Input techniques that dynamically change their cursor activation area: A comparison of bubble and cell cursors

Efficient pointing is crucial to graphical user interfaces, and input techniques that dynamically change their activation area may yield improvements over point cursors by making objects selectable at a distance. Input techniques that dynamically change their activation area include the bubble cursor, whose activation area always contains the closest object, and two variants of cell cursors, whose activation areas contain a set of objects in the vicinity of the cursor. We report two experiments that compare these techniques to a point cursor; in one experiment participants use a touchpad for operating the input techniques, in the other a mouse. In both experiments, the bubble cursor is fastest and participants make fewer errors with it. Participants also unanimously prefer this technique. For small targets, the cell cursors are generally more accurate than the point cursor; in the second experiment the box cursor is also faster. The cell cursors succeed in letting participants select objects while the cursor is far away from the target, but are relatively slow in the final phase of target acquisition. We discuss limitations and possible enhancements of input techniques with activation areas that contain multiple objects.

[1]  Tovi Grossman,et al.  The bubble cursor: enhancing target acquisition by dynamic resizing of the cursor's activation area , 2005, CHI.

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

[3]  Shumin Zhai,et al.  The “Silk Cursor”: investigating transparency for 3D target acquisition , 1994, CHI '94.

[4]  Yves Guiard,et al.  Fitts' law 50 years later: applications and contributions from human-computer interaction , 2004, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

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

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

[7]  Stuart K. Card,et al.  Evaluation of mouse, rate-controlled isometric joystick, step keys, and text keys, for text selection on a CRT , 1987 .

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

[9]  Morten Hertzum,et al.  TouchGrid: Touchpad pointing by recursively mapping taps to smaller display regions , 2005, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[10]  I.,et al.  Fitts' Law as a Research and Design Tool in Human-Computer Interaction , 1992, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[11]  Shumin Zhai,et al.  Performance evaluation of input devices in trajectory-based tasks: an application of the steering law , 1999, CHI '99.

[12]  Andy Cockburn,et al.  A flick in the right direction: a case study of gestural input , 2005, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[13]  Shumin Zhai,et al.  High precision touch screen interaction , 2003, CHI '03.

[14]  D V Keyson,et al.  Dynamic cursor gain and tactual feedback in the capture of cursor movements. , 1997, Ergonomics.

[15]  Patrick Langdon,et al.  A submovement analysis of cursor trajectories , 2005, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[16]  Paul Kabbash,et al.  The “prince” technique: Fitts' law and selection using area cursors , 1995, CHI '95.

[17]  Andrew Sears,et al.  Speech-based cursor control using grids: modelling performance and comparisons with other solutions , 2005, Behav. Inf. Technol..

[18]  Erik Nilsen,et al.  Studying the movement of high-tech Rodentia: pointing and dragging , 1993, CHI '93.

[19]  Johanna D. Moore,et al.  Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems , 1989 .

[20]  Renaud Blanch,et al.  Object Pointing: A Complement to Bitmap Pointing in GUIs , 2004, Graphics Interface.

[21]  Allen Newell,et al.  The keystroke-level model for user performance time with interactive systems , 1980, CACM.

[22]  S. Mackenzie,et al.  A comparison of input device in elemental pointing and dragging task , 1991, CHI 1991.

[23]  Abigail Sellen,et al.  A comparison of input devices in element pointing and dragging tasks , 1991, CHI.

[24]  Christopher M. Gold,et al.  ADVANTAGES OF THE VORONOI SPATIAL MODEL , 1994 .

[25]  Sarah A. Douglas,et al.  Testing pointing device performance and user assessment with the ISO 9241, Part 9 standard , 1999, CHI '99.

[26]  I. Scott MacKenzie,et al.  Accuracy measures for evaluating computer pointing devices , 2001, CHI.

[27]  Eric Horvitz,et al.  ZoneZoom: map navigation for smartphones with recursive view segmentation , 2004, AVI.

[28]  Ravin Balakrishnan,et al.  Acquisition of expanding targets , 2002, CHI.

[29]  Yves Guiard,et al.  Preface: Fitts' law 50 years later: Applications and contributions from human-computer interaction , 2004 .

[30]  I. Scott MacKenzie,et al.  A comparison of three selection techniques for touchpads , 1998, CHI.

[31]  Mary Czerwinski,et al.  Drag-and-Pop and Drag-and-Pick: Techniques for Accessing Remote Screen Content on Touch- and Pen-Operated Systems , 2003, INTERACT.

[32]  Brian W. Epps Comparison of Six Cursor Control Devices Based on Fitts' Law Models , 1986 .

[33]  Anastasia Bezerianos,et al.  The vacuum: facilitating the manipulation of distant objects , 2005, CHI.

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

[35]  Shumin Zhai,et al.  Human on-line response to target expansion , 2003, CHI '03.

[36]  Shumin Zhai,et al.  More than dotting the i's --- foundations for crossing-based interfaces , 2002, CHI.

[37]  Shumin Zhai,et al.  TNT: a numeric keypad based text input method , 2004, CHI '04.