Towards Mobile Touch ScreenInclusive User Interfaces:Differences and Similarities betweenMotor Impaired and Able-Bodied Us...
Mobileevolution
Tactile feedbackloss of tactile  feedback
Loss of physical stability
hard to select targets
it occurs to everyone
… and motor impaired
some advantages
more pleasant
require less strength
Adapt to users’ needs
Provide the knowledge tobuild better touch interfaces
We performed …
Tested several … Interaction Techniques
Screen areas …                 … edges
Screen areas …                 … middle
Screen areas …                 5                 4                 3                 2                 1                  ...
… and target sizes 7 mm           12 mm   17 mm
Tapping
Crossing
Directional Gesturing
15 participants                            28-64 years old                          C4-C7 lesion level                    ...
18 participants5 females, 13 males20-45 years old
Results
Error Rate       X
Target Size
Motor Impaired 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0%       7mm              12mm             17mm             Gestures   Tapping   Crossing
Able-bodied 25% 20% 15% 10%  5%  0%        7mm               12mm                17mm              Gestures   Tapping   Cr...
Differences and SimilaritiesTapping is the most similarMagnitude of errorsDirectional Gesturing
Middle
Motor Impaired 50% 40% 30% 20% 10%  0%        7mm             12mm               17mm       Gestures4Way   Tapping Middle ...
Able-bodied 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0%        7mm               12mm               17mm       Gestures Middle   Tapping Mi...
Differences and SimilaritiesSimilar performances withall techniquesDifferences are in theremaining of the screen
Edges
Motor Impaired                      60%                      40%                      20%                       0%        ...
Able-bodied 30% 25% 20% 15% 10%  5%  0%        7mm                12mm               17mm              Tapping Middle   Ta...
Differences and SimilaritiesEdges do not provideadditional supportTapping is hindered on edges
VerticalDistance
Motor Impaired        48%         31%     27%        43%         25%     28%        39%         28%     24%        40%    ...
Able-bodied        10%       0%       0%        6%        2%       0%        8%        0%       0%        8%        1%    ...
Differences and SimilaritiesTapping small targets,particularly near lower edgeReach restrictions
TowardsInclusive Design
Tapping is a suitable interaction                       technique           The one with more                resemblances ...
Magnitude of errorsMuch higher for motorimpaired     40%             35%             30%             25%             20%  ...
Able-bodied can easily performDirectional GesturesSuitable alternative to Tapping(small targets)Motor impaired have manydi...
Middle of the screen consistency Similar performance with all       interaction techniques Remaining of the screen can  hi...
Reach restrictionsUpper edge targets areharder to acquire for M.I.For A.B. small targets nearbottom edge are harder
Future WorkInstantiate our findingsInvestigate situationalimpairments
THE END.Hugo Nicolauhman@vimmi.inesc-id.pt
Towards Mobile Touch Screen Inclusive User Interfaces: Differences and Similarities between Motor Impaired and Able-Bodied...
Towards Mobile Touch Screen Inclusive User Interfaces: Differences and Similarities between Motor Impaired and Able-Bodied...
Towards Mobile Touch Screen Inclusive User Interfaces: Differences and Similarities between Motor Impaired and Able-Bodied...
Towards Mobile Touch Screen Inclusive User Interfaces: Differences and Similarities between Motor Impaired and Able-Bodied...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

Towards Mobile Touch Screen Inclusive User Interfaces: Differences and Similarities between Motor Impaired and Able-Bodied Users

621 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
621
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
6
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Towards Mobile Touch Screen Inclusive User Interfaces: Differences and Similarities between Motor Impaired and Able-Bodied Users

  1. 1. Towards Mobile Touch ScreenInclusive User Interfaces:Differences and Similarities betweenMotor Impaired and Able-Bodied UsersHugo NicolauTiago GuerreiroDaniel GonçalvesJoaquim Jorge
  2. 2. Mobileevolution
  3. 3. Tactile feedbackloss of tactile feedback
  4. 4. Loss of physical stability
  5. 5. hard to select targets
  6. 6. it occurs to everyone
  7. 7. … and motor impaired
  8. 8. some advantages
  9. 9. more pleasant
  10. 10. require less strength
  11. 11. Adapt to users’ needs
  12. 12. Provide the knowledge tobuild better touch interfaces
  13. 13. We performed …
  14. 14. Tested several … Interaction Techniques
  15. 15. Screen areas … … edges
  16. 16. Screen areas … … middle
  17. 17. Screen areas … 5 4 3 2 1 … vertical distance
  18. 18. … and target sizes 7 mm 12 mm 17 mm
  19. 19. Tapping
  20. 20. Crossing
  21. 21. Directional Gesturing
  22. 22. 15 participants 28-64 years old C4-C7 lesion level 6 left-handednever used touchscreens
  23. 23. 18 participants5 females, 13 males20-45 years old
  24. 24. Results
  25. 25. Error Rate X
  26. 26. Target Size
  27. 27. Motor Impaired 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 7mm 12mm 17mm Gestures Tapping Crossing
  28. 28. Able-bodied 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 7mm 12mm 17mm Gestures Tapping Crossing
  29. 29. Differences and SimilaritiesTapping is the most similarMagnitude of errorsDirectional Gesturing
  30. 30. Middle
  31. 31. Motor Impaired 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 7mm 12mm 17mm Gestures4Way Tapping Middle Crossing
  32. 32. Able-bodied 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 7mm 12mm 17mm Gestures Middle Tapping Middle Crossing
  33. 33. Differences and SimilaritiesSimilar performances withall techniquesDifferences are in theremaining of the screen
  34. 34. Edges
  35. 35. Motor Impaired 60% 40% 20% 0% 7mm 12mm 17mm Tapping Middle Tapping Edge 60% 40% 20% 0% Gesture Edge Gesture Middle
  36. 36. Able-bodied 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 7mm 12mm 17mm Tapping Middle Tapping Edge
  37. 37. Differences and SimilaritiesEdges do not provideadditional supportTapping is hindered on edges
  38. 38. VerticalDistance
  39. 39. Motor Impaired 48% 31% 27% 43% 25% 28% 39% 28% 24% 40% 19% 15% 47% 19% 9% 7mm 12mm 17mm Tapping
  40. 40. Able-bodied 10% 0% 0% 6% 2% 0% 8% 0% 0% 8% 1% 0% 38% 6% 0% 7mm 12mm 17mm Tapping
  41. 41. Differences and SimilaritiesTapping small targets,particularly near lower edgeReach restrictions
  42. 42. TowardsInclusive Design
  43. 43. Tapping is a suitable interaction technique The one with more resemblances Lowest error rates12mm as a good compromise
  44. 44. Magnitude of errorsMuch higher for motorimpaired 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 26x 5.6x 6x 15% 10% 5% 0% Gestures Tapping Crossing
  45. 45. Able-bodied can easily performDirectional GesturesSuitable alternative to Tapping(small targets)Motor impaired have manydifficulties
  46. 46. Middle of the screen consistency Similar performance with all interaction techniques Remaining of the screen can hinder or favor interaction
  47. 47. Reach restrictionsUpper edge targets areharder to acquire for M.I.For A.B. small targets nearbottom edge are harder
  48. 48. Future WorkInstantiate our findingsInvestigate situationalimpairments
  49. 49. THE END.Hugo Nicolauhman@vimmi.inesc-id.pt

×