Name
Abstract | ||
|---|---|---|
Three experiments were conducted in this study to investigate the human ability to control pen pressure and pen tilt input, coupling cursor position, angle and scale respectively. Comparisons between pressure input and tilt input have been made in the three experiments. Experimental results show that decreasing pressure input resulted in very bad performance and was not a good input technique for any of the three experiments. In "experiment1-coupling to cursor position", the tilt input technique performed relatively better than the increasing pressure input technique, even though the tilt technique had a slightly higher error rate. In "experiment2-coupling to cursor angle", the tilt input performed relatively better than the increasing pressure input in terms of time. In "experiment3-coupling to cursor scale", tilt input performed a little better than increasing pressure input in terms of adjustment time, but a little worse in terms of the degree of control that users exerted. These results will be useful for further user interface design. |
Year | DOI | Venue |
|---|---|---|
2008 | 10.1109/ISPA.2008.114 | ISPA |
Keywords | Field | DocType |
increasing pressure input technique,tilt input technique,pen tilt input techniques,good input technique,tilt input,empirical comparison,pressure input,pen tilt input technique,user interfaces,tilt technique,cursor scale coupling,increasing pressure input,target selection tasks,cursor angle,cursor position coupling,user interface design,pen pressure input technique,cursor angle coupling,pen pressure,pen tilt input,interactive devices,pen-based interfaces,visualization,position angle,error rate,pixel,couplings,azimuth | Empirical comparison,Coupling,Computer science,Control theory,Word error rate,Azimuth,A little better,Real-time computing,Pixel,Computer hardware,Cursor (user interface) | Conference |
ISBN | Citations | PageRank |
978-0-7695-3471-8 | 2 | 0.38 |
References | Authors | |
13 | 3 | |
Name | Order | Citations | PageRank |
|---|---|---|---|
| Xiaolei Zhou | 1 | 2 | 0.38 |
| Xiangshi Ren | 2 | 551 | 69.41 |
| Yue Hui | 3 | 4 | 0.75 |