ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Graffiti vs. unistrokes: an empirical comparison
Full text PdfPdf (464 KB)
Source
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems archive
Proceeding of the twenty-sixth annual SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems table of contents
Florence, Italy
SESSION: Touch and Target Selection table of contents
Pages 305-308  
Year of Publication: 2008
ISBN:978-1-60558-011-1
Authors
Steven J. Castellucci  York University, Toronto, ON, Canada
I. Scott MacKenzie  York University, Toronto, ON, Canada
Sponsors
ACM: Association for Computing Machinery
SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 16,   Downloads (12 Months): 180,   Citation Count: 0
Additional Information:

abstract   references   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/10.1145/1357054.1357106
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Unistrokes and Graffiti are stylus-based text entry techniques. While Unistrokes is recognized in academia, Graffiti is commercially prevalent in PDAs. Though numerous studies have investigated the usability of Graffiti, none exists to compare its long-term performance with that of Unistrokes. This paper presents a longitudinal study comparing entry speed, correction rate, stroke duration, and preparation (i.e., inter-stroke) time of these two techniques. Over twenty fifteen-phrase sessions, performance increased from 4.0 wpm to 11.4 wpm for Graffiti and from 4.1 wpm to 15.8 wpm for Unistrokes. Correction rates were high for both techniques. However, rates for Graffiti remained relatively consistent at 26%, while those for Unistrokes decreased from 43% to 16%.


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
MacKenzie, I. S. and Soukoreff, R. W. Text entry for mobile computing: Models and methods, theory and practice. In MacKenzie, I. S. ed., Human-computer interaction (2002), 147--198.
 
6
 
7
Stroop, J. R. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18. 643--662.
 
8
Yamada, H. A historical study of typewriters and typing methods: From the position of planning japanese parallels. Journal of Information Processing, 2 (4). 175--202.

Collaborative Colleagues:
Steven J. Castellucci: colleagues
I. Scott MacKenzie: colleagues