The effect of animated transitions in zooming interfaces
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
Zooming interfaces use animated transitions to smoothly shift the users view between different scales of the workspace. Animated transitions assist in preserving the spatial relationships between views. However, they also increase the overall interaction time. To identify whether zooming interfaces should take advantage of animations, we carried out one experiment that explores the effects of smooth transitions on a spatial task. With metro maps, users were asked to identify the number of metro stops between different subway lines with and without animated zoom-in/out transitions. The results of the experiment show that animated transitions can have significant benefits on user performance - participants in the animation conditions were twice as fast and overall made fewer errors than in the non-animated conditions. In addition, short animations were found to be as effective as long ones, suggesting that some of the costs of animations can be avoided. Users also preferred interacting with animated transitions than without. Our study gives empirical evidence on the benefits of animated transitions in zooming interfaces.
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