2015
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-20681-3_13
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

User-Acceptance of Latency in Touch Interactions

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
5
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
4
3
1

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 8 publications
(5 citation statements)
references
References 10 publications
0
5
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Combined with the delay introduced by the feature extraction process (300 ms), a grasping could be registered by the system after at least 600 ms from the start of the action. While such a delay might be problematic for some real-time human machine interfaces [ 52 - 54 ], it is not considered to be of concern for the targeted activity monitor application, as the user’s instant action does not depend on the feedback [ 55 - 57 ]. Under the optimal settings, which was based on the smallest maximum percentage error, a median percentage error of 1% with IQR of 2% for the grasping count using the wrist FMG was obtained.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Combined with the delay introduced by the feature extraction process (300 ms), a grasping could be registered by the system after at least 600 ms from the start of the action. While such a delay might be problematic for some real-time human machine interfaces [ 52 - 54 ], it is not considered to be of concern for the targeted activity monitor application, as the user’s instant action does not depend on the feedback [ 55 - 57 ]. Under the optimal settings, which was based on the smallest maximum percentage error, a median percentage error of 1% with IQR of 2% for the grasping count using the wrist FMG was obtained.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…In terms of the technology, mobile devices are not as powerful as the standard desktop computer used in most research paradigms. The limitations of these devices are well-established (Ng and Dietz, 2014; Ritter et al, 2015; Arsintescu et al, 2017; Begel et al, 2017), and of particular concern is (1) the variability in producing stimuli when requested and (2) the latency of registering touchscreen input. Here, we measured the standard deviation of the IOI to be 14 ms for auditory stimuli and 13 ms for visual stimuli.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Aside from the uncontrolled environment where participants reside, multiple sources of variability may stem from the technology itself, such as different interfaces (e.g., phone, tablet, computer), different operating systems, and different software used to collect data. At a more fundamental level, mobile consumer devices are not necessarily designed to simultaneously produce stimuli and acquire performance data with the precise timing required by typical research projects (Ng and Dietz, 2014; Ritter et al, 2015; Arsintescu et al, 2017; Begel et al, 2017).…”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Practically, delays more than 180 ms in FPS game have tended to frustrate users, which lead them to eventually stop playing [3]. Latency of 600 ms for tap actions and 450 ms for drag actions annoyed people using touchscreens [1,43].…”
Section: Effects Of Latency On Human Performancementioning
confidence: 99%