A comparison study: sketch-based interface versus wimp interfaces
in three-dimensional modeling tasks
Tiago Lemos de Araujo Machado, Alex Sandro Gomes, Marcelo Walter
Centro de Informática – CIn, Departamento de Ciência da Computação
Universidade Federal de Pernambuco – UFPE
{tlam, asg, marcelow}@cin.ufpe.br
Abstract
Sketch-Based Interfaces are becoming a popular
interaction style for many applications. The interaction
style tries to recreate the experience of sketching that is
similar to real paper and pencil drawings. They are
being used to accomplish tasks related to geometric
modeling, animation, architecture, design, music, and
learning, among others. In this work we evaluate and
compare two interaction approaches, Sketch and WIMP,
in tasks for modeling 3D objects. We used two distinct
tools: Teddy – a sketch based modeling software, and the
more traditional WIMP modeling tools Maya & 3DS
Max. We used quantitative and qualitative methods to
identify benefits from both techniques from the users’
perspective. These data will be turned into requirements
for a future prototype based on the usability gains of a
combination between the two approaches in study.
Key Words: interaction styles, user studies, software
evaluate.
1. Introduction
The Sketch-Based Interface technique has been known
in the Computer Science field since the beginnings of the
Computer Graphics and Human-Computer Interaction
fields. In 1963, Ivan Sutherland developed Sketch Pad,
one of the most influential works in Computer Science in
the last 50 years. In Sketch Pad, the user could interact
with a light pen, drawing geometric figures directly on a
vector display [11]. Further advances in software and
hardware research since then, have developed more
complex Sketch-Based Systems, making them available
and accessible to domestic users, according to predictions
in Sutherland’s work.
Since Sutherland’s original work, it took sometime for
the research community to realize the potential of Sketch-
Based approaches, and it was not until the 1990s that this
subject attracted attention again, for instance in the Sketch
work [23]. In 1999 the software Teddy [10], had a great
impact on the research community, attributed by the
authors to the simplicity of usage, vis-à-vis the users,
even children. The acceptance of Teddy influenced the
use of sketch-based techniques in a great number of
systems such as computer games [22][7] and educational
software like Alice [2]. Also, in the steps of Teddy,
research activity in this topic increased with the
publication of many papers in the last few years, mainly
applying sketch ideas in new applications. In spite of all
the research activity, there has been no detailed study on
how sketch-based ideas compare to traditional interaction.
In this work, we investigate how sketch-based
modeling interface compares with traditional WIMP
interface for geometric modeling tasks. We used three
systems to evaluate the techniques: Teddy [10] for its
large repercussion in the academic field and commercial
success, Maya [1] and 3DS Max [19] two of the most
well-known systems for content production in 3D. We
used a task analysis methodology to collect quantitative
and qualitative data related to the users interaction with
the two styles (in the WIMP style the users could choose
between Maya or 3DS Max, based on their experience
with these products).
This paper is organized as follows: the related works
are presented in Section 2. Our methodology is presented
in Section 3. The data analysis and results are presented
and discussed in Section 4, and the conclusions with
appointments for future work are presented in Section 5.
2. Related Works
The main strength of Sketch-Based Interfaces is its
potential to create user experiences inspired by real
drawing with pencil and paper. The ideas have been used
in a large range of applications, such as educational
software [6], computer games [8][22], physics simulation,
manipulation of mathematical symbols [13][14][15][24],
prototyping of web pages [11], architecture [9],
animation [19], and the creation of presentations [20]. Our
work concentrates on the evaluation of systems to create
3D content. Below, we discuss previous work closely
related to our project.
Olsen and colleagues [17], introduced the theme
through a taxonomy which classifies the sketch-based
modeling systems by the way of their creation, kind of
surface, edit operations and interface paradigms. The
paper presents many implementation details of the
software and reveals the influence of different areas in the
creation of the projects, such as HCI and Cognitive
Science. The improvement of the sketch-based interface is
considered one of the most exciting and challenging
areas.
In the work presented by Seok-Hyung Bae and
colleagues in [25], an interface metaphor of pencil and
paper created for professional designers, called
ILoveSketch. The users can draw curves freely and
directly on the screen, and connect them through camera
rotations. Although the results are 3D models, all objects
are built through the users’ strokes, with no system
interpretation. The researchers tested the prototype with
the collaboration of a specialist with 12 years experience
in design in the automobile industry and with toys and
movies. The choice was justified by the decision to
project the system for professional users with a high level
of experience. The user carried out an intense evaluation
of the system after a one-hour of training. The main
conclusion was that the user was satisfied with the great
numbers of features of the system.
The software Fibermesh [3] is an evolution of
Teddy. It brings even more power to the user in the task
of creation of 3D models. The original curve stroke lies in
the model. It makes possible to manipulate the object in a
practical way with operations directly applied in the curve
by user actions. The researchers presented also a non-
formal evaluation of their system with novice users and
artists. They concluded that Fibermesh is an easy to use
tool, which permits evolution in the creativity tasks
executed by the users.
In the SESAME project [12], James Lin and
colleagues studied ways to provide support to the work of
designers in the initial stages of the designing process.
SESAME was created to explore different visions to solve
conceptual design problems in three dimensions. The
work was presented in two phases: the first presented a set
of guidelines to create collaborative systems for
conceptual designs, and the second compared SESAME
against 3DS max. The main goal of the evaluation was to
analyze how designers could make a creative complex
design in the least amount of time, and what sets of
operations they need to execute during the task.
With the GODZILLA [26] system, S. Tano and
colleagues presented experimental systems where the
users can make 2D drawings, which are recognized and
exhibited as 3D sketches in a display (stereo vision TV).
The user can later modify the drawings, as viewed from
many view points (2D or 3D). In order to evaluate the
system, they compared it against pencil and paper, and a
3D CAD (Computer Aided Design) tool. The results
revealed that the ideas in terms of numbers of sketched
are much closer in this system to the numbers of sketched
in traditional pencil and paper combination.
Marcus Wacker and colleagues developed The Virtual
Dressmaker [18], a Virtual Reality application to design
clothes. The system supports advanced interactive
techniques with six degrees of freedom. The researchers
argue that sketch-based techniques are more natural than
the traditional desktop techniques. They started with a
pilot test, where the user needed to position clothes on an
avatar in three different systems: the Virtual Dressmaker,
Maya and the CosmoWorlds. They evaluated variables
such as the time for task completion and precision
achieved by the users. The results showed that the user’s
performance was better with VirtualDressmaker. They
also presented points to improve the users tasks in future
versions of the software.
In this work [16] Kamran Sedig and colleagues
presents a methodology to evaluate the impact of using
geometry learning software in the learning geometry
process, for children at a basic educational level. The
research compared three versions of the same software
built to teach geometry transformations. The goal was to
find ways to design effective tools to ease the knowledge-
building process in learning. The research revealed that
the present interface style brings implications in the
education by the way users interact with the tools.
Another conclusion was that the HCI elements could
improve the cognitive capabilities of users who use the
software, although it can also affect the same capabilities.
This work served also as an inspiration to us, since it
advances the idea that sketch-based interfaces have to be
more investigated in order to identify gains and eventual
losses that the technique can offer in different contexts.
Takeo Igarahashi and colleagues introduced the
software Teddy [10], a gesture based system where the
users draw on a white screen with strokes in 2D (input
data), and the result of this interaction is a 3D model
(output data). Basically, all operations are a result of a set
of actions (gestures) like: creation, paint, extrusion, cut,
smooth, bend, etc.
3. Methodology
We used a qualitative and quantitative methodology
[4] to conduct our comparative study, described below.
3.1. Pilot Tests
We executed a great number of pilot tests [18] in order
to decide the tools to be used, to evaluate and improve our
methodology. After the pilot sessions, the collected data
was analyzed and the methodology was adjusted when
necessary. We repeated this procedure until we decided
that the methodology was ready to be executed in a real
context.
In our pilot tests we had the collaboration of a
computer science student familiar with traditional
software for 3D modeling (Maya in this case). One
identified necessity was the reduction of the experiment’s
length, to avoid the user becoming tired. Although there is
no limit on the time to execute the tasks, we planned it to
consume a minimum amount of the user’s time, without
jeopardizing the goals of our study.
An important decision taken during the pilot tests was
the definition of the Teddy system as the selected tool to
evaluate the sketch-based modeling technique. Our other
choice, the software Fibermesh (which has more
interaction possibilities than Teddy), was rejected due to
great instability in the prototype version available. The
details of the methodology are showed below.
3.2. Hypotheses
To evaluate our study, we considered the following
hypothesis:
H1: modeling with the use of sketch (as presented in
Teddy), demands less effort from the user than modeling
with the use of WIMP-like interfaces (as presented in
Maya or 3DS Max).
H2: the sketch-based modeling approach (as presented
in Teddy) reduces the user’s time to complete tasks.
H3: the sketch-based modeling technique (as presented
in Teddy) produces satisfactory results.
The effort (H1) and the satisfactory user’s results (H3)
in this study were evaluated through the user’s answers
collected in a survey related to the two techniques
presented. The time (H2) was verified through the video
register of the user’s activities.
3.2.1. Dependent and Independent Variables. The
independent variables involved in this study were:
• the technique utilized (Sketch or WIMP);
• the target object to be modeled (a bear);
• the executed task.
The dependent variables were the following:
• user’s effort;
• number of tries to realize the task;
• time to execute the tasks;
• users satisfaction;
• Hierarchical tasks models (HTA).
The user effort and satisfaction with the results were
collected through the same survey. All the other variables
have their results computed after the analysis of the user’s
activities.
3.2.2. Subjects. The profile defined users who are
studying or working in the Design, Art or Technology
fields with experience in Computer Graphics products
such as Maya or 3DSmax. They should also have basic
understanding of the modeling process of these tools. All
the users were recruited as volunteers in academic or
technical schools, or in design, games, and technology
companies.
3.2.3. Collected Data. To collect the data, we defined
25 users. In the study here presented we used only 6 users
to show qualitative data, our quantitative analyze
continues and will be shown in a future work.
3.2.4. User’s Mental Model. We used the user speech
to analyze, in an hierarchical form, their activities in
Teddy and Maya or 3DS Max. The main objective was to
build two trees of analyses, one for each approach (sketch
and WIMP). By analyzing each tree, we can extract
details of the users’ modeling activities, such as usability
gains, needs and requirements for designing a system
based on our findings.
3.2.5. Survey (personal data). A simple survey was
used to collect information about the users, such as
occupation and familiarity with the WIMP tools defined
for the study.
3.2.6. Questionnaire (System Usability Scale). The
use of a questionnaire was necessary to collect, through
the users’ replies, the measures for the three subjective
hypotheses (H1, H2, H3), which are related to the
easiness of use and the satisfaction with the observed
results. The questionnaire was adapted from the available
model developed by SUS – System Usability Scale [5]
and applied to both techniques for comparison effect (the
adaptation is available at
www.cin.ufpe.br/~tlam/sus_adaptation ).
3.2.7. User’s Comments. Through the users answers
we collected qualitative data related to their opinions
about satisfaction with the created 3D models, the use of
creativity in the tools, and ease of use with the software.
3.3. Procedure
The test sessions were composed of two phases: one
dedicated to introduce Teddy, and another oriented to
tasks execution and answering the questionnaire. In the
first phase, the goal was to make Teddy more familiar to
the users. They filled a simple questionnaire about their
experience with the tools and their occupations.
The users had time to test the system functions with a
tutorial help available in: http://wwwui.is.s.utokyo.ac.
jp/~takeo/teddy/teddy/tutorial.html.
In the second phase, the users had to execute three
tasks, one only for modeling and the other two dedicated
to editing the model previously created. Each task was
performed with both Teddy and Maya (or 3DS Max).
 There was not a time limit to conclude the tasks, and
the only rule was that the user needed to execute each task
in each tool. The tasks were as follows:
Creation - The user had to reproduce a teddy bear
(Figure 1) model presented in a reference picture. This
reference was used only to show a direction of how the
users’ test could start and not to follow the reference
exactly as seen in the picture.
Figure 1. The reference picture of a teddy bear.
Editing - Using the bear model created in the previous
task (did not need to be complete), the user was asked to
make a drawing of a four-point star at any point on the
bear’s surface. Following, they should erase this star and
draw a five-point star instead. After that, the user needed
to cut one of the bear’s ears, and create a little cavity in
the bear’s body.
Pointed ear - The user was asked to deform the bear’s
ears to make it look like a cat’s ear. To do this task, the
previously created ears must be used.
After the conclusion of the third task, the users filled in
a questionnaire about the tests and talked about their
experience when performing the tasks.
The tasks were defined in this way to cover a set of
basic operations presented in the 3D modeling systems
evaluated.
4. Results
For our qualitative study, we used the Hierarchical
Task Analyses (HTA) technique. Based on the full video
and audio recorded during the sessions, we developed a
HTA related to each task executed by the users. The
HTAs were generated with the trial version of the
Software Task Architect [27]. We adopted the number of
units generated in the tasks to define the usability gains of
the techniques. We will use the definition NS to denote the
number of operations in a sketch-based interface for
modeling (Teddy in this case) and the definition NW to
denote the number of operations in a traditional desktop
interface system (Maya or 3DSMax).
We collected data from six subjects, all of whom were
volunteers for the study. They were recruited in graduate
courses (Computer Science, Design and Arts) and in
game companies. All of them had little knowledge about
sketch-based systems, but some experience with Maya or
3DSMax in different levels, varying from beginner to
professional, according to their use of these tools in their
leisure time or in their professional lives.
Unfortunatelly we didn’t´ reach a large number of
users (we defined 25) to generate enough data.
We have a consulting with a specialist in statistics and
the recommendation was following this study until we get
the specified amount of users’ data.
According to the specialist, an analyze with only 6
users is insufficient to give effective results.
By these reasons this paper section analyze our
qualitative data exclusively.
We continue to work with the quantitative part of the
study and soon as possible we will reveal all the achieved
results and hypotheses comments.
4.1 Task results
4.1.1. Creation. NS < NW
In task one - the creation of a 3D bear model - all the
users used less operations in the sketch-based system than
in the wimp based one(Figure 2 and Figure 3). The
creation of the model in Teddy was straightforward. The
users started this task in one of two ways: drawing
directly on the screen with the mouse, or using the
example sphere, which starts the software. All the model
elements such as arms and legs, were generated with the
extrusion set of gestures available in Teddy.
In the WIMP systems, the users used geometric
references to construct the model. The manipulation of
these references, in order to build the model, forces the
users to think in some pre-defined ways. The users have
to adapt their ideas to the object seen currently on the
screen, thus resulting in additional tasks.
Figure 2. A pseudocode example of the creation
task in a sketch interface (Teddy) done by one of our
test users.
 star which increases the effort (NS < NW) in an WIMP
interface.

Editing: creating a cavity. NS ~= NW

To create a cavity in the sketch-based system the users

only needed to apply the extrusion function. In the
WIMP-based systems the users executed the task by
selecting some vertices and pushing one to define the
cavity.

4.1.3. Pointed ear. NS > NW

In this task, the number of operations was greater in

Figure 3. A pseudocode example of the creation
task in a WIMP interface (Maya) done by one of our
user´s test.
the sketch-based system (Figure 4 & and Figure 5). In
the sketch approach almost all users used cut and extrude
operations to give the ears of the bear a pointed view
look. One user tried the bend function, the most common
alternative to this task, but he did not finish his action
because a system fail locked the system. Another user
tried the bend function with success.
In the WIMP approach, all users selected a set of
vertices or faces defining the ear, and pulled these to give
the bear’s ear with a pointed view look.

4.1.2. Editing. NS ~= NW

In this task, the number of operations was close in both

approaches. We will present the result of this task
according to their subtasks: cut operation, drawing (and
erase) a star, and creating a cavity.

Editing: cut operation. NS ~= NW

In this subtask, with only a single stroke in Teddy, the

users can cut the ear off the bear. In the WIMP-based
system, two techniques were used: some preferred to use
the “delete face” function, whereas others preferred the
Boolean operation to cut the ear.

Editing: drawing (and erase) a star. NS ~= NW

Figure 4. A example of the first and second try in
Most of the results in this subtask showed that the the Pointed ear task in a sketch interface (Teddy).
number of operations is closer in both systems. In fact, all The user used the bend function without success, so
the users used the same approach in the sketch-based he made the ear pointed with an extrusion function.
system, i.e., they made strokes directly on the model’s
surface to create the stars and then scribbled to erase it. In
the WIMP-based systems, the users defined a few points
to connect edges in the surface model. The stars were
built in this way. To erase it, they used the delete
command. Another user preferred to use the function
Star available in the system. But this function added more
tasks related to typing the number of vertices to form the
 Figure 5. The pointed task in the WIMP 5.3 Editing
approach.
The editing operations revealed more usability gains in
5. Conclusions the WIMP-based systems. In task 2 (Editing) of our
experiment, we could observe that the number of
In this section we present our main conclusions, operations was very close, but in the task 3 (Bend) we
grouped by our impressions regarding: the reduced observed that number of operations was greater in the
instruction set gestures presented by Teddy in our test sketch-based system. The possibility of direct
sessions, the creation and the editing phase of the manipulation of vertices and faces, and the use of
procedure, and their implications in the user activities. keyboard commands to copy and paste, showed that these
familiar computational and geometry instructions are
more remarkable than some new gesture-based
5.1 Reduced Instruction Set Gestures
instructions.
The sketch-based system Teddy has a reduced
instruction set of gestures. This characteristic implies that
6. Requirements and Future Work
the user can generate 3D models in a faster and easier
We are developing a 3D geometric modeling prototype
way. They can interact with the computer environment
using sketch-based ideas for the interface, and we plan to
without loss of time and concentration in long searches
use the gathered results from this study as requirements
over interface menus.
for this prototype. The evaluation of the HTAs and the
This reduced set of instructions can be repetitive and
user comments, showed us that a system combining the
tedious in great projects or in the user’s time task along a
two approaches (sketch and WIMP) could be built with
computer, but it could not be observed in the tasks
the following characteristics:
analyzed.In our sessions, we could observe that the users
created the model basically with a simple extrude
Manipulation of vertices and faces - We observed that
function.
the manipulation of vertices and faces that define the
In the case of WIMP-based systems, the use of several
models, is an operation for editing objects very popular
menus and dialog boxes cause some mistakes and
with by the users. Editing a model at the level of a vertex
difficulties to get a solution for a specified task. The users
or a face was very useful and simple in our tests sessions
have to acquire a great knowledge of the options
in the WIMP approach. In the sketch approach, although
presented in the system interface even to create simple
the interaction can be very simple too, the users have to
objects.
make some effort to find the right stroke which will
.
generate the desired modification.
5.2 Creation
Copy and paste functions - Another functionality which
We could observe that the best usability gain that the
reduces the users' efforts is the copy and paste functions.
sketch-based interface technique brings to the 3D
All users use it to avoid modeling similar objects from
modeling task, is in the creation phase. On this task, the
scratch several times. In a WIMP context, this use is very
number of user operations was consistently less than
simple with selected options through the graphical
when realizing the same tasks in a WIMP-based
interface or keyboard commands. But in the sketch
interface. Creating a model in this way was very practical
software, this function was not available and the users had
to our users, since the sketch technique is a
to develop similar objects from the scratch every time
straightforward way for users to express their ideas, they needed to use them.
without having to make technical decisions about the
object to be generated. This study did not yet reach a representative number
In the WIMP-based systems, the users need to plan of users to run the quantitative analysis as presented in the
ahead, or to have a well-defined idea to minimize their Methodology session. We continue to collect data from
time and effort in the selection sets to construct their new user’s tests and we hope to show the results in a
models. The technical background required to manipulate future as a natural evolution of this research.
these interfaces is also higher, if the user wants to make
full use or their creativity throughout the project. A high
level experience in the use of these interfaces is needed to 7. Acknowledgements
reach the same level of interaction as in the sketch-based
systems. We would like to thanks CNPQ for finatial support, the
members of our research groups – Ciências Cognitivas e
Tecnologias Educacionais and Mídia & Interação,
Playlore Gameworks for the users, the teacher Richard
Lane and Cultura Inglesa for the technical review of this
paper, the teacher Renata Souza for consulting and all the
users who participated in a volunteer way of this study.
8. References
[1]3DS MAX, 2008. Autodesk,
http://www.autodesk.com/3dsmax.
[2] Alice, Carnegie Melon University, http://alice.org/
[3] Andrew Nealen , Takeo Igarashi , Olga Sorkine , Marc
Alexa, FiberMesh: designing freeform surfaces with 3D
curves, ACM SIGGRAPH 2007 papers, August 05- 09,
2007, San Diego, California
[4] Batista, Makilim Nunes., Corrêa de Campos, Dinael.
Metodologias de Pesquisa em Ciências: Análises
Quanitativa e Qualitativa. Rio de Janeiro: LTC, 2007
[5] Brooke, J. (1996) SUS: a "quick and dirty" usability
scale. In P. W. Jordan, B. Thomas, B. A. Weerdmeester &
A. L. McClelland (eds.) Usability Evaluation in Industry.
London: Taylor and Francis
[6] C. Alvarado and R. Davis. Resolving ambiguities to
create a natural computer-based sketching environment.
In Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Joint
Conference on Artificial Intelligence, pages 1365–1374,
2001.
[7] DIETRICH, Carlos A.; NEDEL, Luciana P.;
COMBA, João L.D. A Sketch-based Interface to Real-
Time Strategy Games based on a Cellular Automaton.
Games Programming Gems 7. : Charles River Media,
2008, p. 59-67
[8]Dunham G., Forbus K., and Usher J. nuWar: A
Prototype Sketch-based Strategy Game. Northwestern
University, IL. USA
[9]Google SketchUP, http://sketchup.google.com/, 2009
[10]Igarashi, T., Matsuoka, S., and Tanaka, H. 1999.
Teddy: A sketching interface for 3D freeform design. In
ACM SIGGRAPH, 409—416
[11]Ivan E. Sutherland, Sketch pad a man-machine
graphical communication system, Technical Report,
University of Cambridge, September 2003
[12]James Lin , Mark W. Newman , Jason I. Hong, James
A. Landay, DENIM: an informal tool for early stage web
site design, CHI '01 extended abstracts on Human factors
in computing systems, March 31-April 05, 2001, Seattle,
Washington
[13]Ji-Young Oh, Wolfgang Stuerzlinger, John Danahy,
SESAME: Towards Better 3D Conceptual Design
Systems, Proceedings of the 6th conference on Designing
Interactive systems, 2006, University Park, PA, USA
[14]Joseph J. LaViola, Jr. , Robert C. Zeleznik,
MathPad2: a system for the creation and exploration of
mathematical sketches, ACM Transactions on Graphics
(TOG), v.23 n.3, August 2004
[15]Joseph Jacob Cherlin , Faramarz Samavati , Mario
Costa Sousa , Joaquim A. Jorge, Sketch-based modeling
with few strokes, Proceedings of the 21st spring
conference on Computer graphics, May 12-14, 2005,
Budmerice, Slovakia
[16]Kamran Sedig , Maria Klawe , Marvin Westrom,
Role of interface manipulation style and scaffolding on
cognition and concept learning in learnware, ACM
Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI),
v.8 n.1, p.34-59, March 2001
[17]Luke Olsen and Mário Costa Sousa and Faramarz
Samavati and Joaquim Armando Pires Jorge, A
Taxonomy of Modeling Techniques using Sketch-based
Interfaces,Eurographics, Apr. 2008 , Eurographics
Association
[18]Markus Wacker , Stanislav L. Stoev , Michael
Keckeisen, Wolfgang Straßer, A comparative study on
user performance in the Virtual Dressmaker application,
Proceedings of the ACM symposium on Virtual reality
software and technology, October 01-03, 2003, Osaka,
Japan
[19]Maya, 2008. Autodesk,
http://www.autodesk.com/maya
[20]Matthew Thorne , David Burke , Michiel van de
Panne, Motion doodles: an interface for sketching
character motion, ACM SIGGRAPH 2004 Papers, August
08-12, 2004, Los Angeles, Califórnia
[21]Microsoft Office PowerPoint,
office.microsoft.com/PowerPoint, 2009
[22]Phun, 2009, http://www.phunland.com/wiki/Home
[23]Robert C. Zeleznik , Kenneth P. Herndon , John F.
Hughes, SKETCH: an interface for sketching 3D scenes,
Proceedings of the 23rd annual conference on Computer
graphics and interactive techniques, p.163-170, August
1996
[24]Robert Zeleznik , Timothy Miller , Chuanjun Li,
Designing UI techniques for handwritten mathematics,
Proceedings of the 4th Eurographics workshop on Sketch-
based interfaces and modeling, August 02-03, 2007,
Riverside, California

[25]Seok-Hyung Bae, Ravin Balakrishnan, and Karan

Singh, ILoveSketch: As-natural-as- possible sketching
system for creating 3D curve models,. (To appear) ACM
Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology
2008 (Monterey, CA, USA, October 19-22, 2008)

[26]Tano, S. et al. Godzilla: Seamless 2D and 3D sketch

environment for reflective and creative design work,
INTERACT03 (2003) 311- 318.

[27]Task Architect, 2009,

<http://www.taskarchitect.com/>