Robert J. K. Jacob
Linda E. Sibert
Abstract
Current input device taxonomies and other frameworks typically emphasize the mechanical structure of input devices. We suggest that selecting an appropriate input device for an interactive task requires looking beyond the physical structure of devices to the deeper perceptual structure of the task, the device, and the interrelationship between the perceptual structure of the task and the control properties of the device. We affirm that perception is key to understanding performance of multidimensional input devices on multidimensional tasks. We have therefore extended the theory of processing of percetual structure to graphical interactive tasks and to the control structure of input devices. This allows us to predict task and device combinations that lead to better performance and hypothesize that performance is improved when the perceptual structure of the task matches the control structure of the device. We conducted an experiment in which subjects performed two tasks with different perceptual structures, using two input devices with correspondingly different control structures, a three-dimensional tracker and a mouse. We analyzed both speed and accuracy, as well as the trajectories generated by subjects as they used the unconstrained three-dimensional tracker to perform each task. The result support our hypothesis and confirm the importance of matching the perceptual structure of the task and the control structure of the input device.
- ACHILLE, L.B. 1990. Considerations in the design and development of a human computer interaction laboratory. NRL Rep. 9279, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C.Google Scholar
- ATTNEAW, F. 1950. Dimensions of similarity. Am. J. Psychol. 63, 516-556.Google Scholar
- BLESER, T.W. 1991. An input device model of interactive systems design. Doctoral Disserta-tion, The George Washington Univ., Washington, D.C. Google Scholar
- BLESER, T. W. AND SIBERT, J. L. 1990. Toto: A tool for selecting interaction techniques. In Proceedings of the ACM UIST '90 Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. ACM Press, New York, 135-142. Google Scholar
- BUXTON, W. 1986. There's more to interaction than meets the eye: Some issues in manual input. In User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J., 319-337.Google Scholar
- CARD, S. $., M_ACKINLAY, J. D., AND ROBERTSON, G.G. 1991. A morphological analysis of the design space of input devices. ACM Trans. Inf. $ys. 9, 2, 99-122. Google Scholar
- CARD, S. K., MORAN, T. P., AND NEWELL, A. 1983. The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J. Google Scholar
- FOLEY, J. D., WALLACE, V. L. AND CHAN, P. 1984. The human factors of computer graphics interaction techniques. IEEE Comput. Graph. Appl. 4, 11, 13-48. Google Scholar
- GARNER, W.R. 1974. The Processing of Information and Structure. Lawrence Erlbaum, Potomac, Md.Google Scholar
- GARNER, W. R. AND FELEOLDY, G.L. 1970. Integrality of stimulus dimensions in various types of information processing. Cog. Psychol. 1,225-241.Google Scholar
- GSPC. 1977. Status report of the Graphics Standards Planning Committee. Comput. Graph. 11.Google Scholar
- HANDEL, S. AND IMAI, S. 1972. The free classification of analyzable and unanalyzable stimuli. Percep. Psychophy. 12, 108-116.Google Scholar
- IMAI, S. AND GARNER, W.R. 1968. Structure in perceptual classification. Psychonom. Monograph Suppl. 2, 9, Whole No. 25.Google Scholar
- JACOB, R. J. K. AND SIBERT, L.E. 1992. The perceptual structure of multidimensional input device selection. In Proceedings of the ACM CHI '92 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference. ACM Press, New York, 211-218. Google Scholar
- MAC~N~~, J. D., CARD, S. K., AND ROBERTSON, G.G. 1990. A semantic analysis of the design space of input devices. Hum. Comput. Interact. 5, 145-190.Google Scholar
- SHEP~D, R. N. 1964. Attention and the metric structure of the stimulus space. J. Math. Psychol. 1, 54-87.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Integrality and separability of input devices
Recommendations
Touch-sensing input devices
CHI '99: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsWe can touch things, and our senses tell us when our hands are touching something. But most computer input devices cannot detect when the user touches or releases the device or some portion of the device. Thus, adding touch sensors to input devices offers ...
The perceptual structure of multidimensional input device selection
CHI '92: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsConcepts such as the logical device, taxonomies, and other descriptive frameworks have improved understanding of input devices but ignored or else treated informally their pragmatic qualities, which are fundamental to selection of input devices for ...
The integrality of speech in multimodal interfaces
A framework of complementary behavior has been proposed which maintains that direct-manipulation and speech interfaces have reciprocal strengths and weaknesses. This suggests that user interface performance and acceptance may increase by adopting a ...
Comments