Advertisement

Absolute Indirect Touch Interaction: Impact of Haptic Marks and Animated Visual Feedback on Usability and User Experience

  • Regina BernhauptEmail author
  • Dimitri Drouet
  • Michael Pirker
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 11262)

Abstract

Goal of this paper is to investigate usability and user experience (UX) of a touch-based control of user interfaces that the user can not directly interact with. An example is a user controlling the television screen via a touch interaction on the remote control, or the driver of a car using touch to control the input on the steering wheel for the middle-console screen.

Based on a controlled within subject experiment investigating touch based interaction with and without a haptic mark we replicate findings on usability that it is significantly faster to complete a task with haptic marks on the touch area than without haptic marks. For user experience the dimensions of pragmatic quality and attractiveness were rated higher for touch input with a haptic landmark. The variation of user interface animations for target selection did not have a significant impact on user experience, showing that the tactile feedback is the most prominent factor to determine user experience.

The contribution concludes with a discussion how replication of studies must become part of user-centered design and development processes to handle the threat of outdated research due to technology change.

Keywords

User experience Absolute touch input element Usability Automotive Interactive TV Remote control 

References

  1. 1.
    Avellino, I., Fleury, C., Beaudouin-Lafon, M.: Accuracy of deictic gestures to support telepresence on wall-sized displays. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2015), pp. 2393–2396. ACM, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Baeker, R., Small, I.: Animation at the interface. In: The Art of Human-Computer Interface Design, pp. 251–267. Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc. Boston (1990)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Basnyat, S., Palanque, P., Schupp, B., Wright, P.: Formal socio-technical barrier modelling for safety-critical interactive systems design. Saf. Sci. 45(5), 545–565 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bieber, G., Abd Al Rahman, E., Urban, B.: Screen coverage: a pen-interaction problem for PDA’s and touch screen computers. In: Proceeding of the Third International Conference on Wireless and Mobile Communications (ICWMC 2007), pp. 87–87. IEEE (2007)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Brooke, J.: SUS: a ‘quick and dirty’ usability scale. In: Jordan, P.W., Thomas, B., Weerdmeester, B.A., McClelland, A.L. (eds.) Usability Evaluation in Industry. Taylor and Francis, London (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bruke, J.L., et al.: Comparing the effects of visual-auditory and visual-tactile feedback on user performance: a meta-analysis. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI 2006), pp. 108–117. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Chang, B.W., Ungar, D.: Animation: from cartoons to the user interface. In: Proceedings of the 6th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST 1993), pp. 45–55. ACM, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Chevalier, F., Henry Riche, N., Plaisant, C., Chalbi, A., Hurter, C.: Animations 25 years later: new roles and opportunities. In: Proceedings of the International Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI 2016), pp. 280–287. ACM, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Corsten, C., Cherek, C., Karrer, T., Borchers, J.: HaptiCase: back-of-device tactile marks for eyes-free absolute indirect touch. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2015), pp. 2171–2180. ACM, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Fayollas, C., Martinie, C., Palanque, P., Ait-Ameur, Y.: QBP notation for explicit representation of properties, their refinement and their potential conflicts: application to interactive systems. In: Clemmensen, T., Rajamanickam, V., Dannenmann, P., Petrie, H., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2017. LNCS, vol. 10774, pp. 91–105. Springer, Cham (2018).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-92081-8_9CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Forlines, C., Vogel, D., Balakrishnan, R.: HybridPointing: fluid switching between absolute and relative pointing with a direct input device. In: Proceedings of the 19th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST 2006), pp. 211–220. ACM, New York (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Gilliot, J., Casiez, G., Roussel, N.: Impact of form factors and input conditions on absoute indirect-touch tasks. In: Proceedings of Proceedings of the 2014 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2014). ACM, Toronto (2014)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Guerreiro, T., Jorge, J., Gonçalves, D.: Exploring the non-visual acquisition of targets on touch phones and tablets. In: 2nd Workshop on Mobile Accessibility (MobileHCI 2012). ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Gulliksen, J., Göransson, B.: Usability design: integrating user centered system design in the software development process. In: IFIP TC 2013 INTERACT Conference (2003)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hamon, A., Palanque, P., André, R., Barboni, E., Cronel, M., Navarre, D.: Multi-Touch interactions for control and display in interactive cockpits: issues and a proposal. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction in Aerospace (HCI-Aero 2014), Article 7, 10 p. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Hassenzahl, M.: The interplay of beauty, goodness, and usability in interactive products. J. HCI 19(4), 319–349 (2004)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Kim, J., Koren, I.: Comparing relative and absolute touch input for remote controls. In: Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2015), pp. 97–108. ACM. New York (2015)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    König, W.A., Gerken, J., Dierdorf, S., Reiterer, H.: Adaptive pointing – design and evaluation of a precision enhancing technique for absolute pointing devices. In: Gross, T., Gulliksen, J., Kotzé, P., Oestreicher, L., Palanque, P., Prates, R.O., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2009. LNCS, vol. 5726, pp. 658–671. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-03655-2_73CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Liddle, D.: Emerging guidelines for communicating with animation in mobile user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 34th ACM International Conference on the Design of Communication (SIGDOC 20166). Article 16, 9 Pages. ACM, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Martinie, C., Palanque, P., Navarre, D., Winckler, M., Poupart, E.: Model-based training: an approach supporting operability of critical interactive systems. In: Proceedings of Engineering Interactive Computing Systems (EICS 2011), pp. 53–62 (2011)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Martinie, C., Palanque, P., Navarre, D., Barboni, E.: A development process for usable large scale interactive critical systems: application to satellite ground segments. In: Winckler, M., Forbrig, P., Bernhaupt, R. (eds.) HCSE 2012. LNCS, vol. 7623, pp. 72–93. Springer, Heidelberg (2012).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-34347-6_5CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    McCallum, D.C., Irani, P.: ARC-Pad: Absolute + Relative cursor positioning for large displays with a mobile touchscreen. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST 2009), pp. 153–156. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Merz, B., Opwis, K., Tuch, A.N.: Perceived user experience of animated transitions in mobile user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA 2016), pp. 3152–3158. ACM, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Navarre, D., Palanque, P., Paternò, F., Santoro, C., Bastide, R.: A tool suite for integrating task and system models through scenarios. In: Johnson, C. (ed.) DSV-IS 2001. LNCS, vol. 2220, pp. 88–113. Springer, Heidelberg (2001).  https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-45522-1_6CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Norman, K.L., Norman, K.D.: Comparison of relative versus absolute pointing devices. In: Human-Computer Interaction Technical Report, HCIL (2010)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Palanque, P., Barboni, E., Martinie C., Navarre, D., Winckler, M.: A model-based approach for supporting engineering usability evaluation of interaction techniques. In: Proceedings of Engineering Interactive Computing Systems (EICS 2011), pp. 21–30 (2011)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Palanque, P., Basnyat, S., Bernhaupt, R., Boring, R., Johnson, C., Johnson, P.: Beyond usability for safety critical systems: how to be sure (safe, usable, reliable, and evolvable)? In: Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2007), pp. 2133–2136. ACM. New York (2007)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Palleis, H., Hussmann, H.: Indirect 2D touch panning: how does it affect spatial memory and navigation performance. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2016), pp. 1947–1951. ACM. New York (2016)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pasquero, J., Hayward, V.: Tactile feedback can assist vision during mobile interactions. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI 2011), pp. 3277–3280. ACM, New York (2011)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Pfeiffer, M., Kern, D., Schöning, J., Döring, T., Krüger, A., Schmidt, A.: A multi-touch enabled steering wheel: exploring the design space. In: Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA 2010), pp. 3355–3360. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Pietroszek, K., Lank, E.: Clicking blindly: using spatial correspondence to select targets in multi-device environments. In: Proceedings of MobileHCI 2012, pp. 331–334. ACM, San Francisco (2012)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Pirker, M., Bernhaupt, R., Mirlacher, T.: Investigating usability and user experience as possible entry barriers for touch interaction in the living room. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Interactive Conference on Interactive TV&Video (EuroITV 2010), pp. 145–154, ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  33. 33.
    Roudaut, A., Huot, S., Lecolinet, E.: TapTap and MagStick: improving one-handed target acquisition on small touch-screens. In: Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI 2008), pp. 146–153. ACM, New York (2008)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Sheik-Nainar, M., Huber, J., Bose, R., Matic, N.: Force-enabled touchpad in cars: improving target selection using absolut input. In: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA 2016), pp. 2697–2704. ACM, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Thomas, F., Johnston, O.: Disney Animation: The Illusion of Life. Abbeville Press, New York (1981)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Treskunov, A., Darnell, M., Wang, R.: Active haptic feedback for touch enabled TV remote. In: Proceedings of the 2015 ACM on International Conference on Multimodal Interaction (ICMI 2015), pp. 319–322. ACM, New York (2015)Google Scholar
  37. 37.
    Zimmermann, S., Rümelin, S., Butz. A.: I feel it in my fingers: haptic guidance on touch surfaces. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Tangible, Embedded and Embodied Interaction (TEI 2014), pp. 9–12. ACM, New York (2014)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Regina Bernhaupt
    • 1
    • 2
    Email author
  • Dimitri Drouet
    • 2
  • Michael Pirker
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Industrial DesignEindhoven University of TechnologyEindhoventhe Netherlands
  2. 2.RuwidoNeumarkt am WallerseeAustria

Personalised recommendations