–306.Google Scholar
  4. [4]
    D. Blostein, L. Haken, “Using Diagram Generation Software to Improve Diagram Recognition: A Case Study of Music Notation,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 21(11), Nov. 1999, 1121–1136.Google Scholar
  5. [5]
    K. Brooks, “Lilac: A Two-View Document Editor,” IEEE Computer, June 1991, 7–19.Google Scholar
  6. [6]
    M. Brown, “Zeus: A System for Algorithm Animation and Multi-View Editing,” Proc. IEEE Workshop on Visual Languages, Kobe, Japan, Oct. 1991, 4–9.Google Scholar
  7. [7]
    J. Carroll, editor, Scenario-Based Design: Envisioning Work and Technology in System Development, John Wiley, 1995.Google Scholar
  8. [8]
    HCI journals: ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction; International Journal of Man-Machine Studies; Human-Computer Interaction; Behavior and Information Technology; Human Factors.Google Scholar
  9. [9]
    W. Cushman, P. Ojha, C. Daniels, “Usable OCR: What are the Minimum Performance Requirements?,” Proc. ACM SIGCHI 1990 Conf. Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seattle, Washington, April 1990, 145–151.Google Scholar
  10. [10]
    C. Damm, K. Hansen, M. Thomsen, “Tool Support for Cooperative Object-Oriented Design: Gesture Based Modeling on an Electronic Whiteboard,” Proc. CHI 2000, The Hague, Netherlands, April 2000, 518–525 See also http://www.daimi.au.dk/~knight/.
  11. [11]
    D. Diaper, “Task Observation for Human-Computer Interaction,” in D. Diaper, editor, Task Analysis for Human-Computer Interaction, Ellis Horwood, 1989, 210–237.Google Scholar
  12. [12]
    T. C. N. Graham, L. Watts, G. Calvary, J. Coutaz, E. Dubois, L. Nigay, “A Dimension Space for the Design of Interactive Systems Within their Physical Environments,” Proc. Designing Interactive Systems (DIS 2000), 2000, 406–416.Google Scholar
  13. [13]
    M. Gross, E. Do, “Ambiguous Intentions: a Paper-like Interface for Creative Design,” Proc. Ninth Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST’96), Seattle, Washington, Nov. 1996, 183–192.Google Scholar
  14. [14]
    K. Höök, “Designing and Evaluating Intelligent User Interfaces,” Proc. 1998 ACM Int’l Conf. Intelligent User Interfaces, San Francisco, California, 1998, 5–6.Google Scholar
  15. [15]
    R. Hsu, W. Mitchell, “After 400 Years, Print is Still Superior,” Communications of the ACM, 40(10), Oct. 1997, 27–28.Google Scholar
  16. [16]
    L. Julia, C. Faure, “Pattern Recognition and Beautification for a Pen Based Interface,” Proc. Third Int’l Conf. Document Analysis and Recognition, Montreal, Canada, August 1995, 58–63.Google Scholar
  17. [17]
    E. Lank, J. Thorley, S. Chen, D. Blostein, “On-line Recognition of UML Diagrams,” Proc. Sixth Int’l Conf. Document Analysis and Recognition, Seattle, Washington, Sept. 2001, 356–360.Google Scholar
  18. [18]
    A. Long, J. Landay, L. Rowe, J. Michiels, “Visual Similarity of Pen Gestures,” Proc. CHI 2000 Human Factors in Computing Systems, The Hague, April 2000, 360–367.Google Scholar
  19. [19]
    J. Mankoff, S. Hudson, G. Abowd, “Providing Integrated Toolkit-Level Support for Ambiguity in Recognition-Based Interfaces,” Proc. CHI 2000 Human Factors in Computing Systems, The Hague, Netherlands, April 2000, 368–375.Google Scholar
  20. [20]
    J. McGrenere, W. Ho, “Affordances: Clarifying and Evolving a Concept,” Proc. Graphics Interface 2000, 179–186.Google Scholar
  21. [21]
    B. Myers, “User Interface Software Tools,” ACM Trans. Computer-Human Interaction, 2(1), 1995, 64–103.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. [22]
    M. Nakagawa, K. Machii, N. Kato, T. Souya, “Lazy Recognition as a Principle of Pen Interfaces,” Proc. INTERACT’ 93 and CHI’ 93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Amsterdam, 1993, 89–90.Google Scholar
  23. [23]
    J. Nielsen, Usability Engineering, Academic Press, San Diego, California, 1993.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  24. [24]
    J. Nielsen, J. Levy, “Measuring Usability: Preference vs. Performance,” Communications of the ACM, 37(4), April 1994, 66–75.Google Scholar
  25. [25]
    I. Phillips, A. Chhabra, “Empirical Performance Evaluation of Graphics Recognition Systems,” IEEE Trans. Pattern Analysis and Machine Intelligence, 21(9), Sept. 1999, 849–870.Google Scholar
  26. [26]
    S. Smithies, K. Novins, J. Arvo, “A Handwriting-Based Equation Editor,” Proc. Graphics Interface’ 99, Kingston, Ontario, June 1999, 84–91.Google Scholar
  27. [27]
    J. Tang, S. Minneman, “VideoWhiteboard: Video Shadows to Support Remote Collaboration,” Proc. Human Factors in Computing Systems, 1991, 315–322.Google Scholar
  28. [28]
    B. Vander Zanden, S. Venckus, “An Empirical Study of Constraint Usage in Graphical Applications,” Proc UIST’96-Ninth Annual Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Seattle, Washington, Nov. 1996, 137–146.Google Scholar
  29. [29]
    R. Zanibbi, D. Blostein, J. Cordy, “Baseline Structure Analysis of Handwritten Mathematics Notation,” Proc. Sixth Int’l Conf. Document Analysis and Recognition (ICDAR 2001), Seattle, Washington, Sept. 2001, 768–773.Google Scholar
  30. [30]
    R. Zanibbi, K. Novins, J. Arvo, K. Zanibbi, “Aiding Manipulation of Handwritten Mathematical Expressions through Style-Preserving Morphs,” Proc. Graphics Interface 2001, Ottawa, Ontario, June 2001, 127–134.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2002

Authors and Affiliations

  • Dorothea Blostein
    • 1
  • Ed Lank
    • 1
  • Arlis Rose
    • 1
  • Richard Zanibbi
    • 1
  1. 1.Department Computing and Information ScienceQueen’s UniversityKingstonCanada

Personalised recommendations