The First Principle of Direct Manipulation - Research Paper Example

Direct Manipulation Direct Manipulation The first principle of direct manipulation is the constant visibility of objects and movements of interest (Bennett and Flach, 2011). Direct manipulation allows users to see how objects and characters move at all times with significant graphic metaphors. This perception is an outcome of exploiting analogical logic as a representation of reality. This principle is applicable in video game controls through graphic elements such as complete three-dimensional engines. Users can use video game controls to change visual angles and see the entire virtual environment. This way, users meet their senses of control (Allison et al., 2012). The second principle is quick, flexible, and incremental actions (Bennett and Flach, 2011). The impacts of these actions on simulated objects are instantly visible. Otherwise known as the principle of virtuality, this principle shows direct manipulation can represent a controllable reality. This principle is applied in video game controls through fast-response correspondence between game controller manipulation and video game response. Examples of virtual responses in video games are characters, weapons, vehicles, or natural and manmade surroundings. Numerous actions are flexible under the rules of a video game. For instance, walking, opening, or closing doors, picking or dropping items are physical, reversible actions that video game controls manipulate through direct manipulation (Richer and Drury, 2006). Lastly, direct manipulation allows the user to make physical actions by pressing marked buttons on a controlling device rather than using compound syntax (Booth, 2014). Direction manipulation under this principle occurs with physical actions such as pointing at an object using a cursor rather than typing a pointing command. This principle fosters a feeling of immersion directly in a virtual reality instead of interacting with an intermediate. Video game controls have marked buttons that foster tasks that concentrate on local and precise interaction with virtual characters or objects. With video game controls, users do not have to type commands for characters or objects to interact with their virtual surroundings (Allison et al., 2012). Video game-type interfaces give users required information and control abilities in an interactive and enjoyable manner. These interfaces successfully streamline input/output frameworks. To a user, these streamlining protocols make a video game slightly more than just an interface. Many computer programs have interfaces that act as intermediaries for communicating with some fundamental functionality (Cooper et al., 2012). However, a video game-type interface allows its users to communicate with it directly. Proof of this improved interaction is the low success of video games with unsatisfying or cumbersome interfaces in the entertainment industry and market. One reason why video game-type interfaces would not be successful for real-world applications is that they are designed specifically for entertainment and challenging purposes (Brokaw et al., 2007). Real-world programs may want an interface that fulfills learning or formal requirements that video game-type interfaces cannot. While users frequently notice these requirements in real-world applications, they are not features of the video game-type interface. As a result, video game-type interfaces could produce unwanted effects on the performance of the user. These effects constitute the second reason why such interfaces are unsuitable for real-world applications (Brokaw et al., 2007). Lastly, consistency in video games is not similar to consistency in reality (Brokaw et al., 2007). Consistency in reality means resolutions are always in line with a participant’s real-life practices, observations, and insights. Video game-type interfaces do not apply such consistency rules. This means video game-type interfaces differ from existing resolutions without any clear advantage to the participant. Three advantages of direct manipulation over command line interfaces are ease, intuitiveness, and reversibility. First, direct manipulation is simpler to learn for new users than command line interfaces (Hutchins et al., 1985). Direct manipulation introduces new users to a user-friendly, familiar means of interaction that they can particularly have an easier time grasping. Second, direct manipulation has reversible interfaces that fulfill the needs of different participants through flexible functions (Cooper et al., 2012). Examples of these functions include the location and classification of icons, scaling prompt windows, and lowering clutter. Unlike command line interfaces, users of direct manipulation have the ability to reverse them accordingly. In addition, these users have access to adaptable functions capable of customizing interfaces to meet their needs and preferences. Lastly, intuitiveness allows users of direct manipulation interfaces to see any system changes (Hutchins et al., 1985). When a change in the system or file location occurs in a command line interface, users have to be notified for the interface to keep on working effectively. Users of direct manipulation do not have to learn new commands or file names when there is a change in file location of the overall system. However, the icon of a file location has to remain intact in direct manipulation for users to carry out a desired task. For command line interface users, irrespective of the file location of an icon, a change in the system will cause them to learn and enter new commands for continued, effective usage of the interface. Direct manipulation needs the system to offer depictions of objects that act as if they are the objects themselves. This requirement presents three key problems for users of this interface. Direct manipulation has equal levels of thought to the interface language that raises the speed and control of carrying out some tasks. This improved performance comes at the cost of simplification and adaptability, which form the first problem with direct manipulation (Hutchins et al., 1985). Semantic directness is the equal level of thought in a direct manipulation interface. For instance, a user most likely best performs a repetitive task through a script when using a direct manipulation interface. This problem is a symbolic definition of the operations a user seeks to complete under direct manipulation. A second problem is that direct manipulation finds it hard to tackle variables (Hutchins et al., 1985). Direct manipulation cannot differentiate the illustration of a specific aspect from the representation of a series or group of aspects. This inability proves that direct manipulation have issues with precision. This is because the idea of imitative action compels the user to use his or her accuracy to control actions appropriately (Booth, 2014). Users of direct manipulation occasionally best tackle this responsibility with artificial intelligence and symbolic interaction. Lastly, a lot of the appeal and influence of direct manipulation originates from its ability to support the manner in which users dwell on a domain directly (Hutchins et al., 1985). Direct manipulation increases the user’s knowledge about the domain. In effect, this knowledge enables this user to think only in terms versant with the program domain instead of those of the intermediary of computation. In the process, the user misses the most thrilling potential of new technology, which is a new way of thinking and communicating with a domain. References Allison, B. Z., Dunne, S., Leeb, R., Millán, J. D. R., and Nijholt, A. (2012). Towards Practical Brain-Computer Interfaces: Bridging the Gap from Research to Real-World Applications. Los Angeles, CA: Springer Science & Business Media Bennett, K. B., and Flach, J. M. (2011). Display and Interface Design: Subtle Science, Exact Art. Los Angeles, CA: CRC Press. Booth, P. (2014). An Introduction to Human-Computer Interaction (Psychology Revivals). New York, NY: Psychology Press. Brokaw, J. J., Cruz, R. A., Earl, J., Kamsler, Z. F., and Orman, N. C. (2007). Analysis of Game Interface Performance. Worcester Polytechnic Institute, pp. 1-52. Retrieved from https://www.wpi.edu/Pubs/E-project/Available/E-project-030607- 163836/unrestricted/IQP.pdf Cooper, A., Reimann, R., and Cronin, D. (2012). About Face 3: The Essentials of Interaction Design. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons. Hutchins, E. L., Hollan, J. D., and Norman, D. A. (1985). Direct Manipulation Interfaces. Human-Computer Interaction, 1, pp. 311-338. Richer, J. and Drury, J. L. (2006). A Video Game-Based Framework for Analyzing Human- Robot Interaction: Characterizing Interface Design in Real-Time Interactive Multimedia Applications. Human Robot Interaction’06, pp. 1-9. Read More