touch screens

33
Precise Selection Techniques for Multi-Touch Screens By: IQxplorer

Upload: nayakslideshare

Post on 11-May-2015

1.294 views

Category:

Business


1 download

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Touch Screens

Precise Selection Techniques for Multi-

Touch Screens

By:

IQxplorer

Page 2: Touch Screens

CHI 2006 2

Selecting a small target is very HARD!

Page 3: Touch Screens

CHI 2006 3

Small target size comparison Average finger ~ 15 mm wide

TargetUI element

Width(abstract screen)

Width17” screen1024x768

Width 30” screen1024x768

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)

Page 4: Touch Screens

CHI 2006 4

Touchscreen Issues

1. Finger >>> Target2. Finger occludes the target3. Fingers/hands shake and jitter4. Tracking can be noisy (e.g. video) 5. No hover state (hover == drag)

Page 5: Touch Screens

CHI 2006 5

Previous Work

Solutions based on single touch interfaces and complex on-screen widgets:

Albinsson, P. A. and Zhai, S. “High Precision Touch Screen Interaction.” (CHI ’03)

Sears, A. and Shneiderman, B. “High Precision Touchscreens: Design Strategies and Comparisons with a Mouse.” (’91)

Page 6: Touch Screens

CHI 2006 6

Dual Finger Selections

Multi-touch techniques Single fluid interaction

no lifting/repositioning of fingers Design guidelines:

Keep simple things simple. Provide an offset to the cursor when so

desired. Enable user controlled control-display

ratio.

Page 7: Touch Screens

CHI 2006 7

Simulating Hover State

Extension of the “area==pressure” idea (MacKenzie and Oniszczak, CHI 1998)

Problem: LARGE area difference reliable clicking SMALL movement (i.e. SMALL area

difference) precise and accurate clicking

Page 8: Touch Screens

CHI 2006 8

SimPress (Simulated Pressure)

Clicking gesture – “finger rocking”

Goal: Maximize ∆ touch

area Minimize ∆ cursor

location

Page 9: Touch Screens

CHI 2006 9

Top Middle Cursor

Large ∆ touch area Small ∆ cursor loc.

Center-of-Mass Cursor

Large ∆ touch area Large ∆ cursor loc.

SimPress Cursor Placement

Page 10: Touch Screens

CHI 2006 10

SimPress in Action

Page 11: Touch Screens

CHI 2006 11

Dual Finger Selections

1. Offset2. Midpoint3. Stretch4. X-Menu5. Slider

Primary finger cursor position & clickSecondary finger cursor speed or C/D

Page 12: Touch Screens

CHI 2006 12

Dual Finger Offset

Fixed offset WRT finger

Ambidextrous control

Page 13: Touch Screens

CHI 2006 13

Dual Finger Midpoint

Cursor ½ distance between fingers

Variable speed control

Max speed reduction is 2x

Dead spots on screen!

Page 14: Touch Screens

CHI 2006 14

Dual Finger Stretch

Inspired by ZoomPointing (Albinsson & Zhai,‘03)

Primary finger anchor Secondary finger

defines the zooming area scales the area in all

directions away from the anchor

Page 15: Touch Screens

CHI 2006 15

Dual Finger Stretch

Offset is preserved after selection!

Page 16: Touch Screens

CHI 2006 16

Zooming Comparison

Bounding Box Zoom Fingers placed OFF

target Target distance

increases w/ zoom

“Stretch” Zoom Primary finger

placed ON target Same motion = 2x

zoom

Page 17: Touch Screens

CHI 2006 17

Dual Finger X-Menu

Crossing Menu (no buttons/no clicks) 4 speed modes 2 helper modes

Cursor notification widget Eyes-free interaction

Freezing cursor Quick offset setup Eliminate errors in noisy conditions

Helpers: Snap – Remove offset Magnification Lens

Page 18: Touch Screens

CHI 2006 18

Dual Finger X-Menu

Page 19: Touch Screens

CHI 2006 19

Dual Finger X-Menu with Magnification Lens

Page 20: Touch Screens

CHI 2006 20

Dual Finger Slider

NormalSlow 4X

Slow 10XFreeze

Snap

Page 21: Touch Screens

CHI 2006 21

Dual Finger Slider

Page 22: Touch Screens

CHI 2006 22

Multi-Touch Table Prototype

Back projected diffuse screen

IR vision-based tracking

Similar to TouchLight (Wilson, ICMI’04)

Page 23: Touch Screens

CHI 2006 23

User Experiments

Measure the impact of a particular technique on the reduction of error rate while clicking

2 parts: Evaluation of SimPress clicking Comparison of Four Dual Finger Techniques

Task: Reciprocal target selection Varying the square target width Fixed distance (100 pixels)

12 paid participants (9 male,3 female, ages 20–40), frequent computer users, various levels of touchscreen use

Page 24: Touch Screens

CHI 2006 24

Part 1: SimPress Evaluation

Within subjects repeated measures design

5 target widths: 1,2,4,8,16 pxls

Hypothesis: only 16 pxls targets are reliably selectable

Results: 8 pixel targets still have ~10% error rate

0102030405060708090

100

1 2 4 8 16

Target Width (pixel)

Per

cent

of

Tria

ls ±

SE

M

F(4,44)=62.598, p<0.001

Page 25: Touch Screens

CHI 2006 25

Part 2: Comparison of 4 Dual Finger Selection Techniques

Compare: Offset, Stretch, X-Menu, Slider Varying noise conditions

Inserted Gaussian noise: σ=0, 0.5, 2 Within subjects repeated measures design:

3 noise levels x 4 techniques x 4 target widths (1,2,4,8 pxls)

6 repetitions 288 trials per user Hypotheses:

Techniques that control the C/D will reduce the impact of noise

Slider should outperform X-Menu

Page 26: Touch Screens

CHI 2006 26

Part 2: Error Rate Analysis

Interaction of Noise x Technique

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Ofset X-Menu Slider Stretch

Err

orR

ate

(%

) ±

SE

M

low medium high

F(6,66)= 8.025, p<0.001

Page 27: Touch Screens

CHI 2006 27

Part 2: Error Rate Analysis

0

20

40

60

80

100

W-1 W-2 W-4 W-8

Err

or

Rate

(%

) ± S

EM

Offset X-Menu Slider Stretch

Interaction of Width x Technique

F(9,99)=29.473, p<0.001

Page 28: Touch Screens

CHI 2006 28

Part 2: Movement Time Analysis

Analysis on median times

Stretch is ~ 1s faster than Slider/X-Menu (t(11)=5.011, p<0.001)

Slider similar performance to X-Menu

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

W-1 W-2 W-4 W-8

Mov

emen

t T

ime

(s)

± S

EM

Offset X-Menu Slider Stretch

Missing

Page 29: Touch Screens

CHI 2006 29

Subjective Evaluation

Post-experiment questionnaire (5 pt Likert scale) Most mental effort: X-Menu (~2.88) Hardest to learn: X-Menu ( ~2.09) Most enjoyable: Stretch (~4.12), Slider (~4.08) No significant differences WRT fatigue

Best Technique for Noise Condition

02

46

810

12

Low Noise Medium Noise High Noise

Offset XMenu Slider Stretch

Overall Preference

012345678

Offset X-Menu Slider Stretch

Page 30: Touch Screens

CHI 2006 30

Conclusions and Future Work

Top performer & most preferred: Stretch Slider/X-Menu

Comparable error rates to Stretch No distortion of user interface Cost: ~1s extra

Freezing the cursor (positive feedback) Like “are you sure?” dialog for clicking…

Possible future SimPress extensions: Detect user position/orientation Stabilization of the cursor

Page 31: Touch Screens

Questions

Page 32: Touch Screens

CHI 2006 32

Multi-Touch Tabletops

MERL DiamondTouch (Dietz & Lehigh, ’01)

SmartSkin (Rekimoto, ’02) PlayAnywhere and TouchLight (Wilson,

’04, ’05)

Page 33: Touch Screens

CHI 2006 33

ANOVA Table

Source df F p

Noise (N) (2,22) 20.24 <0.001

Technique (T) (3,33) 169.14 <0.001

Width (W) (3,33) 150.40 <0.001

N x T (6,66) 8.03 <0.001

T x W (9,99) 29.47 <0.001

N x W

N x T x W