Post on 13-Dec-2015
transcript
Effects of Practice with Foot- and Hand-Operated Secondary Input Devices on Performance of a Word-Processing Task
Fredrick P. Garcia Kim-Phuong L. Vu
Center for Usability in Design and AccessibilityCalifornia State University, Long Beach
Keyboard and mouse are commonly used with the computer
No good alternative to the keyboard Mouse works well with GUIs Hands work quickly and accurately
Performance might improve when multiple effectors provide input
Mouse and trackball add to cumulative trauma disorders [1, 2, 3]
Hands-only adds homing time [4] Opportunity to carry out tasks in
parallel Possibly reduced switch cost using
different effectors [5]
Previous research found the foot slower than the hand but…
All previous research shows slower performance with the foot [7, 8, 9]
None of the research equated ability or familiarity using foot
and hand devices
explored practice with the foot
explored word processing tasks requiring foot and hand input
What happens when participants get practice with a foot controlled device?
Commercial foot specific input device
Tasks requiring keyboard and secondary device input
Hand input device that is not overpracticed
Practice with the input devices
Two hypotheses on performance with practiced foot and hand devices
H1: Practice will improve performance regardless of device.
H2: Practice will improve performance more with the foot mouse than with the hand trackball.
(performance measured by total time for task completion)
Experiment Schedule
Test-session 1Session 1 (prepractice)
Practice-sessions Sessions 2 – 9
Test-session 2 Session 10 (postpractice)
Practice hand
trackball group
(8)
Test hand trackball(not practiced)
Practice hand trackball Test hand trackball(practiced)
Test foot mouse (not practiced)
No practice with foot mouse Test foot mouse (not practiced)
Practice foot mouse
group(8)
Test foot mouse (not practiced)
Practice foot mouse Test foot mouse (practiced)
Test hand trackball(not practiced)
No practice with hand trackball Test hand trackball(not practiced)
Sample practice session screens1. Click the Start Block of
Trials button
2. Scroll down to find the 1 button and click on it
3. Scroll down to find the text to be highlighted; select the text
4. Scroll up to find the 2 button and click on it
5. When ready for the next trial, click the Start next Trial button
Task 1
Task 2
d2(rv1)/dt2=-rv
1/rv3+m(-dmv/dmv
3-rm/rm3)
Task 3
Scroll down
Task 4
The teacher had the students turn to Section 2 in their Modern Mathematics1 textbook, which had replaced their previous text: Old Math2. The day’s math lesson was on variables together with exponents, like x5. The teacher was going to review the Pythagorean Theorem3, where a2 + b2 = c2, as an example. She also wanted to talk about finding the area of a circle using the formula r2, where r stands for the circle’s radius. After Math, she was going to give a Chemistry lesson. She was going to begin by discussing H2O, which she was sure everyone would know about.
Performance on Test Sessions 1 and 2
0 1 2 350
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Hand-Hand
Hand-Foot
Foot-Hand
Foot-Foot
Practiced Device-Operated Device
Test SessionMea
n
Tas
k C
om
ple
tio
n T
ime
(se
c)
0 1 2 350
100
150
200
250
300
350
400
450
500
Hand-Hand
Hand-Foot
Foot-Hand
Foot-Foot
Practiced Device-Operated Device
Test SessionMea
n
Tas
k C
om
ple
tio
n T
ime
(se
c)
0 1 2 350
100150200250300350400450500550600
Hand-Hand
Hand-Foot
Foot-Hand
Foot-Foot
Practiced Device-Operated Device
Test SessionMea
n
Tas
k C
om
ple
tio
n T
ime
(se
c)
0 1 2 3300
400
500
600
700
800
900
1000
Hand-Hand
Hand-Foot
Foot-Hand
Foot-Foot
Practiced Device-Operated Device
Test SessionMea
n
Tas
k C
om
ple
tio
n T
ime
(se
c)
T1 T2
T3 T4
Practice improved performance with the foot mouse; not the hand trackball
H1 – Practice improves performance regardless of device
H2 – The foot shows more improvement with practice than the hand
Not Supported
Supported
Thank You
www.csulb.edu/centers/cuda
fgarcia2@csulb.edu
1. Jensen C., Borg, V., Finsen, L., Hansen, K., Juul-Kristensen, B., Christensen, H.. Job Demands, Muscle Activity and Musculoskeletal Symptoms in Relation to Work with the Computer Mouse. Scandinavian Journal of Work and Environmental Health 24, 418--424 (1998)
2. Fagarasanu, M., Kumar, S.. Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Due to Keyboarding and Mouse Tasks: A Review. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 31, 119--136 (2003)
3. Burgess-Limerick, R., Shemmell, J., Scadden, R., Plooy, A.. Wrist Posture During Computer Pointing Device Use. Clinical Biomechanics 14, 280--286 (1999)
4. Card, S.K., Moran, T.P., Newell, A.. The Keystroke-Level Model for User Performance Time with Interactive Systems. Communications of the ACM 23(7), 396--410 (1980)
5. Monsell, S.. Task Switching. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences 7(3), 134--140 (2003)7. Pearson, G., Weiser, M.. Exploratory Evaluation of a Planar Foot-Operated Cursor-
Positioning Device. In: J. J. O'Hare (ed.), Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI ’88, pp. 13--18. ACM Press, New York (1988)
8. Springer, J., Siebes, C.. Position Controlled Input Device for Handicapped: Experimental Studies with a Footmouse. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 17, 135--152 (1996)
9. Pakkanen, T., Raisamo, R.. Appropriateness of Foot Interaction for Non-accurate Spatial Tasks. In: CHI '04 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1123--1126. ACM Press, New York (2004)
References
Comparisons of Foot Mouse and Hand Trackball Before and After Practice
1 250
100150200250300350400450500550600
Foot MouseHand Trackball
Operated Device
SessionMea
n T
ask
Co
mp
leti
on
T
ime
(sec
)
1 250
100150200250300350400450500550600
Foot MouseHand Trackball
Operated Device
SessionMea
n T
ask
Co
mp
leti
on
T
ime
(sec
)
1 20
50100150200250300350400450500550600650
Foot MouseHand Trackball
Operated Device
SessionMea
n T
ask
Co
mp
leti
on
T
ime
(sec
)
1 20
100
200
300
400
500
600
700
800
900Foot MouseHand Trackball
Operated Device
SessionMea
n T
ask
Co
mp
leti
on
T
ime
(sec
)
T1 T2
T3 T4
Average Participant Familiarity and Comfort Ratings of Input Devices
Rated aspect of device Practiced device Rated device
Hand trackball Foot mouse Hand mouse
Comfort on Day 1
Hand trackball 4.13 4.88
Foot mouse 3.63 4.38
Comfort on Day 10
Hand trackball 2.00 4.13 1.25
Foot mouse 2.75 2.63 1.13
Familiarity on Day 1(from Demographic Qs)
Hand trackball 3.57 5.00 1.14
Foot mouse 3.71 4.86 1.43
Familiarity on Day 10
Hand trackball 2.38 4.75 1.00
Foot mouse 3.00 3.50 1.13
Average Participant Familiarity and Comfort Ratings of Input Devices
Rated aspect of device Practiced device Rated device
Hand trackball Foot mouse Hand mouse
Comfort on Day 1
Hand trackball 4.13 4.88
Foot mouse 3.63 4.38
Comfort on Day 10
Hand trackball 2.00 4.13 1.25
Foot mouse 2.75 2.63 1.13
Familiarity on Day 1(from Demographic Qs)
Hand trackball 3.57 5.00 1.14
Foot mouse 3.71 4.86 1.43
Familiarity on Day 10
Hand trackball 2.38 4.75 1.00
Foot mouse 3.00 3.50 1.13