Integrality and separability of input devices

ABSTRACT

Current input device taxonomies and other frameworks typically emphasize the mechanical structure of input devices. We suggest that selecting an appropriate input device for an interactive task requires looking beyond the physical structure of devices to the deeper perceptual structure of the task, the device, and the interrelationship between the perceptual structure of the task and the control properties of the device. We affirm that perception is key to understanding performance of multidimensional input devices on multidimensional tasks. We have therefore extended the theory of processing of percetual structure to graphical interactive tasks and to the control structure of input devices. This allows us to predict task and device combinations that lead to better performance and hypothesize that performance is improved when the perceptual structure of the task matches the control structure of the device. We conducted an experiment in which subjects performed two tasks with different perceptual structures, using two input devices with correspondingly different control structures, a three-dimensional tracker and a mouse. We analyzed both speed and accuracy, as well as the trajectories generated by subjects as they used the unconstrained three-dimensional tracker to perform each task. The result support our hypothesis and confirm the importance of matching the perceptual structure of the task and the control structure of the input device.

REFERENCES

• 1: ACHILLE, L.B. 1990. Considerations in the design and development of a human computer interaction laboratory. NRL Rep. 9279, Naval Research Laboratory, Washington, D.C.
• 2: ATTNEAW, F. 1950. Dimensions of similarity. Am. J. Psychol. 63, 516-556.
• 3: Teresa Worthington Bleser, An input device model of interactive systems design, George Washington University, Washington, DC, 1991
• 4: Teresa W. Bleser , John Sibert, Toto: a tool for selecting interaction techniques, Proceedings of the 3rd annual ACM SIGGRAPH symposium on User interface software and technology, p.135-142, October 03-05, 1990, Snowbird, Utah, United States [doi>10.1145/97924.97940]
• 5: BUXTON, W. 1986. There's more to interaction than meets the eye: Some issues in manual input. In User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J., 319-337.
• 6: Stuart K. Card , Jock D. Mackinlay , George G. Robertson, A morphological analysis of the design space of input devices, ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), v.9 n.2, p.99-122, April 1991 [doi>10.1145/123078.128726]
• 7: Stuart K. Card , Allen Newell , Thomas P. Moran, The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ, 1983
• 8: James D. Foley , Victor L. Wallace , Peggy Chan, The human factors of computer graphics interaction techniques, IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, v.4 n.11, p.13-48, Nov. 1984
• 9: GARNER, W.R. 1974. The Processing of Information and Structure. Lawrence Erlbaum, Potomac, Md.
• 10: GARNER, W. R. AND FELEOLDY, G.L. 1970. Integrality of stimulus dimensions in various types of information processing. Cog. Psychol. 1,225-241.
• 11: GSPC. 1977. Status report of the Graphics Standards Planning Committee. Comput. Graph. 11.
• 12: HANDEL, S. AND IMAI, S. 1972. The free classification of analyzable and unanalyzable stimuli. Percep. Psychophy. 12, 108-116.
• 13: IMAI, S. AND GARNER, W.R. 1968. Structure in perceptual classification. Psychonom. Monograph Suppl. 2, 9, Whole No. 25.
• 14: Robert J. K. Jacob , Linda E. Sibert, The perceptual structure of multidimensional input device selection, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, p.211-218, May 03-07, 1992, Monterey, California, United States [doi>10.1145/142750.142792]
• 15: MAC~N~~, J. D., CARD, S. K., AND ROBERTSON, G.G. 1990. A semantic analysis of the design space of input devices. Hum. Comput. Interact. 5, 145-190.
• 16: SHEP~D, R. N. 1964. Attention and the metric structure of the stimulus space. J. Math. Psychol. 1, 54-87.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)
          Subjects: Input devices and strategies (e.g., mouse, touchscreen)

Additional Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.1 MODELS AND PRINCIPLES
      H.1.2 User/Machine Systems
          Subjects: Human factors
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)
          Subjects: Interaction styles (e.g., commands, menus, forms, direct manipulation)

  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.3 COMPUTER GRAPHICS
      I.3.6 Methodology and Techniques
          Subjects: Interaction techniques

General Terms:
Design, Experimentation, Human Factors, Measurement, Theory

Keywords:
Polhemus tracker, gesture input, input devices, integrality, interaction techniques, perceptual space, separability