Your SlideShare is downloading. ×
0
Touch Screens
Touch Screens
Touch Screens
Touch Screens
Touch Screens
Touch Screens
Touch Screens
Touch Screens
Touch Screens
Touch Screens
Touch Screens
Touch Screens
Touch Screens
Touch Screens
Touch Screens
Touch Screens
Touch Screens
Touch Screens
Touch Screens
Touch Screens
Touch Screens
Touch Screens
Touch Screens
Touch Screens
Touch Screens
Touch Screens
Touch Screens
Touch Screens
Touch Screens
Touch Screens
Touch Screens
Touch Screens
Touch Screens
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×

Thanks for flagging this SlideShare!

Oops! An error has occurred.

×
Saving this for later? Get the SlideShare app to save on your phone or tablet. Read anywhere, anytime – even offline.
Text the download link to your phone
Standard text messaging rates apply

Touch Screens

1,294

Published on

1 Comment
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total Views
1,294
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
89
Comments
1
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

Report content
Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
No notes for slide
  • Transcript

    • 1. Precise Selection Techniques for Multi-Touch Screens By: IQxplorer
    • 2. Selecting a small target is very HARD! CHI 2006
    • 3. Small target size comparison <ul><li>Average finger ~ 15 mm wide </li></ul>CHI 2006 Target UI element Width (abstract screen) Width 17” screen 1024x768 Width 30” screen 1024x768 Close button 18 pixels 6 mm (40% of finger) 10.8 mm (66% of finger) Resize handle 4 pixels 1.34 mm (9% of finger) 2.4 mm (16% of finger)
    • 4. Touchscreen Issues <ul><li>Finger &gt;&gt;&gt; Target </li></ul><ul><li>Finger occludes the target </li></ul><ul><li>Fingers/hands shake and jitter </li></ul><ul><li>Tracking can be noisy (e.g. video) </li></ul><ul><li>No hover state (hover == drag) </li></ul>CHI 2006
    • 5. Previous Work <ul><li>Solutions based on single touch interfaces and complex on-screen widgets: </li></ul><ul><li>Albinsson, P. A. and Zhai, S. “High Precision Touch Screen Interaction.” (CHI ’03) </li></ul>CHI 2006 Sears, A. and Shneiderman, B. “High Precision Touchscreens: Design Strategies and Comparisons with a Mouse.” (’91)
    • 6. Dual Finger Selections <ul><li>Multi-touch techniques </li></ul><ul><li>Single fluid interaction </li></ul><ul><ul><li>no lifting/repositioning of fingers </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Design guidelines: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Keep simple things simple. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Provide an offset to the cursor when so desired. </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Enable user controlled control-display ratio. </li></ul></ul>CHI 2006
    • 7. Simulating Hover State <ul><li>Extension of the “area==pressure” idea (MacKenzie and Oniszczak, CHI 1998) </li></ul><ul><li>Problem: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>LARGE area difference  reliable clicking </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>SMALL movement (i.e. SMALL area difference)  precise and accurate clicking </li></ul></ul>CHI 2006
    • 8. SimPress (Simulated Pressure) <ul><li>Clicking gesture – “finger rocking” </li></ul><ul><li>Goal: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Maximize ∆ touch area </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Minimize ∆ cursor location </li></ul></ul>CHI 2006
    • 9. <ul><li>Top Middle Cursor </li></ul><ul><li>Large ∆ touch area </li></ul><ul><li>Small ∆ cursor loc. </li></ul><ul><li>Center-of-Mass Cursor </li></ul><ul><li>Large ∆ touch area </li></ul><ul><li>Large ∆ cursor loc. </li></ul>SimPress Cursor Placement CHI 2006
    • 10. SimPress in Action CHI 2006
    • 11. Dual Finger Selections <ul><li>Offset </li></ul><ul><li>Midpoint </li></ul><ul><li>Stretch </li></ul><ul><li>X-Menu </li></ul><ul><li>Slider </li></ul><ul><li>Primary finger  cursor position &amp; click </li></ul><ul><li>Secondary finger  cursor speed or C/D </li></ul>CHI 2006
    • 12. Dual Finger Offset CHI 2006 <ul><li>Fixed offset WRT finger </li></ul><ul><li>Ambidextrous control </li></ul>
    • 13. Dual Finger Midpoint CHI 2006 <ul><li>Cursor  ½ distance between fingers </li></ul><ul><li>Variable speed control </li></ul><ul><li>Max speed reduction is 2x </li></ul><ul><li>Dead spots on screen! </li></ul>
    • 14. Dual Finger Stretch <ul><li>Inspired by ZoomPointing (Albinsson &amp; Zhai,‘03) </li></ul><ul><li>Primary finger  anchor </li></ul><ul><li>Secondary finger </li></ul><ul><ul><li>defines the zooming area </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>scales the area in all directions away from the anchor </li></ul></ul>CHI 2006
    • 15. Dual Finger Stretch CHI 2006 <ul><li>Offset is preserved after selection! </li></ul>
    • 16. Zooming Comparison <ul><li>Bounding Box Zoom </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Fingers placed OFF target </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Target distance increases w/ zoom </li></ul></ul><ul><li>“ Stretch” Zoom </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Primary finger placed ON target </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Same motion = 2x zoom </li></ul></ul>CHI 2006
    • 17. Dual Finger X-Menu <ul><li>Crossing Menu (no buttons/no clicks) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>4 speed modes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>2 helper modes </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Cursor notification widget </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Eyes-free interaction </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Freezing cursor </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Quick offset setup </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Eliminate errors in noisy conditions </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Helpers: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Snap – Remove offset </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Magnification Lens </li></ul></ul>CHI 2006
    • 18. Dual Finger X-Menu CHI 2006
    • 19. Dual Finger X-Menu with Magnification Lens CHI 2006
    • 20. Dual Finger Slider CHI 2006 Normal Slow 4X Slow 10X Freeze Snap
    • 21. Dual Finger Slider CHI 2006
    • 22. Multi-Touch Table Prototype <ul><li>Back projected diffuse screen </li></ul><ul><li>IR vision-based tracking </li></ul><ul><li>Similar to TouchLight (Wilson, ICMI’04) </li></ul>CHI 2006
    • 23. User Experiments <ul><li>Measure the impact of a particular technique on the reduction of error rate while clicking </li></ul><ul><li>2 parts: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Evaluation of SimPress clicking </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Comparison of Four Dual Finger Techniques </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Task: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Reciprocal target selection </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Varying the square target width </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Fixed distance (100 pixels) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>12 paid participants (9 male,3 female, ages 20–40), frequent computer users, various levels of touchscreen use </li></ul>CHI 2006
    • 24. Part 1: SimPress Evaluation <ul><li>Within subjects repeated measures design </li></ul><ul><li>5 target widths: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>1,2,4,8,16 pxls </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Hypothesis: only 16 pxls targets are reliably selectable </li></ul><ul><li>Results: 8 pixel targets still have ~10% error rate </li></ul>CHI 2006 F (4,44) =62.598, p&lt;0.001
    • 25. Part 2: Comparison of 4 Dual Finger Selection Techniques <ul><li>Compare: Offset, Stretch, X-Menu, Slider </li></ul><ul><li>Varying noise conditions </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Inserted Gaussian noise: σ =0, 0.5, 2 </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Within subjects repeated measures design: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>3 noise levels x 4 techniques x 4 target widths (1,2,4,8 pxls) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>6 repetitions  288 trials per user </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Hypotheses: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Techniques that control the C/D will reduce the impact of noise </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Slider should outperform X-Menu </li></ul></ul>CHI 2006
    • 26. Part 2: Error Rate Analysis <ul><li>Interaction of Noise x Technique </li></ul>CHI 2006 F (6,66) = 8.025, p&lt;0.001
    • 27. Part 2: Error Rate Analysis CHI 2006 <ul><li>Interaction of Width x Technique </li></ul>F (9,99) =29.473, p&lt;0.001
    • 28. Part 2: Movement Time Analysis <ul><li>Analysis on median times </li></ul><ul><li>Stretch is ~ 1s faster than Slider/X-Menu (t(11)=5.011, p&lt;0.001) </li></ul><ul><li>Slider similar performance to X-Menu </li></ul>CHI 2006 Missing
    • 29. Subjective Evaluation <ul><li>Post-experiment questionnaire (5 pt Likert scale) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Most mental effort: X-Menu (~2.88) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Hardest to learn: X-Menu ( ~2.09) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Most enjoyable: Stretch (~4.12), Slider (~4.08) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No significant differences WRT fatigue </li></ul></ul>CHI 2006
    • 30. Conclusions and Future Work <ul><li>Top performer &amp; most preferred: Stretch </li></ul><ul><li>Slider/X-Menu </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Comparable error rates to Stretch </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>No distortion of user interface </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Cost: ~1s extra </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Freezing the cursor (positive feedback) </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Like “are you sure?” dialog for clicking… </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Possible future SimPress extensions: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Detect user position/orientation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Stabilization of the cursor </li></ul></ul>CHI 2006
    • 31. Questions
    • 32. Multi-Touch Tabletops <ul><li>MERL DiamondTouch (Dietz &amp; Lehigh, ’01) </li></ul><ul><li>SmartSkin (Rekimoto, ’02) </li></ul><ul><li>PlayAnywhere and TouchLight (Wilson, ’04, ’05) </li></ul>CHI 2006
    • 33. ANOVA Table CHI 2006 Source df F p Noise (N) (2,22) 20.24 &lt;0.001 Technique (T) (3,33) 169.14 &lt;0.001 Width (W) (3,33) 150.40 &lt;0.001 N x T (6,66) 8.03 &lt;0.001 T x W (9,99) 29.47 &lt;0.001 N x W N x T x W

    ×