ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
A comparison of area pointing and goal crossing for people with and without motor impairments
Full text PdfPdf (1.25 MB)
Source
ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility archive
Proceedings of the 9th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility table of contents
Tempe, Arizona, USA
SESSION: Direct manipulation table of contents
Pages: 3 - 10  
Year of Publication: 2007
ISBN:978-1-59593-573-1
Authors
Jacob O. Wobbrock  University of Washington
Krzysztof Z. Gajos  University of Washington
Sponsors
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
SIGACCESS: ACM Special Interest Group on Accessible Computing
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 21,   Downloads (12 Months): 85,   Citation Count: 3
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1296843.1296847
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Prior work has highlighted the challenges faced by people with motor impairments when trying to acquire on-screen targets using a mouse or trackball. Two reasons for this are the difficulty of positioning the mouse cursor within a confined area, and the challenge of accurately executing a click. We hypothesize that both of these difficulties with area pointing may be alleviated in a different target acquisition paradigm called "goal crossing." In goal crossing, users do not acquire a confined area, but instead pass over a target line. Although goal crossing has been studied for able-bodied users, its suitability for people with motor impairments is unknown. We present a study of 16 people, 8 of whom had motor impairments, using mice and trackballs to do area pointing and goal crossing. Our results indicate that Fitts' law models both techniques for both user groups. Furthermore, although throughput for able-bodied users was higher for area pointing than for goal crossing (4.72 vs. 3.61 bits/s), the opposite was true for users with motor impairments (2.34 vs. 2.88 bits/s), suggesting that goal crossing may be viable for them. However, error rates were higher for goal crossing than for area pointing under a strict definition of crossing errors (6.23% vs. 1.94%). Subjective results indicate a preference for goal crossing among motor-impaired users. This work provides the empirical foundation from which to pursue the design of crossing-based interfaces as accessible alternatives to pointing-based interfaces.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

1
2
3
4
 
5
Fitts, P. M. (1954) The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology 47 (6), pp. 381--391.
 
6
Frank, A. (2005) DontClick.It. Diploma project in Communication Design. University of Essen- Duisburg. Essen, Germany. Available at http://www.dontclick.it/. Accessed May 24, 2007.
 
7
Frederick, B. N. (1999) Fixed-, random-, and mixed-effects ANOVA models: A user-friendly guide for increasing the generalizability of ANOVA results. In Advances in Social Science Methodology, B. Thompson (ed). Stamford, Connecticut: JAI Press, pp. 111--122.
8
 
9
Gump, A., LeGare, M. and Hunt, D. L. (2002) Application of Fitts' law to individuals with Cerebral Palsy. Perceptual and Motor Skills 94 (3 Pt 1), pp. 883--895.
10
 
11
Hwang, F., Keates, S., Langdon, P. and Clarkson, P. J. (2004) Mouse movements of motion-impaired users: A submovement analysis. Proc. ASSETS '04. New York: ACM Press, pp. 102--109.
12
13
 
14
Ketcham, C. J., Seidler, R. D., Van Gemmert, A. W. A. and Stelmach, G. E. (2002) Age-related kinematic differences as influenced by task difficulty, target size, and movement amplitude. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences 57B (1), pp. 54--64.
 
15
Koester, H. H. (2003) Abandonment of speech recognition by new users. Proc. RESNA '03. Arlington, Virginia: RESNA Press.
 
16
Littell, R. C., Milliken, G. A., Stroup, W. W. and Wolfinger, R. D. (1996) SAS System for Mixed Models. Cary, North Carolina: SAS Institute, Inc.
17
18
 
19
MacKenzie, I. S. (1992) Fitts' law as a research and design tool in human-computer interaction. Human-Computer Interaction 7 (1), pp. 91--139.
20
21
 
22
Phillips, B. and Zhao, H. (1993) Predictors of assistive technology abandonment. Assistive Technology 5 (1), pp. 36--45.
 
23
Riemer-Reiss, M. L. and Wacker, R. R. (2000) Factors associated with assistive technology discontinuance among individuals with disabilities. Journal of Rehabilitation 66 (3), pp. 44--50.
 
24
Schuster, C. and von Eye, A. (2001) The relationship of ANOVA models with random effects and repeated measurement designs. Journal of Adolescent Research 16 (2), pp. 205--220.
 
25
Smits-Engelsman, B. C. M., Rameckers, E. A. A. and Duysens, J. (2007) Children with congenital spastic hemiplegia obey Fitts' Law in a visually guided tapping task. Experimental Brain Research 177 (4), pp. 431--439.
 
26
27
 
28
Walker, N., Philbin, D. A. and Fisk, A. D. (1997) Age-related differences in movement control: Adjusting submovement structure to optimize performance. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences 52B (1), pp. 40--52.
29
30
31


Collaborative Colleagues:
Jacob O. Wobbrock: colleagues
Krzysztof Z. Gajos: colleagues