Designing interaction, not interfaces

By Michel Beaudouin-Lafon. International Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces, 2004

441 citations recorded by the source corpus.

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

Fluid interaction for information visualization (2011, methodology): “• Supports direct manipulation: The direct manipulation paradigm [47] (further extended by the instrumental interaction model [5, 6]) promotes an explicit method of interacting with computers by directly interacting with the domain objects themselves, thereby minimizing the indirection in the interf”
Toward a Deeper Understanding of the Role of Interaction in Information Visualization (2007, background): “We are drawn to a discussion of this issue by Beaudouin-Lafon [ 5 ] who proposes three dimensions to evaluate interaction models: 1) descriptive power, “the ability to describe a significant range of existing interface”; 2) evaluative power: “the ability to help assess multiple design alternatives”;”
A Multi-Level Typology of Abstract Visualization Tasks (2013, background): “We now discuss the capabilities and potential usage of our typology in terms of its descriptive, evaluative, and generative power [7, 9].”
A Review of User Interface Design for Interactive Machine Learning (2018, methodology): “As an interaction paradigm, Interactive Machine Learning exists at the overlap between computer-as-tool and computer-as-partner as described by Beaudouin-Lafon (2004). An IML application certainly provides a tool in that it supports the user in building a model fit for their purposes.”