Encyclopedia of Database Systems

2018 Edition
| Editors: Ling Liu, M. Tamer Özsu

WIMP Interfaces

  • Stephen KimaniEmail author
Reference work entry
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4614-8265-9_467


There exist many types of interaction styles. They include but are not limited to: command line interface, natural language, question/answer and query dialog, form-fills and spreadsheets, WIMP, and three-dimensional interfaces. The most common of the foregoing interaction styles is the WIMP. WIMP is an acronym for Windows, Icons, Menus and Pointers. Alternatively, it is an acronym for Windows, Icons, Mice and Pull-down menus. Examples of user interfaces that are based on the WIMP interaction style include: Microsoft Windows for PCs, MacOs for Apple Macintosh, various X Windows-based systems for UNIX, etc.

Historical Background

WIMP interfaces were invented at the SRI laboratory in California. The development of WIMP interfaces continued at Xerox PARC. The 1981 Xerox Star workstation is considered to be the first production computer to use the desktop metaphor, productivity applications and a three-button mouse. WIMP was popularized by the Apple Macintosh in the early 1980s....

This is a preview of subscription content, log in to check access.

Recommended Reading

  1. 1.
    Alistair E. The design of auditory interfaces for visually disabled users. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; 1988. p. 83–8.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Balakrishnan R, Kurtenbach G. Exploring bimanual camera control and object manipulation in 3D graphics interfaces. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems; 1999. p. 56–62.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Beaudouin-Lafon M. Designing interaction, not interfaces. In: Proceedings of Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces; 2004. p. 15–22.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beaudouin-Lafon M, Lassen HM. The architecture and implementation of CPN2000, a post-WIMP graphical application. In: Proceedings of the 13th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology; 2000. p. 181–90.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cesar P. Tools for adaptive and post-WIMP user interfaces. New Directions on Human Computer Interaction. 2005.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Dix A, Finlay J, Abowd G, Beale R. Human-computer interaction. Englewood Cliffs: Prentice Hall; 2003.zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Green M, Jacob R. SIGGRAPH: ‘90 workshop report: software architectures and metaphors for non-WIMP user interfaces. Comput Graph. 1991;25(3):229–35.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Paap KR, Roske-Hofstrand RJ. Design of menus. In: Helander M. editor. Handbook of human-computer interaction. Amsterdam: North-Holland: 1998.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Preece J, Rogers Y, Sharp H, Benyon D, Holland S, Carey T. Human-computer interaction. Reading: Addison-Wesley; 1994.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Odell DL, Davis RC, Smith A, Wright PK. Toolglasses, marking menus, and hotkeys: a comparison of one and two-handed command selection techniques. In: Proceedings of the 2004 Conference on Graphics Interface; 2004. p. 17–24.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    van Dam A. Post-WIMP user interfaces. Commun ACM. 1997;40(2):63–7.MathSciNetCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Director ICSITJomo Kenyatta University of Agriculture and Technology (JKUAT)JujaKenya

Section editors and affiliations

  • Tiziana Catarci
    • 1
  1. 1.Dept. di Ingegneria Informatica, Automatica e GestionaleUniversita di RomaRomaItaly