Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

S. Joy Mountford

dblp:99/387 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
6ranked-venue papers
4as first author
0since 2021 · last 1992
0009-0001-2858-7689ORCID · corroborated

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 6 · 4 first-authorGraphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
3 papers
Design research and methods · 55% Interaction techniques and input · 24% User interface design and tools · 21%
Computer graphics and multimedia
1 paper
Multimedia systems and quality of experience · 100%

Topics — the 5 heaviest of 7, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Design research and methods › design process
iterative design
0.011990
Designers: meet your users (panel) · CHI 1990
Design research and methods › user participation
user involvement in design
0.011990
Designers: meet your users (panel) · CHI 1990
Interaction techniques and input › spatial interaction › 3d interaction
3d rotation
0.011988
A study in interactive 3-D rotation using 2-D control devices · SIGGRAPH 1988
Multimedia systems and quality of experience › interactive multimedia
interactive television
0.011992
When TVs are Computers are TVs (panel) · CHI 1992
Interaction techniques and input
direct manipulation
0.011988
A study in interactive 3-D rotation using 2-D control devices · SIGGRAPH 1988

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

user feedback · 0.0prototyping · 0.0performing arts techniques · 0.0user study · 0.0performance comparison · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1992 When TVs are Computers are TVs (panel)
abstract
This panel brings together experts from TV production with those in the computer multimedia business. They will discuss what is likely to happen when the two media coexist. An exciting opportunity exists in merging the strengths of both media together synergistically to create pervasive and powerful Interactive Television.
S. Joy Mountford, Peter Mitchell, Pat O'Hara, Joe Sparks, Max Whitby
CHI1
1991 Retrospective on the MCC Human Interface Laboratory
Bill Curtis, Roy Kuntz, James D. Hollan, S. Joy Mountford, George Collier
CHI4
1991 A day in the life of
abstract
No abstract available.
S. Joy Mountford, Dominic Milano, Peter Mitchell, Thecla Schiphorst, Paul Zimmerman
CHI1
1990 Designers: meet your users (panel)
abstract
Too few interface designers actually use an iterative design process. Too few interface designers actually involve their anticipated users throughout the design of an interface. In order to build better interfaces, we need to build faster and more numerous prototypical interface examples. These prototypes, from early sketches to working systems, should be shown frequently and often to users for their feedback. This panel is a vignette that illustrates an interface design cycle. Our panelists will be given a real world interface design problem, and the audience will follow them through their usual process of design. Users will be involved in the process, to help in interface specification and to provide prototype feedback. We expect that although the panelists involved users throughout their design process, users will still have a good deal more to contribute to the interface design before a product is finalized. On stage we will witness real users, with varied backgrounds, providing comments and feedback on the working prototypes. The issue here is to remind designers that there is never enough user involvement in an interface design. We need to iterate our interface designs, based on users' feedback, more often and continuously if our interfaces are to be effective,
S. Joy Mountford
CHI1
1989 Drama and personality in user interface design
abstract
The title of this panel immediately leaps out as being out of place. Of all the things that come to mind when one thinks of computers and user interfaces, drama and personality are among the last. The point here is not to make using computers more dramatic, per se, but to learn and borrow from the performing arts about techniques that could improve main stream interface design. The contributions described in this panel are borrowed from the theatrical world, film producing and music. In all the panelists work, the user is at the very center of creating the actual user interface experience, either through direct user participation or via engaging the individual viewer's personality. The panelists' pioneering research has produced and created several examples of new user interface experiences and designs. The discussion will focus on what techniques offer the most promise for facilitating the design of really new experiential user interfaces.
S. Joy Mountford, William Buxton, Myron W. Krueger, Brenda Laurel, Laurie Vertelney
CHI1
1988 A study in interactive 3-D rotation using 2-D control devices
abstract
This paper describes and evaluates the design of four virtual controllers for use in rotating three-dimensional objects using the mouse. Three of four of these controllers are "new" in that they extend traditional direct manipulation techniques to a 3-D environment. User performance is compared during simple and complex rotation tasks. The results indicate faster performance for complex rotations using the new continuous axes controllers compared to more traditional slider approaches. No significant differences in accuracy for complex rotations were found across the virtual controllers.A second study compared the best of these four virtual controllers (the Virtual Sphere) to a control device by Evans, Tanner and Wein. No significant differences either in time to complete rotation task or accuracy of performance were found. All but one subject indicated they preferred the Virtual Sphere because it seemed more "natural".
S. Joy Mountford, Abigail Sellen
SIGGRAPH2