A Brief History of Hci

A plan History of Human figurer fundamental interaction engineering Brad A. Myers Carnegie Mellon University School of computing device apprehension practiced storey CMU-CS-96-163 and Human data processor Interaction base Technical promulgate CMU-HCII-96-103 celestial latitude, 1996 Please cite this die as Brad A. Myers. A Brief History of Human data processor Interaction Technology. ACM interactions. Vol. 5, no. 2, March, 1998. pp. 44-54. Human calculating machine Interaction Institute School of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, PA 15213-3891 emailprotected gp. s. cmu. edu arise This article summarizes the historical development of major(ip) advances in benignant- reckoner interaction engine room, accentuation the pivotal role of university query in the advancement of the field. Copyright (c) 1996 Carnegie Mellon University A short excerpt from this article appe bed as quality of Strategic Directions in Human Computer Interaction, edited by Brad Myers, Jim Hollan, Isabel Cruz, ACM Computing Surveys, 28(4), December 1996 This inquiry was partially sponsored by NCCOSC under Contract No.N66001-94-C-6037, Arpa give No. B326 and partially by NSF under grant good turn IRI-9319969. The views and conclusions contained in this document argon those of the authors and should not be interpreted as representing the ex officio policies, either expressed or implied, of NCCOSC or the U. S. Government. rudimentarywords Human Computer Interaction, History, put onr interfaces, Interaction Techniques. pic 1. Introduction interrogation in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) has been prominently uccessful, and has essentially changed computing. Just adept example is the ubiquitous graphical interface employ by Microsoft windowpanes 95, which is based on the macintosh, which is based on work at absquatulate PARC, which in turn is based on primordial interrogation at the Stanford Research testing groundoratory ( promptly S RI) and at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology. other example is that virtually all packet written today employs substance abuser interface toolkits and interface builders, concepts which were developed source at universities.Even the spectacular growth of the World-Wide Web is a direct result of HCI research applying hypertext engine room to browsers allows one to traverse a link across the world with a click of the mouse. user interface improvements more(prenominal)(prenominal) than anything else has triggered this explosive growth. Furthermore, the research that depart path to the user interfaces for the computers of tomorrow is happening at universities and a few unified research labs.This musical composition tries to briefly summarize many a(prenominal) of the classical research developments in Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) technology. By research, I mean exploratory work at universities and regime and merged research labs (such(prenominal) as reprodu ce PARC) that is not directly related to products. By HCI technology, I am referring to the computer view of HCI. A companion article on the history of the human side, discussing the contri neverthelessions from psychology, design, human factors and ergonomics would to a fault be appropriate.A motivation for this article is to sweep over the mistaken impression that much of the measurable work in Human-Computer Interaction occurred in perseverance, and if university research in Human-Computer Interaction is not supported, consequently industry go away just carry on anyway. This is simply not true. This paper tries to show that many of the most famous HCI successes developed by companies are deeply rooted in university research. In fact, virtually all of todays major interface styles and applications have had significant influence from research at universities and labs, often with government funding.To illustrate this, this paper lists the funding sources of some of the major advances. Without this research, many of the advances in the field of HCI would probably not have taken place, and as a consequence, the user interfaces of moneymaking(prenominal)isedisedized products would be far more unenviable to use and learn than they are today. As described by Stu neb Government funding of advanced human-computer interaction technologies built the intellectual chief city and trained the research teams for pioneer clays that, over a period of 25 years, revolutionized how people interact with computers.Industrial research laboratories at the corporate take aim in Xerox, IBM, AT&T, and others played a strong role in developing this technology and bringing it into a course suitable for the mercantile arena. 6, p. 162). Figure 1 shows time lines for some of the technologies discussed in this article. Of course, a deeper epitome would reveal much interaction between the university, corporate research and commercial activity streams. It is important to ap preciate that years of research are mingled in creating and making these technologies ready for widespread use.The selfsame(prenominal) will be true for the HCI technologies that will provide the interfaces of tomorrow. It is clearly impossible to list all(prenominal) dodge and source in a paper of this scope, but I have tried to represent the earliest and most influential dodgings. Although in that respect are a number of other messs of HCI topics ( overtake, for example 1 10 33 38), none bandaging as many aspects as this one, or try to be as comprehensive in finding the original influences. some other useful choice is the video All The Widgets, which shows the historical progression of a number of user interface creative thinkers 25.The technologies covered in this paper intromit fundamental interaction styles like direct manipulation, the mouse pointing device, and windows several important kinds of application flying fields, such as drawing, text editing and spread sheets the technologies that will likely have the biggest clashing on interfaces of the future, such as question recognition, multimedia, and 3D and the technologies apply to wee-wee interfaces using the other technologies, such as user interface counseling systems, toolkits, and interface builders. pic picFigure 1 Approximate time lines showing where work was performed on some major technologies discussed in this article. pic 2. Basic Interactions Direct function of graphical objects The now ubiquitous direct manipulation interface, where visible objects on the screen are directly manipulated with a pointing device, was freshman present by Ivan Sutherland in Sketchpad 44, which was his 1963 MIT PhD dissertation. SketchPad supported the manipulation of objects using a light-pen, including grabbing objects, moving them, ever-changing size, and using constraints.It contained the seeds of myriad important interface estimates. The system was built at Lincoln Labs with support from the Air Force and NSF. William Newmans Reaction Handler 30, created at Imperial College, capital of the United Kingdom (1966-67) provided direct manipulation of artistry, and introduced Light Handles, a form of graphical potentiometer, that was probably the first widget. Another early system was cooking stove/G (implemented at MITs Lincoln Labs, 1968, ARPA funded).It employed, among other interface techniques, iconic representations, apparent movement recognition, dynamic menus with items selected using a pointing device, selection of icons by pointing, and moded and mode-free styles of interaction. David Canfield Smith coined the condition icons in his 1975 Stanford PhD thesis on Pygmalion 41 (funded by ARPA and NIMH) and Smith later popized icons as one of the chief designers of the Xerox paladin 42. Many of the interaction techniques popular in direct manipulation interfaces, such as how objects and text are selected, opened, and manipulated, were researched at Xerox PARC in the 1970s.In particular, the idea of WYSIWYG (what you see is what you get) originated on that point with systems such as the Bravo text editor and the call in drawing program 10 The concept of direct manipulation interfaces for everyone was envisioned by Alan Kay of Xerox PARC in a 1977 article nearly the Dynabook 16. The first commercial systems to make extensive use of Direct use of goods and services were the Xerox Star (1981) 42, the orchard apple tree Lisa (1982) 51 and mackintosh (1984) 52. Ben Shneiderman at the University of Maryland coined the term Direct Manipulation in 1982 and identified the components and gave psychological foundations 40. The Mouse The mouse was developed at Stanford Research Laboratory (now SRI) in 1965 as part of the NLS draw (funding from ARPA, NASA, and capital of Italy ADC) 9 to be a cheap replacement for light-pens, which had been used at least since 1954 10, p. 68. Many of the current uses of the mouse were demonstrated by Doug Eng elbart as part of NLS in a movie created in 1968 8. The mouse was then do famous as a practical scuttlebutt device by Xerox PARC in the 1970s. It first appeared commercially as part of the Xerox Star (1981), the Three Rivers Computer Companys PERQ (1981) 23, the Apple Lisa (1982), and Apple Macintosh (1984). windowpanes five-foldx tiled windows were demonstrated in Engelbarts NLS in 1968 8. Early research at Stanford on systems like COPILOT (1974) 46 and at MIT with the EMACS text editor (1974) 43 as well as demonstrated tiled windows. Alan Kay proposed the idea of overlapping windows in his 1969 University of Utah PhD thesis 15 and they first appeared in 1974 in his Smalltalk system 11 at Xerox PARC, and shortly after in the InterLisp system 47. Some of the first commercial uses of windows were on Lisp Machines Inc. (LMI) and Symbolics Lisp Machines (1979), which grew out of MIT AI Lab stand outs.The Cedar Window Manager from Xerox PARC was the first major tiled window omni bus (1981) 45, followed soon by the Andrew window manager 32 by Carnegie Mellon Universitys Information Technology Center (1983, funded by IBM). The main commercial systems popularizing windows were the Xerox Star (1981), the Apple Lisa (1982), and most importantly the Apple Macintosh (1984). The early versions of the Star and Microsoft Windows were tiled, but eventually they supported overlapping windows like the Lisa and Macintosh. The X Window ashes, a current international standard, was developed at MIT in 1984 39.For a stare of window managers, see 24. 3. Application Types Drawing programs overmuch of the current technology was demonstrated in Sutherlands 1963 Sketchpad system. The use of a mouse for graphics was demonstrated in NLS (1965). In 1968 Ken Pulfer and Grant Bechthold at the National Research Council of Canada built a mouse out of wood patterned after Engelbarts and used it with a key-frame animation system to draw all the frames of a movie. A subsequent movie, H unger in 1971 won a number of awards, and was drawn using a tablet instead of the mouse (funding by the National Film Board of Canada) 3.William Newmans Markup (1975) was the first drawing program for Xerox PARCs Alto, followed shortly by Patrick Baudelaires Draw which added handling of lines and curves 10, p. 326. The first computer impression program was probably dent Shoups Superpaint at PARC (1974-75). Text modify In 1962 at the Stanford Research Lab, Engelbart proposed, and later implemented, a word processor with impulsive word wrap, search and replace, user-definable macros, scrolling text, and commands to move, copy, and delete characters, words, or blocks of text.Stanfords TVEdit (1965) was one of the first CRT-based endanger editors that was widely used 48. The Hypertext redact System 50, p. 108 from brownish University had screen editing and formatting of arbitrary-sized strings with a lightpen in 1967 (funding from IBM). NLS demonstrated mouse-based editing in 19 68. TECO from MIT was an early screen-editor (1967) and EMACS 43 developed from it in 1974. Xerox PARCs Bravo 10, p. 284 was the first WYSIWYG editor-formatter (1974). It was designed by Butler Lampson and Charles Simonyi who had started working on these concepts around 1970 small-arm at Berkeley.The first commercial WYSIWYG editors were the Star, LisaWrite and then MacWrite. For a survey of text editors, see 22 50, p. 108. Spreadsheets The initial spreadsheet was VisiCalc which was developed by Frankston and Bricklin (1977-8) for the Apple II while they were students at MIT and the Harvard Business School. The solver was based on a dependency-directed backtracking algorithm by Sussman and Stallman at the MIT AI Lab. HyperText The idea for hypertext (where documents are linked to related documents) is credited to Vannevar Bushs famous MEMEX idea from 1945 4. Ted Nelson coined the term hypertext in 1965 29.Engelbarts NLS system 8 at the Stanford Research Laboratories in 1965 made extensive use of linking (funding from ARPA, NASA, and capital of Italy ADC). The NLS Journal 10, p. 212 was one of the first on-line journals, and it included full linking of articles (1970). The Hypertext Editing System, jointly designed by Andy van Dam, Ted Nelson, and two students at Brown University (funding from IBM) was distributed extensively 49. The University of Vermonts PROMIS (1976) was the first Hypertext system released to the user community. It was used to link persevering and patient care information at the University of Vermonts medical center.The ZOG project (1977) from CMU was other early hypertext system, and was funded by ONR and DARPA 36. Ben Shneidermans Hyperties was the first system where highlighted items in the text could be clicked on to go to other pages (1983, Univ. of Maryland) 17. HyperCard from Apple (1988) significantly helped to bring the idea to a wide audience. There have been many other hypertext systems through with(predicate) the years. Tim Berners-Lee used the hypertext idea to create the World Wide Web in 1990 at the government-funded European Particle Physics Laboratory (CERN). Mosaic, the irst popular hypertext browser for the World-Wide Web was developed at the Univ. of Illinois National Center for Supercomputer Applications (NCSA). For a more complete history of HyperText, see 31. Computer Aided function ( hotdog) The same 1963 IFIPS conference at which Sketchpad was presented also contained a number of CAD systems, including Doug Rosss Computer-Aided Design Project at MIT in the Electronic Systems Lab 37 and Coons work at MIT with SketchPad 7. Timothy bathsons pioneering work on the interactive 3D CAD system Sketchpad 3 13 was his 1963 MIT MS thesis (funded by the Air Force).The first CAD/CAM system in industry was probably General Motors DAC-1 (about 1963). flick Games The first graphical video game was probably SpaceWar by Slug Russel of MIT in 1962 for the PDP-1 19, p. 49 including the first computer jo ysticks. The early computer Adventure game was created by Will Crowther at BBN, and Don Woods developed this into a more sophisticated Adventure game at Stanford in 1966 19, p. 132. Conways game of manner was implemented on computers at MIT and Stanford in 1970. The first popular commercial game was Pong (about 1976). 4. Up-and-Coming Areas Gesture erudition The first pen-based input device, the RAND tablet, was funded by ARPA. Sketchpad used light-pen gestures (1963). Teitelman in 1964 developed the first trainable gesture recognizer. A very early proof of gesture recognition was Tom Ellis grail system on the RAND tablet (1964, ARPA funded). It was quite common in light-pen-based systems to include some gesture recognition, for example in the AMBIT/G system (1968 ARPA funded). A gesture-based text editor using proof-reading symbols was developed at CMU by Michael Coleman in 1969. bill sticker Buxton at the University of Toronto has been studying gesture-based interactions since 1980. Gesture recognition has been used in commercial CAD systems since the 1970s, and came to universal notice with the Apple atomic number 7 in 1992. Multi-Media The FRESS project at Brown used multiple windows and integrated text and graphics (1968, funding from industry). The synergetic Graphical Documents project at Brown was the first hypermedia (as opposed to hypertext) system, and used raster graphics and text, but not video (1979-1983, funded by ONR and NSF).The Diamond project at BBN (starting in 1982, DARPA funded) explored combining multimedia information (text, spreadsheets, graphics, voice communication). The Movie Manual at the Architecture Machine Group (MIT) was one of the first to demonstrate intricate video and computer graphics in 1983 (DARPA funded). three-D The first 3-D system was probably Timothy Johnsons 3-D CAD system mentioned to a higher place (1963, funded by the Air Force). The Lincoln Wand by Larry Roberts was an ultrasonic 3D location sensing system, developed at Lincoln Labs (1966, ARPA funded). That system also had the first interactive 3-D hidden line elimination.An early use was for molecular modelling 18. The late 60s and early 70s saw the flowering of 3D raster graphics research at the University of Utah with Dave Evans, Ivan Sutherland, Romney, Gouraud, Phong, and Watkins, much of it government funded. in any case, the military-industrial flying simulation work of the 60s 70s led the way to making 3-D real time with commercial systems from GE, Evans, Singer/Link (funded by NASA, Navy, etc. ). Another important center of current research in 3-D is Fred Brooks lab at UNC (e. g. 2). Virtual Reality and Augmented Reality The original work on VR was performed by Ivan Sutherland when he was at Harvard (1965-1968, funding by Air Force, CIA, and bell shape Labs). Very important early work was by Tom Furness when he was at Wright-Patterson AFB. Myron Kruegers early work at the University of Connecticut was influential. Fred Brooks and Henry Fuchs groups at UNC did a lot of early research, including the study of force feedback (1971, funding from US Atomic Energy Commission and NSF). Much of the early research on head-mounted displays and on the DataGlove was supported by NASA. Computer Supported Cooperative Work. Doug Engelbarts 1968 demonstration of NLS 8 included the remote participation of multiple people at divers(a) sites (funding from ARPA, NASA, and Rome ADC). Licklider and Taylor predicted on-line interactive communities in an 1968 article 20 and speculated about the difficulty of access universe limited to the privileged. Electronic mail, still the most widespread multi-user software system, was enabled by the ARPAnet, which became operational in 1969, and by the Ethernet from Xerox PARC in 1973.An early computer conferencing system was Turoffs EIES system at the New Jersey Institute of Technology (1975). Natural language and speech The fundamental research for speech and natural la nguage understanding and generation has been performed at CMU, MIT, SRI, BBN, IBM, AT toll Labs and BellCore, much of it government funded. See, for example, 34 for a survey of the early work. 5. Software Tools and Architectures The area of user interface software tools is quite active now, and many companies are selling tools. Most of todays applications are implemented using various forms of software tools.For a more complete survey and discussion of UI tools, see 26. UIMSs and Toolkits (There are software libraries and tools that support creating interfaces by writing code. ) The first drug user Interface precaution System (UIMS) was William Newmans Reaction Handler 30 created at Imperial College, London (1966-67 with SRC funding). Most of the early work was done at universities (Univ. of Toronto with Canadian government funding, George Washington Univ. with NASA, NSF, DOE, and NBS funding, Brigham Young University with industrial funding, etc. . The term UIMS was coined by D avid Kasik at Boeing (1982) 14. Early window managers such as Smalltalk (1974) and InterLisp, both from Xerox PARC, came with a few widgets, such as popup menus and scrollbars. The Xerox Star (1981) was the first commercial system to have a massive collection of widgets. The Apple Macintosh (1984) was the first to actively promote its toolkit for use by other developers to use a consistent interface. An early C++ toolkit was InterViews 21, developed at Stanford (1988, industrial funding).Much of the juvenile research is being performed at universities, for example the Garnet (1988) 28 and amulet (1994) 27 projects at CMU (ARPA funded), and subArctic at Georgia Tech (1996, funding by Intel and NSF). Interface Builders (These are interactive tools that allow interfaces composed of widgets such as buttons, menus and scrollbars to be placed using a mouse. ) The Steamer project at BBN (1979-85 ONR funding) demonstrated many of the ideas later incorporated into interface builders and was probably the first object-oriented graphics system. Trillium 12 was developed at Xerox PARC in 1981.Another early interface builder was the MenuLay system 5 developed by Bill Buxton at the University of Toronto (1983, funded by the Canadian Government). The Macintosh (1984) included a resource Editor which allowed widgets to be placed and edited. Jean-Marie Hullot created SOS Interface in Lisp for the Macintosh while working at INRIA (1984, funded by the French government) which was the first modern interface builder. Hullot built this into a commercial product in 1986 and then went to work for NeXT and created the NeXT Interface Builder (1988), which popularized this type of tool. direct there are literally hundreds of commercial interface builders. Component Architectures The idea of creating interfaces by connecting separately written components was first demonstrated in the Andrew project 32 by Carnegie Mellon Universitys Information Technology Center (1983, funded by IBM ). It is now being widely popularized by Microsofts OLE and Apples OpenDoc architectures. 6. Discussion It is clear that all of the most important innovations in Human-Computer Interaction have benefited from research at both corporate research labs and universities, much of it funded by the government.The conventional style of graphical user interfaces that use windows, icons, menus and a mouse and are in a stage of standardization, where almost everyone is using the same, standard technology and just making minute, incremental changes. Therefore, it is important that university, corporate, and government-supported research continue, so that we can develop the experience and technology needed for the user interfaces of the future. Another important argument in opt of HCI research in universities is that computer science students need to know about user interface issues.User interfaces are likely to be one of the main value-added competitive advantages of the future, as both hardw are and basic software become commodities. If students do not know about user interfaces, they will not serve industry needs. It seems that only through computer science does HCI research disseminate out into products. Furthermore, without appropriate levels of funding of academic HCI research, there will be fewer PhD graduates in HCI to perform research in corporate labs, and fewer top-notch graduates in this area will be fire in being professors, so the needed user interface courses will not be offered.As computers get faster, more of the processing king is being devoted to the user interface. The interfaces of the future will use gesture recognition, speech recognition and generation, intelligent agents, adaptive interfaces, video, and many other technologies now being investigated by research groups at universities and corporate labs 35. It is imperative that this research continue and be well-supported. ACKNOWLEDGMENTS I must thank a large number of people who responded to po sts of earlier versions of this article on the announcements. hi placard list for their very generous help, and to Jim Hollan who helped edit the short excerpt of this article. Much of the information in this article was supplied by (in alphabetical order) Stacey Ashlund, Meera M. Blattner, Keith Butler, Stuart K. Card, Bill Curtis, David E. Damouth, Dan Diaper, Dick Duda, Tim T. K. Dudley, Steven Feiner, Harry Forsdick, Bjorn Freeman-Benson, John Gould, Wayne Gray, Mark Green, Fred Hansen, Bill Hefley, D. Austin Henderson, Jim Hollan, Jean-Marie Hullot, Rob Jacob, fairish John, Sandy Kobayashi, T. K.Landauer, John Leggett, Roger Lighty, Marilyn Mantei, Jim Miller, William Newman, Jakob Nielsen, Don Norman, Dan Olsen, Ramesh Patil, Gary Perlman, Dick Pew, Ken Pier, Jim Rhyne, Ben Shneiderman, John Sibert, David C. Smith, Elliot Soloway, Richard Stallman, Ivan Sutherland, Dan Swinehart, John Thomas, Alex Waibel, Marceli Wein, Mark Weiser, Alan Wexelblat, and Terry Winograd. Editori al comments were also provided by the above as well as Ellen Borison, Rich McDaniel, Rob Miller, Bernita Myers, Yoshihiro Tsujino, and the reviewers. References 1. Baecker, R. , et al. A Historical and smart Perspective, in Readings in Human-Computer Interaction Toward the Year 2000, Second Edition, R. Baecker, et al. , Editors. 1995, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, Inc. San Francisco. pp. 35-47. 2. Brooks, F. The Computer Scientist as ToolsmithStudies in Interactive Computer graphics, in IFIP gathering proceedings. 1977. pp. 625-634. 3. Burtnyk, N. and Wein, M. , Computer Generated Key Frame Animation. Journal Of the Society of Motion Picture and Television Engineers, 1971. 8(3) pp. 149-153. 4. Bush, V. , As We May Think. The Atlantic Monthly, 1945. 176(July) pp. 101-108.Reprinted and discussed in interactions, 3(2), Mar 1996, pp. 35-67. 5. Buxton, W. , et al. Towards a Comprehensive User Interface Management System, in Proceedings SIGGRAPH83 Computer Graphics. 1983. Detroit, Mic h. 17. pp. 35-42. 6. Card, S. K. , Pioneers and Settlers Methods Used in triumphful User Interface Design, in Human-Computer Interface Design Success Stories, Emerging Methods, and Real-World Context, M. Rudisill, et al. , Editors. 1996, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers San Francisco. pp. 122-169. 7. Coons, S. An Outline of the Requirements for a Computer-Aided Design System, in AFIPS Spring spliff Computer Conference. 963. 23. pp. 299-304. 8. Engelbart, D. and English, W. , A Research Center for Augmenting Human Intellect. Reprinted in ACM SIGGRAPH moving picture Review, 1994. , 1968. 106 9. English, W. K. , Engelbart, D. C. , and Berman, M. L. , Display Selection Techniques for Text Manipulation. IEEE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, 1967. HFE-8(1) 10. Goldberg, A. , ed. A History of Personal Workstations. 1988, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company New York, NY. 537. 11. Goldberg, A. and Robson, D. A Metaphor for User Interface Design, in Proceedings of the 12th howdy In ternational Conference on System Sciences. 1979. 1. pp. 48-157. 12. Henderson Jr, D. A. The Trillium User Interface Design Environment, in Proceedings SIGCHI86 Human Factors in Computing Systems. 1986. Boston, MA. pp. 221-227. 13. Johnson, T. Sketchpad trey Three Dimensional Graphical Communication with a Digital Computer, in AFIPS Spring conjugation Computer Conference. 1963. 23. pp. 347-353. 14. Kasik, D. J. A User Interface Management System, in Proceedings SIGGRAPH82 Computer Graphics. 1982. Boston, MA. 16. pp. 99-106. 15. Kay, A. , The Reactive Engine. PhD Thesis, Electrical Engineering and Computer Science University of Utah, 1969, 16. Kay, A. , Personal Dynamic Media. IEEE Computer, 1977. 10(3) pp. 31-42. 17. Koved, L. and Shneiderman, B. , Embedded menus Selecting items in context. Communications of the ACM, 1986. 4(29) pp. 312-318. 18. Levinthal, C. , molecular(a) Model-Building by Computer. Scientific American, 1966. 214(6) pp. 42-52. 19. Levy, S. , Hackers Heroes of t he Computer Revolution. 1984, Garden City, NY Anchor Press/Doubleday. 20. Licklider, J. C. R. and Taylor, R. W. , The computer as Communication Device. Sci. Tech. , 1968. April pp. 21-31. 21. Linton, M. A. , Vlissides, J. M. , and Calder, P. R. , Composing user interfaces with InterViews. IEEE Computer, 1989. 2(2) pp. 8-22. 22. Meyrowitz, N. and Van Dam, A. , Interactive Editing Systems Part 1 and 2. ACM Computing Surveys, 1982. 14(3) pp. 321-352. 23. Myers, B. A. , The User Interface for Sapphire. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 1984. 4(12) pp. 13-23. 24. Myers, B. A. , A Taxonomy of User Interfaces for Window Managers. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, 1988. 8(5) pp. 65-84. 25. Myers, B. A. , All the Widgets. SIGGRAPH Video Review, 1990. 57 26. Myers, B. A. , User Interface Software Tools. ACM Transactions on Computer Human Interaction, 1995. 2(1) pp. 64-103. 27. Myers, B. A. , et al. The Amulet V2. 0 Reference Manual . Carnegie Mellon University Computer Sc ience Department Report, Number, Feb, 1996. System available from http//www. cs. cmu. edu/amulet. 28. Myers, B. A. , et al. , Garnet Comprehensive Support for Graphical, Highly-Interactive User Interfaces. IEEE Computer, 1990. 23(11) pp. 71-85. 29. Nelson, T. A File Structure for the Complex, the Changing, and the Indeterminate, in Proceedings ACM National Conference. 1965. pp. 84-100. 30. Newman, W. M. A System for Interactive Graphical Programming, in AFIPS Spring Joint Computer Conference. 1968. 28. pp. 47-54. 31. Nielsen, J. multimedia system and Hypertext the Internet and beyond. 1995, Boston Academic Press Professional. 32. Palay, A. J. , et al. The Andrew Toolkit An Overview, in Proceedings pass Usenix Technical Conference. 1988. Dallas, Tex. pp. 9-21. 33. Press, L. , Before the Altair The History of Personal Computing. Communications of the ACM, 1993. 36(9) pp. 27-33. 34. Reddy, D. R. , Speech Recognition by Machine A Review, in Readings in Speech Recognition, A. Waibel and K. -F. Lee, Editors. 1990, Morgan Kaufmann San Mateo, CA. pp. 8-38. 35. Reddy, R. , To dreaming the Possible Dream (Turing Award Lecture). Communications of the ACM, 1996. 9(5) pp. 105-112. 36. Robertson, G. , Newell, A. , and Ramakrishna, K. , ZOG A Man-Machine Communication philosophical system . Carnegie Mellon University Technical Report Report, Number, August, 1977. 37. Ross, D. and Rodriguez, J. Theoretical Foundations for the Computer-Aided Design System, in AFIPS Spring Joint Computer Conference. 1963. 23. pp. 305-322. 38. Rudisill, M. , et al. , Human-Computer Interface Design Success Stories, Emerging Methods, and Real-World Context. 1996, San Francisco Morgan Kaufmann Publishers. 39. Scheifler, R. W. and Gettys, J. , The X Window System. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 1986. 5(2) pp. 79-109. 0. Shneiderman, B. , Direct Manipulation A Step Beyond Programming Languages. IEEE Computer, 1983. 16(8) pp. 57-69. 41. Smith, D. C. , Pygmalion A Computer Program to Model an d Stimulate original Thought. 1977, Basel, Stuttgart Birkhauser Verlag. PhD Thesis, Stanford University Computer Science Department, 1975. 42. Smith, D. C. , et al. The Star User Interface an Overview, in Proceedings of the 1982 National Computer Conference. 1982. AFIPS. pp. 515-528. 43. Stallman, R. M. , Emacs The Extensible, Customizable, Self-Documenting Display Editor . MIT Artificial Intelligence Lab Report, Number, Aug, 1979, 1979. 44.Sutherland, I. E. SketchPad A Man-Machine Graphical Communication System, in AFIPS Spring Joint Computer Conference. 1963. 23. pp. 329-346. 45. Swinehart, D. , et al. , A Structural View of the Cedar Programming Environment. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, 1986. 8(4) pp. 419-490. 46. Swinehart, D. C. , Copilot A Multiple Process Approach to Interactive Programming Systems. PhD Thesis, Computer Science Department Stanford University, 1974, SAIL memo AIM-230 and CSD Report STAN-CS-74-412. 47. Teitelman, W. , A Display Orie nted Programmers Assistant. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 1979. 1 pp. 157-187. Also Xerox PARC Technical Report CSL-77-3, Palo Alto, CA, March 8, 1977. 48. Tolliver, B. , TVEdit . Stanford Time Sharing Memo Report, Number, March, 1965. 49. van Dam, A. , et al. A Hypertext Editing System for the 360, in Proceedings Conference in Computer Graphics. 1969. University of Illinois. 50. van Dam, A. and Rice, D. E. , On-line Text Editing A Survey. Computing Surveys, 1971. 3(3) pp. 93-114. 51. Williams, G. , The Lisa Computer System. Byte Magazine, 1983. 8(2) pp. 33-50. 52. Williams, G. , The Apple Macintosh Computer. Byte, 1984. 9(2) pp. 30-54.