ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Perceptibility and utility of sticky targets
Full text PdfPdf (708 KB)
Source
GI; Vol. 322 archive
Proceedings of graphics interface 2008 table of contents
Windsor, Ontario, Canada
SESSION: Input table of contents
Pages 65-72  
Year of Publication: 2008
ISBN ~ ISSN:0713-5424 , 978-1-56881-423-0
Authors
Regan L. Mandryk  University of Saskatchewan
Carl Gutwin  University of Saskatchewan
Sponsor
: The Canadian Human-Computer Communications Society / Société Canadienne du Dialogue Humaine Machine (CHCCS/SCDHM)
Publisher
Canadian Information Processing Society  Toronto, Ont., Canada, Canada
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 7,   Downloads (12 Months): 75,   Citation Count: 1
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Review this Article  

ABSTRACT

Researchers have suggested that dynamically increasing control-to-display (CD) gain can assist in targeting, by increasing the effective width of targets in motor space, which makes targets feel sticky. Although this method has been shown to be effective, there are several unexplored issues that could affect its use in real-world interfaces. One of these is perceptibility: in particular, the difference between the perceptibility and the utility of the technique. If CD gain changes are highly noticeable even at levels that are not helpful, the technique could be seen as overly intrusive. If CD gain changes are more useful than noticeable, however, the technique could be applied more widely. To explore this issue, we carried out a study that tested both the utility and the perceptibility of CD gain in single-target selection tasks. We found that although even small amounts of gain reduction significantly improved targeting times, participants did not consistently notice the effect until the gain difference was much higher. Our results provide new understanding of how changes in CD gain are experienced by users, and provide initial evidence to suggest that sticky targets can benefit users without a high perceptual cost.


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
Adam, J. J., van der Bruggen, D. P. W., & Bekkering, H. (1993). The control of discrete and reciprocal target-aiming responses: Evidence for the exploitation of mechanics. Human Move. Sc., 12, 353--364.
2
3
 
4
5
 
6
Binsted, G., Brownell, K., Vorontsova, Z., Heath, M., & Saucier, D. (2007). Visuomotor system uses target features unavailable to conscious awareness. PNAS, 104 (31), 12669--72.
7
 
8
Casiez, G., Vogel, D., Balakrishnan, R. & Cockburn, A. (in press). The impact of control-display gain on user performance in pointing tasks. JHCI.
 
9
Cockburn, A. & Firth, A. (2003). Improving the acquisition of small targets. People and Computers XVII. 181--196.
 
10
Cockburn, A. & Brewster, S. (2005). Multimodal feedback for the acquisition of small targets. Ergonomics 48(9), 1129--1150.
 
11
 
12
Fitts, P. M. (1954). The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. J. Exp. Psych., 47, 381--391.
 
13
Fitts, P. M. & Peterson, J. R. (1964). Information capacity of discrete motor responses. J. Exp. Psych., 67, 103--112.
 
14
Gallace, A., Tan, H. Z., & Spence, C. (2006). The failure to detect tactile change: A tactile analogue of visual change blindness. Psychonomic Bulletin & Review, 13, 300--303.
 
15
16
17
 
18
Keyson, D. V. (1997). Dynamic Control Gain and Tactile Feedback in the Capture of Cursor Movements. Ergonomics, 12, 1287--1298.
 
19
Lécuyer, A, Coquillart, S, & Kheddar, A. (2000). Pseudo-Haptic Feedback: Can isometric input devices simulate force feedback? IEEE VR2000, 18--22.
20
 
21
MacKenzie, C. L., Marteniuk, R. G., Dugas, C., & Eickmeier, B. (1987). Three-dimensional movement trajectories in Fitts' task: Implications for motor control. QJEP, 39A, 629--647.
 
22
MacKenzie, I. S. (1992). Fitts' law as a research and design tool in human-computer interaction. JHCI, 7, 91--139.
23
 
24
Meyer, D., Abrams, R., Kornblum, S., Wright, C., & Smith, J. (1988). Optimality in human motor performance: Ideal control of rapid aiming movements. Psych. Review, 95, 340--370.
 
25
O'Regan, J. K., Rensink, R. A. & Clark, J. J. (1999). Change-blindness as a result of "mudsplashes". Nature, 398, 34.
 
26
Rensink R. A. (2004). Visual sensing without seeing. Psychological Science, 15, 27--32.
 
27
Rensink R. A, O'Regan J. K, & Clark J. J. (1997). To see or not to see: The need for attention to perceive changes in scenes. Psychological Science, 8, 368--373.
 
28
Rodgers, M. E., Mandryk, R. & Inkpen, K. (2006). Smart sticky widgets: Pseudo-haptic enhancements for multi-monitor displays. Smart Graphics '06, 194--205.
29
 
30
Simons, D., Franconeri, S., & Reimer, R. (2000). Change blindness in the absence of visual disruption. Perception, 29, 1143--1154.
 
31
Teasdale, N., & Schmidt, R. A. (1991). Deceleration requirements and the control of pointing movements. J. Motor Beh., 23, 131--138.
 
32
Vitevitch, M. S. (2003). Change Deafness: The inability to detect changes between two voices. J. Exp. Psych., 29, 333--342.
 
33
Woodworth, R. S. (1899). The accuracy of voluntary movements, Psych. Review Monograph, Supp., 31--114.
34
35


Collaborative Colleagues:
Regan L. Mandryk: colleagues
Carl Gutwin: colleagues