Comparing Order of Control for Tilt and Touch Games

We conducted a study comparing two touch-based and two tilt-based game control methods using a Pong-like game over two one-hour sessions. Each input method was compared by order of control: position-control and velocity-control. Participants' performance was assessed for game-level reached and how frequently the ball was missed. Results indicate that order of control is a greater determinant of performance than input method. For both position-control modes (tilt and touch), participants reached game-levels roughly twice as high as with the velocity-control modes. Miss rates were about 40% higher with the velocity-control modes than with position-control.

[1]  I. Scott MacKenzie,et al.  An Isometric Joystick as a Pointing Device for Handheld Information Terminals , 2001, Graphics Interface.

[2]  Shumin Zhai,et al.  The performance of touch screen soft buttons , 2009, CHI.

[3]  Daniel J. Wigdor,et al.  TiltText: using tilt for text input to mobile phones , 2003, UIST '03.

[4]  Shumin Zhai,et al.  User performance in relation to 3D input device design , 1998, COMG.

[5]  Doug A. Bowman,et al.  Evaluating natural interaction techniques in video games , 2010, 2010 IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI).

[6]  Niklas Ravaja,et al.  Digital games as experiment stimulus , 2012 .

[7]  I. Scott MacKenzie,et al.  A Comparison of Accelerometer and Touch-based Input for Mobile Gaming , 2013 .

[8]  Robert J. Teather,et al.  Touchscreens vs. traditional controllers in handheld gaming , 2010, Future Play.

[9]  Paul Coulton,et al.  Using “tilt” as an interface to control “no-button” 3-D mobile games , 2008, CIE.

[10]  Frederick P. Brooks,et al.  Moving objects in space: exploiting proprioception in virtual-environment interaction , 1997, SIGGRAPH.

[11]  Ian Oakley,et al.  Tilt to scroll: evaluating a motion based vibrotactile mobile interface , 2005, First Joint Eurohaptics Conference and Symposium on Haptic Interfaces for Virtual Environment and Teleoperator Systems. World Haptics Conference.

[12]  I. MacKenzie,et al.  Evaluation of Nano-stick , Foam Buttons , and Other Input Methods for Gameplay on Touchscreen Phones , 2013 .

[13]  Eric D. Ragan,et al.  Considerations for the use of commercial video games in controlled experiments , 2011, Entertain. Comput..

[14]  Joe Marshall,et al.  Experiments in 3D interaction for mobile phone AR , 2007, GRAPHITE '07.

[15]  Lawrence W. Stark,et al.  A comparison of position and rate control for telemanipulations with consideration of manipulator system dynamics , 1987, IEEE Journal on Robotics and Automation.

[16]  Tuomas Hynninen.  First-Person Shooter Controls on Touchscreen Devices: a Heuristic Evaluation of Three Games on the iPod Touch , 2012 .

[17]  Chui Yin Wong,et al.  Mobile input devices for gaming experience , 2011, 2011 International Conference on User Science and Engineering (i-USEr ).

[18]  Kevin Browne,et al.  An empirical evaluation of user interfaces for a mobile video game , 2012, Entertain. Comput..

[19]  Robert J. Teather,et al.  Position vs. velocity control for tilt-based interaction , 2014, Graphics Interface.

[20]  Shumin Zhai,et al.  The influence of muscle groups on performance of multiple degree-of-freedom input , 1996, CHI.

[21]  Robert J. Teather,et al.  FittsTilt: the application of Fitts' law to tilt-based interaction , 2012, NordiCHI.

[22]  Masaki Oshita,et al.  Gamepad vs. touchscreen: a comparison of action selection interfaces in computer games , 2012, WASA '12.

[23]  I. Scott MacKenzie,et al.  Performance differences in the fingers, wrist, and forearm in computer input control , 1997, CHI.

[24]  B. Kantowitz,et al.  Fitts' law with an isometric controller: effects of order of control and control-display gain. , 1988, Journal of motor behavior.