Integrality and separability of input devices

Current input device taxonomies and other frameworks typically emphasize the mechanical structure of input devices. We suggest that selecting an appropriate input device for an interactive task requires looking beyond the physical structure of devices to the deeper perceptual structure of the task, the device, and the interrelationship between the perceptual structure of the task and the control properties of the device. We affirm that perception is key to understanding performance of multidimensional input devices on multidimensional tasks. We have therefore extended the theory of processing of percetual structure to graphical interactive tasks and to the control structure of input devices. This allows us to predict task and device combinations that lead to better performance and hypothesize that performance is improved when the perceptual structure of the task matches the control structure of the device. We conducted an experiment in which subjects performed two tasks with different perceptual structures, using two input devices with correspondingly different control structures, a three-dimensional tracker and a mouse. We analyzed both speed and accuracy, as well as the trajectories generated by subjects as they used the unconstrained three-dimensional tracker to perform each task. The result support our hypothesis and confirm the importance of matching the perceptual structure of the task and the control structure of the input device.

[1]  F ATTNEAVE,et al.  Dimensions of similarity. , 1950, The American journal of psychology.

[2]  R. Shepard.  Attention and the metric structure of the stimulus space. , 1964 .

[3]  W. R. Garner,et al.  Structure in perceptual classification , 1968 .

[4]  W. R. Garner,et al.  Integrality of stimulus dimensions in various types of information processing , 1970 .

[5]  S. Imai,et al.  The free classification of analyzable and unanalyzable stimuli , 1972 .

[6]  W. R. Garner.  The Processing of Information and Structure , 1974 .

[7]  Computer Graphics staff.  Status report of the graphic standards planning committee , 1979, COMG.

[8]  Allen Newell,et al.  The psychology of human-computer interaction , 1983 .

[9]  James D. Foley,et al.  The human factors of computer graphics interaction techniques , 1984, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications.

[10]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction , 1988 .

[11]  William Buxton,et al.  There's more to interaction than meets the eye: some issues in manual input , 1987 .

[12]  John L. Sibert,et al.  Toto: a tool for selecting interaction techniques , 1990, UIST '90.

[13]  Jock D. Mackinlay,et al.  A semantic analysis of the design space of input devices , 1990 .

[14]  Jock D. Mackinlay,et al.  A Semantic Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices , 1990, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[15]  Lisa B. Achille.  Considerations in the Design and Development of a Human Computer Interaction Laboratory , 1990 .

[16]  Jock D. Mackinlay,et al.  A morphological analysis of the design space of input devices , 1991, TOIS.

[17]  Teresa Worthington Bleser.  An input device model of interactive systems design , 1991 .

[18]  Robert J. K. Jacob,et al.  The perceptual structure of multidimensional input device selection , 1992, CHI.