An evaluation of sticky and force enhanced targets in multi target situations

In this paper we explore the usage of "force fields" in order to facilitate the computer user during pointing tasks. The first study shows that pointing time can be reduced by enhancing a pointing target with an invisible force field that warps the screen cursor toward the target center. The application of force fields is further supported in that we show how performance of force enhanced pointing can be predicted by using Fitts' law and a force adjusted index of difficulty. In the second study, the force field technique is compared with the "sticky target" technique [20] in two realistic pointing situations which involve several closely placed targets. The results show that the force fields improve pointing performance and that the sticky target technique does not.

[1]  Ravin Balakrishnan,et al.  "Beating" Fitts' law: virtual enhancements for pointing facilitation , 2004, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[2]  David Ahlström,et al.  Modeling and improving selection in cascading pull-down menus using Fitts' law, the steering law and force fields , 2005, CHI.

[3]  Dv David Keyson.  Dynamic control gain and tactile feedback in the capture of cursor movements , 1994 .

[4]  Andy Cockburn,et al.  Improving the Acquisition of Small Targets , 2004 .

[5]  Ian Mackenzie,et al.  Fitts' law as a performance model in human-computer interaction , 1992 .

[6]  Abderrahmane Kheddar,et al.  Pseudo-haptic feedback: can isometric input devices simulate force feedback? , 2000, Proceedings IEEE Virtual Reality 2000 (Cat. No.00CB37048).

[7]  P. Fitts.  The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. , 1954, Journal of experimental psychology.

[8]  Renaud Blanch,et al.  Semantic pointing: improving target acquisition with control-display ratio adaptation , 2004, CHI.

[9]  Krishna Bharat,et al.  Making computers easier for older adults to use: area cursors and sticky icons , 1997, CHI.

[10]  Patrick Baudisch,et al.  Snap-and-go: helping users align objects without the modality of traditional snapping , 2005, CHI.

[11]  M. H. Heycock,et al.  Papers , 1971, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[12]  Stuart K. Card,et al.  Powermice and user performance , 1990, CHI '90.

[13]  Martin Hitz,et al.  Improving menu interaction: a comparison of standard, force enhanced and jumping menus , 2006, CHI.

[14]  Andy Cockburn,et al.  Multimodal feedback for the acquisition of small targets , 2005, Ergonomics.

[15]  Ravin Balakrishnan,et al.  Fitts' law and expanding targets: Experimental studies and designs for user interfaces , 2005, TCHI.

[16]  Joel S. Greenstein,et al.  Is Display/Control Gain a Useful Metric for Optimizing an Interface? , 1990 .

[17]  I. Scott MacKenzie,et al.  Input devices and interaction techniques for advanced computing , 1995 .

[18]  Laurent Étienne,et al.  Feeling bumps and holes without a haptic interface: the perception of pseudo-haptic textures , 2004, CHI.

[19]  I. Scott MacKenzie,et al.  Effects of output display and control - display gain on human performance in interactive systems , 1994, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[20]  Ulrich Tränkle,et al.  Factors influencing speed and precision of cursor positioning using a mouse , 1991 .

[21]  R A Abrams,et al.  Optimality in human motor performance: ideal control of rapid aimed movements. , 1988, Psychological review.