Touch Typing using Thumbs: Understanding the Effect of Mobility and Hand Posture

805 views

Published on

Presentation @ CHI'12

Published in: Business, Technology
0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
805
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
5
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
8
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Touch Typing using Thumbs: Understanding the Effect of Mobility and Hand Posture

  1. 1. Touch Typing using Thumbs:Understanding the Effect ofMobility and Hand PostureHugo Nicolauhman@vimmi.inesc-id.ptJoaquim Jorge
  2. 2. SIIDSituationally-Induced Impairments and Disabilities
  3. 3. Hand oscillation hinder performance[Bergstrom-Lehtovirta et al., 2011]
  4. 4. Especially with small virtual targets[Mizobuchi et al., 2005; Lin et al., 2007]
  5. 5. Thumb interaction
  6. 6. Text-entry whilst walking
  7. 7. Effects of walking and hand postureon touch typing
  8. 8. 22 participants19 males, 3 females23 to 40 years oldRight-handed
  9. 9. Only 15 used mobiletouchscreens regularly
  10. 10. 3 mobility conditionsSeated Walking Walking 65% of human pace Average human pace [Barnard et al., 2005] 2 steps / second
  11. 11. Indoor test track and PacesetterFixed pace [Kane et al., 2008]Comparable level of walking demandVibrotactile feedback to pacesetter
  12. 12. Hand PosturesTwo-hand Two-hand One-handportrait landscape portrait
  13. 13. Copy task2 practice sentences / condition5 test sentences / conditionPortuguese languagerepresentative corpusError correction was notavailable
  14. 14. Apparatus HTC Desire 7x10 mm – portrait mode10x10 mm – landscape modeNeither word prediction nor correction was used
  15. 15. Experiment Design22 participants x 3 mobility settings x 3 hand postures990 sentences overallTwo-way repeated measuresanalysis
  16. 16. Results
  17. 17. Two-hand input is faster Words per Minute35 28.1 29.1 28.930 23.9 25.0 24.425 19.9 20.5 20.020151050 One-hand portrait Two-hand portrait Two-hand landscape Seated Walking (65%) Walking (100%)
  18. 18. Two-hand posture does not provideadditional stability MSD Error Rate by Hand Oscillation16% seated walking (65%) walking (100%)14%12%10%8%6%4%2%0% 0.0 g 0.5 g 1.0 g 1.5 g 2.0 g One-Hand Portrait Two-Hand Portrait Two-Hand Landscape
  19. 19. Substitutions are the most commontype of error 8% 0.6% 1.8% 1.0% 0.9% 6% 0.6% 0.8% 1.1% 1.2% 1.4% 1.1% 0.9% 1.1% 1.2% 4% 7.0% 1.0% 5.2% 5.5% 1.0% 0.8% 2% 4.3% 4.8% 0.8% 3.8% 0.7% 3.0% 0% 1.7% 1.8% Del Ins Subs
  20. 20. Hand oscillation causes poor aimingnor finger slips Substitutions: incorrect land-on120% 87% 93% 96%100% 88% 92% 93% 84% 87% 81%80%60%40%20% 0% One-hand portrait Two-hand portrait Two-hand landscape Seated Walking (65%) Walking (100%)
  21. 21. Substitution patternSame-row errorsDistance of one keyTypically at the rightPattern was consistent across mobility demands
  22. 22. Most users prefer larger keys Participants Preference1816141210 8 6 4 2 0 One-hand portrait Two-hand portrait Two-hand landscape Preferred hand posture Less preferred hand posture
  23. 23. Design Implications(For all those sleeping/bored … WAKE UP!)
  24. 24. !Do not over rely on two-handinteraction for physical stability ~
  25. 25. !Take advantage of typingbehaviors T Ytranscribed > payyernintended > pattern
  26. 26. !Design for poor aiming, especiallywhilst mobile Touch + Intended key Accelerometer data
  27. 27. ConclusionNegative effect of walking on touchtyping using thumbsConsistent substitution patternTwo-hand interaction does not improve text-entryaccuracy; Increasing target size is an effectivesolutionDesign implications
  28. 28. The End.Hugo Nicolauhman@vimmi.inesc-id.pthttp://web.ist.utl.pt/hugo.nicolau/

×