Interacting with big interfaces on small screens: a comparison of fisheye, zoom, and panning techniques
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Mobile devices with small screens are becoming more common, and will soon be powerful enough to run desktop software. However, the large interfaces of desktop applications do not fit on the small screens. Although there are ways to redesign a UI to fit a smaller area, there are many cases where the only solution is to navigate the large UI with the small screen. The best way to do this, however, is not known. We compared three techniques for using large interfaces on small screens: a panning system similar to what is in current use, a two-level zoom system, and a fisheye view. We tested the techniques with three realistic tasks. We found that people were able to carry out a web navigation task significantly faster with the fisheye view, that the two-level zoom was significantly better for a monitoring task, and that people were slowest with the panning system. ways to solve this problem. First, applications can be redesigned for the smaller screen. Although there are examples of this approach (e.g., Pocket Word or Internet Explorer for PocketPC devices), it requires that multiple versions of the application be produced, and requires that users become familiar with a second GUI. There will also be cases where no redesigned version of an application is available—so another approach is needed. Key words: Large interfaces, small screens, mobile devices, screen space, zoom and pan, fisheye views. 1
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it