Alternative Displays for Discrete Movement Control

Abstract

This research examined performance in a single-axis discrete positioning task using three different mappings for the visual display of the movement space. In a normal display condition, displayed distance was proportional to actual distance. In a split-screen condition, 66.5% of the initial distance to the target was mapped into 50% of the visual space and 33.5% of the distance (containing the target) was mapping into the remaining 50% of visual space. Finally, in a log screen condition there was a logarithmic mapping from actual to visual space. The split-screen and log screen conditions resulted in magnification of the space containing the target and compression of space distance from the target. Results for movement time (MT) showed a significant effect of target width. MTs were longer for smaller targets. Performance with normal and log screens was equivalent in terms of overall level and in terms of rate of increase in MT with reduction in target size. A smaller rate of increase, however, was found for the split-screen display. MTs for the smallest target were faster with the split-screen display. Evidence suggests that fewer corrective movements were required for the smaller targets when using the split screen.

Capture of shrinking targets

“…A number of other experiments have been reported in which target size was varied during the movement (Flach et al 1990, Heath et al 1998, McGuffin and Balakrishnan 2002, 2005, Zhai et al 2003. Most of these consider targets that increase in size as they are approached and have been performed in order to decrease times to capture an icon on a computer screen.…”

Pointing on a computer display

“…Another approach has attempted to quantify human performance with novel prototypes (Chung, 1992;Gobel et al, 1995;Hill et al, 1992;Hirota et al, 1993;Kabbash et al, 1995;Lippman, 1981;Maggioni, 1993;Murakami, 1994;Stammers & Bird, 1980) or applications of existing input devices (Flach et al, 1987;Arthur et al, 1993) to create a novel form of interaction.…”

“…Rose, 1985;Scheifler & Krikorian, 1988). Empirical studies have failed to prove any advantage to such a mapping other than reducing the space required in which to operate the mouse (Jellinek & Card, 1990;Flach et al, 1987). The fine features of the movements in operating these devices have not been examined from a motor control perspective.…”

Touchscreens for Aircraft Navigation Tasks: Comparing Accuracy and Throughput of Three Flight Deck Interfaces Using Fitts’ Law

“…The models will be developed based on variations of Fitts’ law ( Fitts, 1954 ). This law, first published in 1954, has been used by human–machine interaction researchers for analysis of the speed-accuracy trade-off and movement time (MT) in rapid aimed movement tasks ( Jagacinski & Fisch, 1997 ; Jagacinski, Repperger, Ward, & Moran, 1980 ; Stoelen & Akin, 2010 ; Trudeau, Udtamadilok, Karlson, & Dennerlein, 2012 ), and as a valuable tool for human–machine interface design ( Flach, Hagen, O’Brien, & Olson, 1990 ; Francis & Oxtoby, 2006 ; Gao & Sun, 2015 ; Jax, Rosenbaum, Vaughan, & Meulenbroek, 2003 ; MacKenzie, 1992 ; Soukoreff & MacKenzie, 2004 ). Fitts’ law models also enable quantitative comparison of the effectiveness of different interfaces based on their throughput ( Jagacinski & Fisch, 1997 ; MacKenzie, 1992 ; Soukoreff & MacKenzie, 2004 ), describing how many bits of task difficulty, as defined by an index of difficulty (ID), an interface can handle per second.…”