Syntax Channelling and Other Issues affecting Innovation in the Graphical User Interface

Mike King

Department of Art, Design, Silversmithing and Jewellery, London Guildhall University, 41 Commercial Road, London E1 1LA, United Kingdom

Abstract
Does the modern commercial Graphical User Interface constrain the developer of graphics applications into certain interaction styles? This paper looks at the Microsoft Windows environment as an example, with particular reference to the question of interaction modes, screen real-estate and visual appearance. The concept of syntax channelling is introduced to help analyse the problem of modality, and the question of button-down versus button-up dragging is debated in the context of a range of commercial applications, and possible consequences for upper limb disorder. A Windows application developed by the author involving the implementation of a variety of innovative interfacing techniques is presented.

Key Words: Graphical User Interface, graphics applications, Microsoft Windows, syntax, interaction modes, dragging, upper limb disorder, 3D graphics.

Background
The context of this discussion is the building of graphics applications under Microsoft Windows 3.1 (referred to throughout this paper as just Windows). Windows is used here as an example of a modern graphical user interface (GUI), supplied to the software developer in the form of a developer's kit, containing libraries of system calls and a set of development tools. While most of the comments here are directly related to Windows, most are generalisable to other GUIs, such as System 7 on the Mac/PowerMac. It is not intended to point out specific advantages or shortcomings for the graphics application developer in using Windows, but more to point out how a substantial GUI like Windows can direct user interface development in particular directions, and to encourage innovative thinking within such a framework.

1. Syntax Channelling

1.1 The Language Model of Interaction

In order to understand how a particular GUI, or modern GUIs generally, may encourage a limited range of interaction styles, it is useful to have a model of the interaction between user and system. The language model, described in Fundamentals of Interactive Computer Graphics [Fole82], is useful. It suggests that each interaction with the system can be divided into four levels:

semantic	the meaning or purpose of the task: this can be formalised in terms of a change of state of the application domain
syntactic	the structure or sequence of actions to complete the task
lexical	the symbols used (e.g. words or icons) for each action
device	the input device used to supply lexical components

The system also requires an echoing and a feedback component: echoing confirms the user input, while feedback indicates the results of completing the request from the user. In the second edition the language model is largely replaced with a range of concepts that include hierarchical task analysis, and state diagrams [Fole90]. Attention in paid to Basic Interaction Tasks (BITs) and Composite Interaction Tasks (CITs), and to whether the interaction involves a change of state for the problem domain (application data) of the control domain (e.g. changing a window's size and position). Also important is the concept of mode, defined loosely as "a state or collection of states in which just a subset of all possible user-interaction tasks can be performed." As soon as one has to break down a CIT into a series of sequential BITs one needs to consider syntax, that is the order of the inputs. Syntax is discussed in relation to modes, for example a command Draw_line (perhaps initiated by clicking on an icon) is followed by a series of inputs from the user: 

	point   point   line_style   line_thickness   line_colour

The authors cite this as an example of prefix syntax (where the command Draw_line is issued first and followed by parameters). As soon as the command is issued the user has entered a mode where only certain interactions are possible, and must come in a certain sequence. Some of the parameters can be factored out; for example the line_style, line_thickness and line_colour could all be set previously as current line attributes. It may or may not be desirable to factor out all parameters however. To help in this discussion I would like to introduce the term syntax channelling, by which I mean the way the user is required to make inputs to complete a task. By factoring out all parameters the user experiences the minimum syntax channelling, but may have to spend more time setting up the control domain. By increasing the syntax channelling the user may have to duplicate inputs, and may be frustrated by being 'moded-in'. Let us consider this in more detail.

1.2 Syntax Channelling

A complex task may require a number of user inputs. For example, to rotate a 2D vector-based shape in a draw-type package it will be necessary to select the shape, specify a centre for rotation, and then to specify an angle to rotate about, including a direction (clockwise or anti-clockwise). To draw a cuboid in a 3D modelling package it will be necessary to create a rectangle (which in turn requires one to specify two diagonally opposite corners), and then a length for the third dimension (two more points). Once the task is commenced the user is channelled into a sequence of inputs, though in some cases more than one input at a time can be supplied by the user (e.g. horizontal movement of the mouse providing angle, vertical providing radius). This syntactic channelling can be well or badly designed from the point of view of the expectations of the user, and the design may be partly dictated by the operating system.

How then, does a modern GUI like Windows dictate the design of syntax channelling? The answer to this complex issue lies in the philosophy behind all modern GUI programming: don't call us we'll call you. This is known as call-back programming or the Hollywood Principle [Pree91].

1.3 Don't Call Us, We'll Call You

'Don't call us we'll call you' is a simple way of saying that a system is message-driven. The user is entitled to press, click, or in any way interact with any part of the user interface, and the application should process that message. If the message belongs to another application, or part of the operating system, it should pass it on, and wait while another application deals with it. If one's application absolutely cannot be interrupted, then it is necessary to show some kind of busy symbol - in Windows the hour-glass tracking symbol. This principle is at the core of modern software development, and rightly so. Larry Tesler's crusade against modes that shut you in [Tes81] has been mainly heeded in the design of modern GUIs. However, it has had the side-effect of reducing the depth of syntax channelling. This is not always intentional, and may require more conscious decision-making than in traditional programmer-built interfaces. Modal dialogue boxes (which require the user to close the box before continuing) are a visible and obvious form of syntax channelling, but the user-manipulation of graphical objects within the application domain results in less obvious syntax channelling, as there is no accepted and simple way of making the mode obvious. A change of tracking symbol is one method, a highlighting of the application client area is another.

Let us take the example of rotating a 3D object under call-back programming, assuming a particular sequence of inputs. Once the rotate command has been initiated the user enters a (usually invisible) mode where the following actions are required:

	1.	select object to rotate using mouse
	2.	select start and end-point in 3D for axis of rotation using mouse
	3.	input angle of rotation by moving mouse

In call-back programming this may require the processing of up to eight mouse messages (four x and y coordinates each from a button-down / button-up state change). The programmer's message handler must keep track of the state of the rotate function, while passing on other messages to the system message handler. The complexity of this is also influenced by the question of button-up or button-down dragging.

1.4 Button-Down vs. Button-up Dragging
Dragging is a common part of user interaction in a GUI: the user clicks at some point in the client area, and moves the mouse to a new location, while holding the button down. This may be called button-down dragging, and its alternative is button-up dragging. Some assume that dragging must always be button down, as the state diagram in fig.1 shows, taken from [Dix93]. In [Buxt85] a similar diagram is shown, but with a footnote indicating that dragging can also be button up. Dragging may by used to define a rectangular area as a marquee selection, to indicate a region for object 'capture', to enter an angle or other numerical value, or just to move something. In a text editor text selections can be made by button-down dragging the cursor through the required text. An alternative is to click once (with the shift key down) and to click a second time at the end of the passage. Although the difference between button-down and button-up dragging may seem trivial, in fact a number of interfacing issues hang on it, including syntax channelling. Fig.2 spells out the two approaches.

Figure 1. Dragging is thought of as button-down

Figure 2. Button down and button up dragging

In [Preec94] the distinction is drawn between two types of gestural syntax for menus: press-drag-release (this is the norm on the Macintosh) or click-position-click (this is the norm for Windows, though the other syntax can also be used). No mention is made of any studies regarding the preferability of the two methods for menu selection, but I can offer a reason for my own preference (the click-position-click syntax): if the cursor slips off the menu with press-drag-release (a) the menu disappears, and (b) the wrong item may have been selected. There are possibly other reasons for preferring the second syntax, which we will look at shortly. 

1.5 Dragging and Syntax Channelling

Button-down dragging has an inevitable result on syntax channelling: it represents a form of mode. This is because a button-down drag initiated in the client area (to move an object for example) cannot affect anything outside the client area. This is simply because all interaction objects in the non-client regions are activated by a button-down interaction, not a button-up interaction (in Windows this is true, and I suspect for the majority of other modern GUIs). This syntax channelling is seen as an advantage by some as this quote from [Buxt86] shows:

Think about how you interact with pop-up menus with a mouse. Normally you push down the select button, indicate your choice by moving the mouse, and then release the select button to confirm the choice. You are in a state of muscular tension throughout the dialogue: a state that corresponds exactly with the temporary state of the system. Because of the gesture used, it is impossible to make an error in syntax, and you have a continual active reminder that you are in an uninterruptable temporary state. Because of the gesture used, there is none of the trauma normally associated with being in a mode. That you are in a mode is ironic, since it is precisely the designers of "modeless" systems that make heaviest use of this technique. The lesson here is that it is not modes per se that cause problems.

The author is making a parallel between muscular tension and a non-neutral state of the system, i.e. a mode. There are other ways of indicating mode, as will be discussed later, and it is not universally true that modes should be un-interruptable - far from it. However there are interesting conclusions to be drawn from this extract, as there are from another point made in the same paper: that, having two hands, we can enter information in parallel. This can be used to reduce the depth of syntax channelling. In [Dix93] it is argued that "mixing keyboard and mouse is normally a bad habit", but in graphics (and most other) applications it is so widespread that it cannot be dispensed with (see section 4).

1.6 Fitt's Law

Fitt's law relates the time taken for a user to move a pointing device from one place to another to the distance between them and the width of the target area, and has been developed in computer interface studies to look at the use of mice etc. in interaction tasks, by looking at target areas, direction of travel, handedness, and even the effects of using pie-shaped menus. In [MacK92] a Fitt's law study was applied to moving a file icon to a trash can using three different dragging techniques:

	1.	DRAG_SELECT (corresponding to our button-down drag)
	2.	POINT_SELECT (corresponding to our button-up drag)
	3.	STROKE_THROUGH (button-down)

The author reported that the third method was faster up to certain distances, when the button-up dragging became faster. The standard Macintosh technique (button-down dragging) was always the slowest.

1.7 Repetitive Strain Injury (Upper Limb Disorder)

Button-down dragging requires the forefinger to be in a state of tension throughout the movement, and can be useful in indicating a mode. For occasional use this is not a problem, but in graphics and DTP applications the time actually spent in button-down dragging in a typical working day may be considerable. There is anecdotal evidence of upper limb disorder resulting from the use of mice, and I would suggest that button-down dragging may increase this risk, as repeated actions are least harmful with minimum muscle tension.

1.8 Case Study: Polyline and Move

How conscious a design decision by the software developer is button-up vs. button-down positioning? I would suggest that the choice is fairly arbitrary, and perhaps dictated by the context. For example if the context is the movement of an icon or object, and the action is referred to as dragging, then the choice is often button-down. If the context is rubber-banding for the creation of a single line, circle or rectangle, then it may be either. If it is the creation of a poly-line then it is universally button-up, as you can't easily do it button-down. 

The creation of a poly-line is an almost universal graphics application requirement, especially if we add control handles to make it into a Bezier curve. It is used in 3D for creating outlines and animation paths, in 2D vector-based packages to create PostScript curves, in paint packages to create accurate selection outlines for cut and paste, and in morphing packages to control the image distortion. Table 1. shows how the following packages provide for poly-line and object move functions: 3D Studio, CorelDRAW! WinImages:Morph, Painter, Photoshop, and Freehand.

Table 1: Polyline and Move functions for six different applications

	3D Studio version 3	CorelDRAW! version 3.0	WinImage: Morph version 2.04	Painter version 2.0	Photoshop version 2.5	Freehand version 3.1	
O/S	DOS	Windows 3.1	Windows 3.1	Windows 3.1	Windows 3.1	System 7.1	
Polyline							
(a) points	click-position -click	click - 
position -
click	click - 
position -
click	click - 
position -
click	click - 
position -
click	click - 
position -
click	
(b) tracking    symbol	small square	cross	Maltese cross	cross with circle	pen tool icon	cross	
(c) echo of line/curve	rubber-band line	none until press/drag new point, then curve	none, or drag for rubber-band line	none, or drag for rubber-band line	none until press/drag new point, then curve	none, or drag for rubber-band line or curve	
(d) Bezier curves	drag new point	drag new point	use different tool	no curves	drag new point	n/a	
(e) close path	click on first point	click on first point	no path closing	select new tool	click on first point	click on first point	
(f) exit	must close path
	select new tool or close path	click right mouse button	select new tool	close Paths window	select new tool or close path	
(e) modality issues	cursor constrained to client area: auto-scroll	non-modal	no new tool can be selected until exit / abandon	zoom tool causes exit	Paths window must be active	non-modal	
(f) abandon	click right mouse button	n/a as not modal	click right mouse button	n/a as mainly not modal	close Paths window	n/a as not modal	
							
Move selection or object	click-position-click
	press-drag-release	press-drag-release with right mouse button	press-drag-release	press-drag-release	press-drag-release	

Although five of these applications are for Windows, it is interesting to note how varied the detailed implementation of the polyline is. This is partly a function of how the polyline (as the basis for the Bezier curve) is used in the package. Also of interest is the fact that the only DOS-based package (3D Studio) makes the least use of button-down dragging, possibly because it is not developed under a call-back operating system.

1.9 The Modern GUI and Syntax Channelling
Before leaving the issue of syntax channelling, let us consider how an operating system like Windows dictates this aspect of user interface design. We have shown that while it may be, in programming terms, slightly easier to implement button-down dragging, there are plenty of examples of button-up dragging in Windows applications. Once this is accepted there becomes no need to limit the depth of syntax channelling, where required, or conversely to reduce it to the minimum where required. The single example of a Macintosh application in the Table 1. shows that the button-up style can as readily be implemented in System 7 applications. I do not know, however, whether the click-position-click menu selection method can be implemented on the Mac, or whether the operating system forces the press-drag-release method. (Windows allows both.)

A Photoshop plug-in shows an interesting example of an approach to syntax channelling, or modality, that has possibly arisen out of the call-back ethos. This plug-in filter simulates lens flare, and provides options, via a modal dialogue box, for three types of lens and for a quantity of flare between 10% and 300%, using a slider. The filter also requires the input of a location on the user image for the flare centre, which is achieved by using a scaled-down version of the user image, and an XORed cross-hair which the user can move with the mouse by simply clicking at any position over the image (see fig. 3). 

		

		

		

		

		
		
Figure 3. Modal Dialogue box for lens flare filter (dialogue box copyright Adobe Systems Inc. 1991 - 1992)
	Figure 4. Selection edges visible because of pixel brightening	

This is a neat solution to the modality problem: all inputs are made within one dialogue box, clearly labelled with a window title relating to its function. However, it can in some circumstances be a harmful mode in Foley et al's sense, as my own experience showed. I was working with some grey-scale images with a resolution of 1960 x 736 pixels, and the scaled (sampled) version of my image at about 190 x 70 pixels did not give me enough detail to locate the exact position I wanted: over one of the car headlamps. I was moded in! I had no access to the normal pan and zoom that would let me locate a position accurately on a bitmap. My solution was to use the floating selection of the car (which was being composited with a background and represented about one-eighth of the total image area), start the filter again, this time with enough detail showing for me to locate the right spot. Unfortunately, the filter, now working up to the edges of the selection, slightly brightened all the pixels in the selection, though this was not visible on the screen of my computer due to poor gamma correction. However it showed up in the final output, which was direct to bromide using a laser setter (see fig. 4). Note that this image is a portion of the complete image, and has had its brightness curves adjusted to emphasises the selection edges. For a more detailed description of the genesis and context of this image see [King95].

This last example demonstrates again the important principle never mode the user in. Although syntax channelling is vital for the completion of complex tasks without endless control-state preparation (or factoring out), it does not predicate the moding out of the user.  While the modal dialogue box is a highly useful solution to many control-state interactions, it may not be so useful in application-state interactions. In the lens flare example, the user needs to specify a location, perhaps down to an exact pixel, and simply needs access to the client area in the normal way. Call-back programming makes programmers nervous of an 'invisible' mode, where the user is required to make a specific locatory input. There are many solutions to this, however, the simplest being a prompt and an appropriate tracking symbol.

I would propose would a special and universal tracking symbol that would alert the user to a modal phase of the system, i.e. that an input was required, or that a sequence of inputs were required. This would incorporate an exclamation mark (to indicate a state of 'tension'), and perhaps a numerical indicator for the depth of channelling. If, going back to our 3D rotate example, 4 locations are required, the tracking symbol could contain the pling, and the number from 4 down to 1, indicating how many inputs were still required (see fig. 5). It may be that the number alone is sufficient, and it is worth remembering that in many systems users rapidly learn the depth of the syntax channelling if the inputs logically relate to the task in hand.

Figure 5. Tracking symbol indicates modedness and depth of syntax channelling
2. Visual Issues in the Interface

2.1 Real-Estate

Another major design issue affected by modern GUIs relates to screen 'real-estate'. For art and design packages the user often needs the maximum screen area possible given over to the client area. Windows, perhaps because of its intended business user-base, takes a little more real-estate than System 7, an example being that a primary application window is required to have both a title bar and a menu bar. In System 7 there is only one menu bar, the current application displaying its menus there, with little other clue as to what software is currently running. One can argue that Windows is less confusing as the title bar spells out the application (and usually the currently open document), while the menu bar displays only the menu titles for that application. However, real-estate is lost. 

It is worth mentioning that for some user-interface researchers the problem of real-estate is in having too much! In [Cowa91] the authors discuss the use of high-resolution 21" monitors, and the difficulty of making active windows stand out from the rest.  However, I am discussing the use of cheap to mid-range systems where screens are not so large, and typical resolutions are 800 x 600 pixels. Windows does in fact cater for differences in resolution by having interfacing elements such as dialogue boxes scalable, according to the point size of the system font. However, the system font is set by the video card drivers, and is not easily changed. Many graphics applications which use multiple child windows (or palettes) for provision of tools, fonts, colour, styles and so on, have abandoned the system-provided windows and dialogue boxes in favour of their own. This is wasteful of the developer's effort, and leads to a range of styles: for example the close box, which in Windows normally requires a double-click, takes a single click in some packages. Photoshop, CorelDRAW! and Painter all use their own specialised palettes to overcome the problem of real-estate, a common feature being the much narrower title bar (required to move the palette) than Windows allows for.

2.2 Aesthetics
 
The 'look' of Windows interfaces is sometimes criticised by Mac users as cluttered, clunky or crude, and the graphics application developer may agree. However, many Mac graphics applications now have such sophisticated graphics as part of the interface as to make for a complete aesthetic - which may be completely at odds with the user's aesthetic. Quantel Paintbox users are famous for being against the introduction of icons into the user interface of their system on the grounds that they are visually distracting. All Quantel commands are entered via a text-only menu system. Even so, the system uses a distinctive pink and grey colour scheme. I would argue for the utmost visual neutrality in the interface to graphics systems, and, as a design precept, this is not compromised more in either the Mac or Windows. Let us use greys as a colour scheme, and keep icons, where used, to the visual minimum. Fig. 6 shows the interface to Fractal Design's Painter (version 2.0), which is otherwise an excellent package, but is visually very rich. I have shown all the interfacing windows, though in practice an artist would have only a few visible at any one time, and would often work 'full screen', using 100% of the screen area, with no menus or title bars visible at all. Of the windows shown in fig.6 the Brush Looks, Brush, Frisket and Fill palettes are the most complex, and use multi-coloured images. The artist can 'bracket out' the imagery and style of these palettes, but this takes effort. 

Figure 6. Dialogue boxes (non-modal palettes) in Fractal Design's Painter
3. Hot Buttons

Both Windows and System 7 give the user keyboard shortcuts to speed up interaction with the application. Some consider it the mark of the professional to rarely use the menus at all, but this is probably an exaggerated view. However, many do use a limited set of keyboard shortcuts, those for save, copy and paste probably being the commonest. In Windows there is provision for every menu command to have a keyboard shortcut: the user is required to hold the <Alt> key down, then a letter belonging to the menu name (e.g. F for the File menu, E for the Edit menu), and finally a letter belonging to the menu item (preferably the first). This is indicated in Windows menus by an underlining of the letter, the programmer implements it by preceding the letter with an ampersand. With System 7 keyboard shortcuts are provided by holding down the apple key and one other letter (this is faster, but limits the range of shortcuts). 

I have developed an innovative system whereby the last 8 menu commands appear on hot buttons, as two letter identifiers, corresponding to the menu letter and the menu item letter. I have placed these, unusually, on the menu bar in order to save on screen real-estate. This system is probably of much more use in graphics packages where one is in an exploratory mode: for example one might adjust a light position and colour in 3D graphics, re-render, and adjust the light again. The hot-buttons are well suited to this iterative and exploratory method of working, but do not replace the macro concept where a pre-determined task needs to be repeated. Copies of the hot buttons also appear on each modal dialogue box, allowing rapid movement around the system (pressing a hot button automatically closes dialogue boxes to any depth). Fig. 8. shows a screen shot of a software package called of RaySculpt (described below) with dialogue boxes and hot buttons. Note that the command RG has been issued repeatedly - this is the rendering command, short for Render Go - as the user is making changes to parameters to a marbling texture routine.

4. RaySculpt - a Test-Bed for Interfacing Issues

I have been implementing graphics applications for about ten years, including paint, draw, and 3D packages, as well as file translation and colour printing utilities, some of which are still in use by my students today, see [King88] and [King89]. RaySculpt derives from a ray tracer written by my colleague Richard Wright, and a modeller based on spheres, originally known as 'Sculptor' [King91]. Raysculpt combines modeller and ray tracer in a single Windows package, and presents a wide range of interfacing problems, as well as one of my principle tools of artistic expression. As well as incorporating some of the design principles discussed earlier (button-up dragging, syntax depth reporting, clear and escapable 'moding', hot-buttons, and minimal visual impact) there remain some uniquely 3D related interfacing issues. I will discuss just one: the specification of a 3D location with a 2D device (the mouse). In Autodesk's 3D Studio (a tour de force in many ways, and champion of the button-up approach) one has the concept of a current viewport representing plan, elevation, left and right side views. Only two of the three 3D coordinates can be specified at any one time, depending on the current viewport. For example, if you wish to move an object along all three axes, you have to do two move operations, in two different viewports. I have always found this a frustration, as I developed Sculptor over ten years ago with a simple method for switching between viewports, allowing for rapid positioning in three dimensions. The technique also relies on a third-angle projection, with coordinated positioning in each view, and the use of keys at the keyboard to allow parallel input of information. The syntax channelling is thus reduced in depth but broadened, making for a less modal interaction. See fig. 7. 

Fig. 8 shows the RaySculpt interface in an intermediate state of development, but incorporating many of the interfacing concepts outlined in this paper. Dialogue boxes are all modal, while client-area modality is indicated by highlighting around the area. Colour is only used in the interface for lights, in the material editor, and for low-resolution previews of the rendered file - otherwise all elements are drawn in greys. Fig. 9 shows example output from the system output at high resolution.

Figure 7. Rapid Location in 3D

Figure 8. RaySculpt Screen Layout

Figure 9. Example Imagery from RaySculpt
Conclusions
It seems that a modern commercial GUI like Windows makes few actual constraints on the design of the user interface, though the call-back programming style may imply certain solutions. By introducing the concept of syntax channelling it becomes easier to analyse interactions and make conscious design decisions in connection with the problems of modedness. In particular, client-area interactions need clear indications of syntax channelling. It may be unwise to rely on button-down dragging to do this as there could possibly be a link with upper limb disorders. Research needs to be done to see whether there is any connection with button-down dragging and upper limb disorder related to the use of mice, or whether other factors are more important. Fitt's law studies for button-down vs. button-up timings would also be useful. Implementers of graphics packages could be encouraged to avoid a strong 'aesthetic' to the interface, by using simple icons and colour schemes. To conclude: modern GUIs may suggest certain interfacing solutions, but in practice the graphics application developer must still solve many of the specialised problems in innovative ways. This requires both art and science.

References
[Buxt85]	Buxton, W., Hill, R. Rowley, "Issues and Techniques in Touch-Sensitive Tablet Input" in Computer Graphics (SIGGRAPH conference proceedings), The Association for Computing Machinery, New York, 1985.
[Buxt86]	Buxton, W. "There's More to Interaction than Meets the Eye: Some Issues in Manual Input" in Baecker, R. and Buxton, W. (Eds.) Readings in Human-Computer Interaction, Morgan Kaufmann, Los Altos 1987.
[Cowa91]	Cowan, W. and Loop, S. "Perceiving Window Geometry: An Experimental Study" in Graphics Interface (Proceedings of the Canadian Human-Computer Communications Society), The Canadian Information Processing Society, Toronto 1991, pp. 192 - 198.
[Dix93]	Dix, A., Finlay, J. Abowd, G. Beale, R. "Human Computer Interaction", Prentice Hall, 1993 p. 212.
[Fole82]	Foley, J., Van Dam, A. "Fundamentals of Interactive Computer Graphics", Addison-Wesley, 1982.
[Fole90]	Foley, J., Van Dam, A., Feiner, S. Hughes, J. "Computer Graphics - Principles and Practice" (2nd Edition), Addison-Wesley, 1990.
[King88]	King, M.R., "Development of an Integrated Computer Art System", in N. Magnenat-Thalmann and D. Magnenat-Thalmann, eds., New Trends in Computer Graphics, Proceeding of the CG International 1988 (Berlin: Springer-Verlag, 1988) pp. 643 - 652.
[King89]	King, M.R., "Towards an Integrated Computer Art System", in R. J. Lansdown and R. A. Earnshaw, eds., Computer in Art, Design and Animation, Proceedings of the 1986 conference at the Royal College of Art (London: Springer-Verlag, 1989), pp 41 - 55.
[King91]	King, M.R., "Sculptor: A Three-Dimensional Computer Sculpting System", in Leonardo, 24, No. 4 (383-387) 1991.
[King95]	King, M.R., "Programmed Graphics in Computer Art and Animation", to be published in Leonardo, early 1995.
[MacK92]	MacKenzie, S. "Movement Time Prediction in Human-Computer Interfaces", in Graphics Interface (Proceedings of the Canadian Human-Computer Communications Society), The Canadian Information Processing Society, Toronto 1992, pp. 140 - 150.
[Pree91]	Pree, W., Pomberger, G., Sikora, H. "Construction Techniques of Graphic Direct-Manipulation User Interfaces", in Post, F. and Barth, W. (Eds.) Eurographics, North-Holland, Amsterdam, London, New York, Tokyo, 1991, pp. 59 - 71
[Preec94]	Preece, J. Rogers, Y. Sharp, H., Benyon, D., Holland, S., Corey, T. "Human Computer Interaction", Addison-Wesley 1994.
[Tes81]	Tesler, L. "The Smalltalk Environment" Byte, Vol. 6 No. 8, August 1981, p.90.