NASARAWA STATE UNIVERSITY KEFFI

DEPARTMENT OF COMPUTER SCIENCE

HUMAN COMPUTER AND INTERACTION (CMP 425)

QUESTION:
CONCEPT OF DIRECT MANIPULATION IN HCI

GROUP 6 MEMBERS

1. YAU ABUBAKAR AHMED NSU/NAS/CMP/0940/18/19

2. ALIYU ABBAGAN ALIYU NSU/NAS/CMP/0809/18/19
3. SULEIMAN ABDULGAFAR NSU/NAS/CMP/0802/18/19
4. IBRAHIM BONGI UMAR NSU/NAS/CMP/0929/18/19
5. MUSA MUHAMMED ABUBAKAR NSU/NAS/CMP/0828/18/19
6. IDRIS SAFIYAT NSU/NAS/CMP/0687/17/18
7. MUSA OHIKWO FATIMA NSU/NAS/CMP/0835/18/19
8. MARYAM ABDULKAREEM ISMAILA NSU/NAS/CMP/0988/18/19
9. MUHAMMED FIRDAUSI NSU/NAS/CMP/0943/18/19
10. BASHIR FATIMA IDRIS NSU/NAS/CMP/0896/18/19
11. MUSA FATIMA DEMBE NSU/NAS/CMP/0891/18/19
12. JIBRIN AISHAT NSU/NAS/CMP/0945/18/19
13. JOHN JOSEPHINE NSU/NAS/CMP/0853/18/19
14. AUGUSTINE PATRICK NSU/NAS/CMP/0923/18/19
15. HALILU HUSSAINI NSU/NAS/CMP/0624/17/18
16. HUSSEIN ABDULRAMAN IBRAHIM NSU/NAS/CMP/0653/17/18
17. IBRAHIIM MUHAMMED SANI NSU/NAS/CMP/0660/17/18
18. HAFSAT AUDU NSU/NAS/CMP/0676/17/18
19. MUHAMMAD USMAN ISAH NSU/NAS/CMP/0727/17/18
20. HAMZA SALAMATU NSU/NAS/CMP/0832/18/19
21. IBRAHIM MAHMUD ABBA NSU/NAS/CMP/0630/17/18

HISRORY OF DIRECT MANIPULATION

 Ben Shneiderman first coined the term “direct manipulation” in the early 1980s, at a time
when the dominant interaction style was the command line. In command-line interfaces, the user
must remember the system label for a desired action, and type it in together with the names for
the objects of the action.

One of the most significant developments of the 1980's in human computer interaction
(HCI) was the emergence of' direct manipulation' as a theoretical concept and design practice. At
the heart of this development is the promotion of graphic and manual forms of interaction over
and above more abstract and linguistic ones, on the grounds that the former place less load on the
human cognitive system and are preferred by users. This philosophy has had a massive and
largely beneficial impact on the face of personal computing and continues to exert a strong
influence on the design of interactive software today

The “Direct Manipulation” term was first presented in 1982 by author Ben Schneiderman
in the regards to office applications and the desktop representation. Schneiderman used the term
to talk about direct manipulation to a changing class of tremendous practical and attractive
systems of the day, as well as display editors, early desktop office systems, spreadsheets, CAD
systems and video games. The systems mentioned had graphical interfaces that permitted them to
function directly using physical activities other than typed guidelines. Movements were
simplified with the use unique function keys, the function “screen” showed menus and pointing
devices such as the mouse, pens and pointing devices (joysticks). These structures appeared to
modify the complete pattern for human-computer interaction from dialogue to manipulation by
applying what the programmers identified was a graphic dialect in a way users thought to be a
complete collaborative realm ( Shneiderman, B., 1983).

Direct manipulation is a style of Human Machine Interaction (HMI) scheme which

features a natural representation of task objects and actions promoting the notion of people
performing a task themselves (directly) not through an intermediary like a computer. An
understanding of direct manipulation principles is essential for the successful design of human
computer interfaces in virtual environments(Dennehy, M., 1988).
 Direct manipulation interfaces are seen as more likely candidates to influence advanced user
interfaces than adaptive, autonomous, intelligent agents. User control and responsibility are
highly desirable. The three principles of direct manipulation include:

1. Continuous representation of the object of interest.

2. Physical actions or labeled button presses instead of complex syntax.
3. Rapid incremental reversible operations whose impact on the object of interest is
immediately visible.

DEFINATION OF DIRECT MANIPULATION

Direct manipulation (DM) is an interaction style in which users act on displayed objects
of interest using physical, incremental, reversible actions whose effects are immediately visible
on the screen.

A direct manipulation interface allows a user to directly act on a set of objects

(instruments) in the interface.

1. The instruments are indistinguishable visually from the objects they represent.
2. The actions on instrument/object entities are analogous to actions on similar
objects in the real world.
3. The actions on instrument/object entities preserve the conceptual linkage between
instrument and object.

Direct manipulation is one of the central concepts of graphical user interfaces (GUIs) and
is sometimes equated with “what you see is what you get” (WYSIWYG). These interfaces
combine menu-based interaction with physical actions such as dragging and dropping in order to
help the user use the interface with minimal learning. ( Shneiderman, B., 1983).

It is a style of Human Machine Interaction (HMI) design which features a natural

representation of task objects and actions promoting the notion of people performing a task
themselves (directly) not through an intermediary like a computer.
EXAMPLES OF DIRECT MANIPULATION

The action of using your fingertips to zoom in and out of the image and dragging of a file from a
folder to another one in order to move it. Is an example of a direct manipulation.

Fig 1.0 On a mobile phone you can pinch out to zoom into an image and pinch in to zoom out.

Fig 1.1 moving a file on MacOS using direct manipulation involves dragging that file from the
source folder and moving it into the destination folder.

THE CONCEPT OF DIRECT MANIPULATION

 The system is portrayed as an extension of the real world: It is assumed that a person is
already familiar with the objects and actions in his or her environment of interest.
 The system simply replicates them and portrays them on a different medium, the screen.
 A person has the power to access and modify these objects, among which are windows.
  A person is allowed to work in a familiar environment and in a familiar way, focusing on
the data, not the application and tools.
 The physical organization of the system, which most often is unfamiliar, is hidden from
view and is not a distraction.
 Continuous visibility of objects and actions: Like one's desktop, objects are continuously
visible. Reminders of actions to be performed are also obvious, labeled buttons replacing
complex syntax and command names.
 Cursor action and motion occurs in physically obvious and natural ways. One problem in
direct manipulation, however, is that there is no direct analogy on the desk for all
necessary windowing operations.
 A piece of paper on one's desk maintains a constant size, never shrinking or growing.
Windows can do both. Solving this problem required embedding a control panel, a
familiar concept to most people, in a window's border.
 This control panel is manipulated, not the window itself. Actions are rapid and
incremental with visible display of results; the results of actions are immediately
displayed visually on the screen in their new and current form.
 Auditory feedback may also be provided. The impact of a previous action is quickly seen,
and the evolution of tasks is continuous and effortless. Incremental actions are easily
reversible.

EARLIER DIRECT MANIPULATION SYSTEMS

When direct manipulation first appeared, it was based on the office-desk metaphor, the
computer screen was an office desk, and different documents (or files) were placed in folders,
moved around, or thrown to trash. This underlying metaphor indicates the skeuomorphic origin
of the concept. The DM systems described originally by Shneiderman are also skeuomorphic that
is, they are based on resemblance with a physical object in the real world. Thus, he talks about
software interfaces that copy Rolodexes and physical checkbooks to support tasks done (at the
time) with these tools.
 The concept of direct manipulation actually preceded the first graphical system. The
earliest full-screen text editors possessed similar characteristics. Screens of text resembling a
piece of paper on one's desk could be created (extension of real world) and then reviewed in their
entirety (continuous visibility). o Editing or restructuring could be easily accomplished (through
rapid incremental actions) and the results immediately seen. o Actions could be reversed when
necessary. It took the advent of graphical systems to crystallize the direct manipulation concept,
however.

THEORY OF DIRECT MANIPULATION

1. This is where the user physically interacts with their operating system.
2. The system allows the user to feel like that the user is in control, by allowing her to
physically interact with files in the directories, and presenting a visual representation of
the progress and end point.
3. For users to easily learn and interact with computer system, they must be able to
understand the progression and action of each step they take.

DIRECT MANIPULATION IN MODERN INTERFACES

While interacting with DM interfaces, users feel as if they are interacting with the domain
rather than with the interface, so they focus on the task rather than on the technology. There is a
feeling of direct involvement with a world of task objects rather than communication with an
intermediary.
ISSUES OF DIRECT MANIPULATION

i. Setback for impaired users – visually impaired users can’t see the graphics; no linear
flow for screen readers – physically impaired may have difficulty with actions
ii. Meanings are indirect – Users need to learn meaning of visual representations –
Visual representations may be misleading
iii. Often consume valuable screen space, forcing valuable information off-screen.
iv. Switching modes, from keyboard to tracker, is time consuming.
v. Many commands are invoked indirectly – Menus, dialog boxes, toolbars
vi. Not direct manipulation
vii. They are mediators that pull users away from objects of interest
viii. Many objects of interest are hidden – Style sheets – Alignment constraints are often
fleeting
ix. Lots of object in the interface are not objects of interest – Toolbar pallets

THE CHARACTERISTICS OF DIRECT MANIPULATION

In his analysis of direct manipulation, Shneiderman identified several attributes of this

interaction style that make it superior to command-line interfaces:

i. Continuous representation of the object of interest. Users can see visual

representations of the objects that they can interact with. As soon as they perform an
action, they can see its effects on the state of the system. For example, when moving
a file using drag-and-drop, users can see the initial file displayed in the source folder,
select it, and, as soon as the action was completed, they can see it disappear from the
source and appear in the destination an immediate confirmation that their action had
the intended result. Thus, direct-manipulation UIs satisfy, by definition, the
first usability heuristic: the visibility of the system status. In contrast, in a command
line interface, users usually must explicitly check that their actions had indeed the
intended result (for example, by listing the content of the destination directory).
 ii. Physical actions instead of complex syntax. Actions are invoked physically via clicks,
button presses, menu selections, and touch gestures. In the move-file example, drag-
and-drop has a direct analog in the real world, so this implementation for the move
action has the right signifiers and can be easily learned and remembered. In contrast,
the command-line interface requires users to recall not only the name of the command
(“mv”), but also the names of the objects involved (files and paths to the source and
destination folders). Thus, unlike DM interfaces, command-line interfaces are based
on recall instead of recognition and violate an important usability heuristic.
iii. Continuous feedback and reversible, incremental actions. Because of the visibility of
the system state, it’s easy to validate that each action caused the right result. Thus,
when users make mistakes, they can see right away the cause of the mistake and they
should be able to easily undo it. In contrast, with command-line interfaces, one single
user command may have multiple components that can cause the error. For instance,
in the example below, the name of the destination folder contains a typo “Measuring
Usablty” instead of “Measuring Usability”. The system simply assumed that the file
name should be changed to “Measuring Usablty”. If users check the destination
folder, they will discover that there was a problem, but will have no way of knowing
what caused it: did they use the wrong command, the wrong source filename, or the
wrong destination?
iv. Rapid learning. Because the objects of interest and the potential actions in the system
are visually represented, users can use recognition instead of recall to see what they
could do and select an operation most likely to fulfill their goal. They don’t have to
learn and remember complex syntax. Thus, although direct-manipulation interfaces
v. May require some initial adjustment, the learning required is likely to be less
substantial.
ADVANTAGES OF DIRECT MANIPULATION

1. It shows the progress of steps therefore errors occur much less than they do in command
type system.
2. This fact alone gives users confidence to explore and learn more features of the software
more quickly.
3. Easy to learn, remember and retain for a first time user.
4. Present task concept visually.
5. It is flexible and reversible action.

 DISADVANTAGES OF DIRECT MANIPULATION

1. DM is slow. If the user needs to perform a large number of actions, on many objects,
using direct manipulation takes a lot longer than a command-line UI.
2. Repetitive tasks are not well supported. DM interfaces are great for novices because they
are easy to learn, but because they are slow, experts, who have to perform the same set of
tasks with high frequency, usually rely on keyboard shortcuts, macros, and other
command-language interactions to speed up the process.
3. Some gestures can be more error-prone than typing. DM minimizes the chance of certain
errors, in practice; there are situations when a gesture is harder to perform than typing
equivalent information.
4. Accessibility may suffer. DM UIs may fail visually impaired users or users with motor
skill impairments, especially if they are heavily based on physical actions, as opposed to
button presses and menu selections.
PROBLEMS OF DIRECT MANIPULATION

1. Screen space: it takes up plenty space.

2. Multiple pages can slow user down
3. Detail can be lost
4. Not self explanatory
5. User must learn meaning of icon
6. It is slow for fast typists
7. Increase computer resource requirement

DIRECT MANIPULATION APPLICATIONS

1. Graphical user interface

2. Embodied user interface
3. Virtual Reality
4. Web Page Design
5. Mobile Communication
 REFERENCE

1. Shneidennan, B. 1982. The future of interactive systems and the emergence of direct
manipulation. Behaviour and Information Technology, 1, 237-256.
2. Shniedennan, B. 1983. Direct manipulation: A step beyond programming languages.
IEEE Computer, 16, 57-69.

3. Shneiderman, B. (1983, August). Direct Manipulation: A Step Beyond Programming

Languages. Retrieved from csc.kth.se:

4. Dennehy, M. (1988). Direct Manipulation. Retrieved from hitl.washington.edu: