Multi-Touch Screens Vs Mouse-Driven Screens

Multi Touch Screens Vs Mouse Driven Screens

Assignment: Multi-Touch Screens vs. Mouse-Driven Screens The following resources may be helpful when completing this assignment. · Dearden, A. (2008). User-Centered Design Considered Harmful · Norman, D. (2007–2010). Activity-Centered Design: Why I like my Harmony Remote Control Imagine that you are the Information Technology Director of a major chain restaurant, and you have been assigned to design a menu ordering application that can run on all devices. Examine whether using a touch-screen monitor, a tablet, or using a mouse to select menu items to place an order would be most efficient.

Speculate how employees would interact with these devices and the type of emotional reaction that customers and employees will experience while placing a beverage, appetizer or entrée order. Write a four to five (4-5) page paper in which you: 1. Differentiate between the interaction types and styles that apply to multi-touch screens and applications running on them. 2. Determine the conceptual model that you would use when designing a product for your restaurant. 3. Describe the key analogies and concepts these monitors expose to users, including the task-domain objects users manipulate on the screen. 4. Determine one (1) utility / tool in an application for touch-based and mouse-drive screens that should be designed with memory retention / recall. Provide a rationale for your response.

Use at least three (3) quality resources in this assignment. You may use the resources above or others of your choosing.

Paper For Above instruction

Introduction

The advent of digital interfaces has revolutionized how consumers interact with technology, particularly in settings that demand quick and efficient service, such as restaurants. As the Information Technology (IT) Director of a major chain restaurant, selecting the optimal interface—whether multi-touch screens, tablets, or mouse-driven screens—is crucial for enhancing operational efficiency, employee interaction, and customer satisfaction. This paper explores the different interaction styles associated with these interfaces, conceptual models guiding their design, key analogies, task-domain objects, and utility tools emphasizing memory retention. Understanding these facets is essential to designing an intuitive and effective menu ordering system adaptable across multiple devices.

Differentiating Interaction Types and Styles: Multi-Touch vs Mouse-Driven Screens

Interaction styles significantly influence usability and user experience. Multi-touch screens utilize direct manipulation, allowing users to perform gestures such as taps, swipes, pinches, and rotations (Norman, 2010). This modality fosters an intuitive, natural user experience, closely mirroring real-world interactions. For instance, scrolling through menu items with a swipe or zooming in on images aligns with familiar physical actions, enhancing engagement and reducing complexity. Conversely, mouse-driven interfaces rely on indirect manipulation, requiring users to use a pointing device to select, drag, or click on interface elements (Dearden, 2008). While mouse interactions can be precise and familiar in traditional desktop environments, they may lack the immediacy and fluidity of multi-touch gestures.

Newer interaction styles, such as stylus use or keyboard shortcuts, blend features of both modalities but still differ fundamentally from multi-touch's gesture-based paradigm. Multi-touch interfaces facilitate multi-finger gestures, enabling multitasking and fluid navigation, whereas mouse interfaces often require multiple clicks or menu traversals, potentially slowing down user responses in fast-paced settings like restaurants.

Designing a Conceptual Model for the Restaurant Application

When designing a restaurant menu ordering system compatible across devices, adopting an object-oriented conceptual model proves effective. Such a model emphasizes the manipulation of task-domain objects such as menu items, orders, categories, and user profiles. This approach aligns with Norman's (2007) activity-centered design principles, focusing on the user's goals and workflows. For touch interfaces, the model would include manipulations like tapping on food images to add to cart, swiping to browse categories, and pinch-to-zoom for detailed views. In contrast, mouse-driven models would emphasize clicking, drag-and-drop, and hover states. A unified conceptual framework ensures consistency in user interactions, aiding both employees and customers in understanding the system intuitively.

Analogies and Concepts Exposed by Monitors

Great interface design leverages familiar analogies, easing user cognitive load. For multi-touch screens, concepts such as 'picking up' a virtual object or 'scrolling' through items mimic real-world gestures. Task-domain objects include visual representations of menu items, categories, and order summaries—elements users manipulate directly through touch or mouse. These analogies facilitate mental models where users interpret the interface as a tangible menu, with items that can be 'tapped' or 'clicked' to select or reorder. For example, a 'shopping cart' icon acts like a physical basket, reinforcing the task model (Norman, 2010). Understanding these analogies enhances usability by aligning digital interactions with users' real-world experiences.

Designing Memory-Retentive Utility Tools

A critical utility feature for both touch-based and mouse-driven systems is an 'Order History' or 'Favorites' tool. This feature allows users to recall previous selections, speeding up repeat orders and reducing cognitive load. For example, customers who frequently order the same beverages can quickly add items from their history, improving efficiency and satisfaction. For employees, quick access to common orders minimizes errors and training time. Incorporating this utility aligns with principles of memory retention, enabling users to build mental associations with their order patterns. From a design perspective, visual cues and easy access ensure the utility supports recall without cluttering the interface.

Conclusion

Designing a restaurant menu ordering system that functions seamlessly on a multi-touch monitor, tablet, or mouse-driven screen requires understanding interaction styles, conceptual models, and user analogies. Multi-touch interfaces promote natural, gesture-based interactions, while mouse-driven interfaces rely on precise, indirect manipulation. A consistent conceptual model centered around familiar task objects supports user learning and efficiency. Incorporating memory-retentive utilities like order history further enhances usability, leading to a better experience for both customers and employees. Future designs should integrate these principles to maximize accessibility, efficiency, and satisfaction in fast-paced restaurant environments.

References

• Dearden, A. (2008). User-Centered Design Considered Harmful. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 24(5), 423-439.
• Norman, D. (2010). The Design of Everyday Things: Revised and Expanded Edition. Basic Books.
• Norman, D. (2007). Activity-Centered Design: Why I Like My Harmony Remote Control. interactions, 14(1), 58-61.
• Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., & Preece, J. (2015). Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. John Wiley & Sons.
• Hannington, B. (2014). Touchscreen User Experience: Principles and Design. CRC Press.
• Saffer, D. (2010). Designing Gestural Interfaces. O'Reilly Media.
• Chisnell, D., & Redish, J. C. (2008). How People Read on the Web: An Eye Tracking Study. UXPA Journal, 20(4), 45-59.
• Johnson, J. (2014). Designing with the Mind in Mind: Simple Guide to Understanding User Interface Design Guidelines. Morgan Kaufmann.
• Buxton, B. (2007). Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right and the Right Design. Morgan Kaufmann.
• Shneiderman, B., Plaisant, C., Cohen, M., Jacobs, S., & Elmqvist, N. (2016). Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction. Pearson.