rolandi@gollum.Columbia.NCR.COM (rolandi) (11/23/87)
Do folks in this newsgroup share anything more substantive than user interface war stories? This all started WEEKS ago when somebody re- quested a few human interface anecdotes to be used in an opening for a speech or something. This guy must now have enough to write a book! Come on, let's give it a rest! Meanwhile, can anyone give me some pointers to research that examines the relative merits of touchscreens versus "mice". -w.rolandi safe :- disclaim(rolandi,everything).
klee@klee.ads.com (Ken Lee) (11/24/87)
In article <19@gollum.Columbia.NCR.COM> rolandi@gollum.UUCP () writes: >Meanwhile, can anyone give me some pointers to research that examines >the relative merits of touchscreens versus "mice". I agree that this "rm *" nonsense is wearing out my "n" key. As for your question, I think the consensus is that "it depends" on the application. Touchscreens are generally unsuitable for intensive applications because: 1. excessive fatigue (holding your arm up all day) 2. your finger hides the thing you're pointing at 3. fat fingers have low resolution 4. fingerprints 5. touch screens cause glare, distortion, and reduce display brightness 6. a mouse has more degrees of freedom (especially a multi-button mouse) There are a few other reasons I can't remember right now. Of course, for non-intensive, low-resolution applications, like push-button oriented bank ATM's, touch screens are great. Ken Lee klee@ads.arpa
jeffries@hplabsb.UUCP (11/24/87)
> Meanwhile, can anyone give me some pointers to research that examines > the relative merits of touchscreens versus "mice". > -w.rolandi A good starting point is "A comparison of selection techniques: touch panel, mouse, and keyboard", J. Karat, J.E. McDonald, and M. Anderson, Proceedigns of Interact'84, vol 2, p. 149. I think this work has since been published in Int. Journal of Man-Machine Studies, but I can't put my fingers on a reference off-hand. Robin Jeffries
king@rd1632.Dayton.NCR.COM (James King) (11/24/87)
To: ncrlnk!ncrcae!gollum!rolandi Subject: Re: Issues of comp.cog-eng Newsgroups: comp.cog-eng In-Reply-To: <19@gollum.Columbia.NCR.COM> Organization: R&D, NCR Corp., Dayton, Ohio Cc: Bcc: I have a few: Potter, Richard, Weldon, Linda, and Shneiderman, Ben "Making Touch Screens Effective: An Experimental Evaluation of Three Strategies". University of MAryland Tech. Report. Pickering, J. A. "Touch Sensitive Screens: The Technologies and their Application" in the journal: International Journal Man- Machine Studies #25, 1986. Ostroff, D. and Shneiderman, B. "Selection Devices for Users of an Electronic Encyclopedia: An Empirical Comparison of Four Possibilities" Univ of Maryland Computer Science Tech Report 1910. Stone, M. D. "Touch Screens for Intuitive Input" in PC Magazine August 1987. Hope this helps. To get the Shneiderman reports contact him at: Department of Computer Science University of Maryland College Park, MD 20742 Jim King at NCR Corporate R&D j.a.king@dayton.ncr.com
klee@klee.ads.com (Ken Lee) (11/26/87)
In article <52000002@hplabsb.UUCP> jeffries@hplabsb.UUCP (Robin Jeffries) writes: >A good starting point is "A comparison of selection techniques: touch panel, >mouse, and keyboard", J. Karat, J.E. McDonald, and M. Anderson, Proceedigns >of Interact'84, vol 2, p. 149. > >I think this work has since been published in Int. Journal of Man-Machine >Studies, but I can't put my fingers on a reference off-hand. It's in IJMMS (1986) Vol 25, p. 73-88. Note that these results are based on experimenting with a relatively crude application, using the input devices only for menu selection. As would be expected, the cognitively simple touch screen wins since its limitations don't appear in this application. Contrast these results to what you would expect with a 3D CAD or medical imaging application. Ken Lee klee@ads.arpa