Underlying Behavioral Parameters of the Operation of Touch-Input Devices: Biases, Models, and Feedback

Abstract

Touch-entry devices have exhibited a number of advantages in relatively low-resolution applications. Requirements for high-resolution input must, however, take into account the inherent biases and limitations of the operator. In this study performance biases in the use of an infrared touch-input device were examined with the input (display) surface at various declinations. A general bias to touch low and to the right of targets was found, the low bias increasing with increasing display declination. Attempts to reduce bias error through simple models based upon earlier trials were more effective when derived from individual performances rather than populational behavior (averages). Handedness effects on performance were also found. Training is discussed as a viable alternative, along with preliminary training results.

A Comparison of Gamified HCI Studies with Lab and Crowd Participants

“…Factors moderating accuracy and time of finger pointing on touch interfaces include: target size [9] and shape [5], the pointing device occluding the target's position and having larger size than the target (fat finger problem) [23], acquisition time limits, target location in relation to screen borders [5,32] and to other targets [24], finger orientation (roll, pitch, yaw) [23], posture of the user, e.g. sitting vs standing [16,34], the vertical [5] and horizontal [27] tilt of the screen, parallax [4], and feedback on whether a target was successfully touched [5].…”

“…sitting vs standing [16,34], the vertical [5] and horizontal [27] tilt of the screen, parallax [4], and feedback on whether a target was successfully touched [5].…”

A human factors evaluation of current touch-entry technologies

“…Much of the literature on TSDs points to parallax as a source of errors in operator inputs (see, for example, Beringer and Peterson, 1985;Beaton and Weiman, 1984;Logan, 1985;Stammers and Bird, 1980 the area of all touch locations that have a centroid which falls within the boundary of a display target (resulting in a hit) will vary depending upon the location of that display target. Figure 1 illustrates this relationship between touch resolution and hit area variation.…”

“…To date, the only studies to be conducted with relatively high touch accuracy requirements have been done with fixed target locations (Beringer and Peterson, 1983;1985) and Visual feedback of touch registration has been shown to reduce touch errors and to lower training time requirements (Beringer and Peterson, 1985;Weiman et al, 1985) for TSO operators. Hopkin (1971) found that reducing TSO reliability to 99.…”

Factors influencing the usability of icons in the LCD touchscreen

“…Some relevant studies determined the anthropometry for touchscreen workstations in order to increase their efficiency [1,13]; Schultz et al [16]. Schultz et al [16] reported that the optimal viewing angle for a touchscreen is between 19°and 54.5°off the horizontal.…”