Towards Mobile Touch Screen Inclusive User Interfaces: Differences and Similarities between Motor Impaired and Able-Bodied Users
•
0 likes•486 views
This document summarizes research comparing touchscreen interaction for motor impaired and able-bodied users. Tests were conducted with 15 motor impaired and 18 able-bodied participants using tapping, crossing, and directional gestures on targets of different sizes and screen locations. Key findings include: tapping was the most similar technique for both groups, with motor impaired users making significantly more errors; performance was most consistent in screen centers, with edges hindering tapping; and reach restrictions influenced tapping accuracy near screen edges, particularly for small lower targets for motor impaired users. The research provides guidance on inclusive touchscreen design.
Recommended
More Related Content
More from Hugo Nicolau
More from Hugo Nicolau (14)
Recently uploaded
Recently uploaded (20)
Towards Mobile Touch Screen Inclusive User Interfaces: Differences and Similarities between Motor Impaired and Able-Bodied Users
- 1. Towards Mobile Touch Screen Inclusive User Interfaces: Differences and Similarities between Motor Impaired and Able-Bodied Users Hugo Nicolau Tiago Guerreiro Daniel Gonçalves Joaquim Jorge
- 5. Tactile feedback loss of tactile feedback
- 6. Loss of physical stability
- 7. hard to select targets
- 8. it occurs to everyone
- 9. … and motor impaired
- 10. some advantages
- 11. more pleasant
- 13. Adapt to users’ needs
- 16. Provide the knowledge to build better touch interfaces
- 17. We performed …
- 18. Tested several … Interaction Techniques
- 19. Screen areas … … edges
- 20. Screen areas … … middle
- 21. Screen areas … 5 4 3 2 1 … vertical distance
- 22. … and target sizes 7 mm 12 mm 17 mm
- 23. Tapping
- 24. Crossing
- 26. 15 participants 28-64 years old C4-C7 lesion level 6 left-handed never used touchscreens
- 27. 18 participants 5 females, 13 males 20-45 years old
- 28. Results
- 29. Error Rate X
- 30. Target Size
- 31. Motor Impaired 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 7mm 12mm 17mm Gestures Tapping Crossing
- 32. Able-bodied 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 7mm 12mm 17mm Gestures Tapping Crossing
- 33. Differences and Similarities Tapping is the most similar Magnitude of errors Directional Gesturing
- 34. Middle
- 35. Motor Impaired 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 7mm 12mm 17mm Gestures4Way Tapping Middle Crossing
- 36. Able-bodied 14% 12% 10% 8% 6% 4% 2% 0% 7mm 12mm 17mm Gestures Middle Tapping Middle Crossing
- 37. Differences and Similarities Similar performances with all techniques Differences are in the remaining of the screen
- 38. Edges
- 39. Motor Impaired 60% 40% 20% 0% 7mm 12mm 17mm Tapping Middle Tapping Edge 60% 40% 20% 0% Gesture Edge Gesture Middle
- 40. Able-bodied 30% 25% 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% 7mm 12mm 17mm Tapping Middle Tapping Edge
- 41. Differences and Similarities Edges do not provide additional support Tapping is hindered on edges
- 43. Motor Impaired 48% 31% 27% 43% 25% 28% 39% 28% 24% 40% 19% 15% 47% 19% 9% 7mm 12mm 17mm Tapping
- 44. Able-bodied 10% 0% 0% 6% 2% 0% 8% 0% 0% 8% 1% 0% 38% 6% 0% 7mm 12mm 17mm Tapping
- 45. Differences and Similarities Tapping small targets, particularly near lower edge Reach restrictions
- 47. Tapping is a suitable interaction technique The one with more resemblances Lowest error rates 12mm as a good compromise
- 48. Magnitude of errors Much higher for motor impaired 40% 35% 30% 25% 20% 26x 5.6x 6x 15% 10% 5% 0% Gestures Tapping Crossing
- 49. Able-bodied can easily perform Directional Gestures Suitable alternative to Tapping (small targets) Motor impaired have many difficulties
- 50. Middle of the screen consistency Similar performance with all interaction techniques Remaining of the screen can hinder or favor interaction
- 51. Reach restrictions Upper edge targets are harder to acquire for M.I. For A.B. small targets near bottom edge are harder
- 52. Future Work Instantiate our findings Investigate situational impairments