Advertisement

Text Entry Performance on an Expandable Socket Attached Smartphone in Stationary and Mobile Settings

  • Satvik Kulshreshtha
  • Ahmed Sabbir ArifEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 972)

Abstract

This paper investigates the effects of an expandable socket attachment for mobile phone grip on stationary (while seated) and mobile (while walking on a treadmill) text entry. An exploratory study (N = 12) failed to identify a significant effect of the attachment on text entry speed, accuracy, and error correction effort in either settings. But participants performed relatively better with the attachment while walking. Participants also did not perceive the attachment to affect their text entry speed and accuracy. However, significantly more participants wanted to use it in mobile settings, presumably to increase the safety of their devices.

Keywords

Human factors Smartphone Accessories Gadgets Expandable socket Attachment Bunker ring Grip ring PopSocket Text entry 

References

  1. 1.
  2. 2.
    Arif, A.S., Kim, S., Lee, G.: Usability of different types of commercial selfie sticks. In: Proceedings of the 19th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services - MobileHCI 2017, pp. 1–8. ACM Press, New York (2017)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Kawabata, Y., Komoriya, D., Kubo, Y., Shizuki, B., Tanaka, J.: Effects of holding ring attached to mobile devices on pointing accuracy. In: Human-Computer Interaction. Interaction Platforms and Techniques, pp. 309–319 (2016)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Shen, M., Rakhmetulla, G., Arif, A.S.: Put a ring on it: text entry performance on a grip ring attached smartphone. In: Arif, A.S., Stuerzlinger, W., Dunlop, M.D., Yi, X., Seim, C. (eds.) MobileHCI 2018 Workshop on Socio-Technical Aspects of Text Entry, pp. 6–10. CEUR-WS.org/Vol-2183, Barcelona (2018)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Lynktec 360° Ring Stand Holder for Smart Phone. https://www.lynktec.com/products/360-smartphone-ring-stand
  6. 6.
  7. 7.
  8. 8.
    Chowdhry, A.: PopSockets: the story behind how it went from a simple concept to selling tens of millions of units (2018). https://www.forbes.com/sites/amitchowdhry/2018/02/14/popsockets
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
  11. 11.
    Lin, M., Price, K.J., Goldman, R., Sears, A., Jacko, J.A.: Tapping on the move: Fitts’ Law under mobile conditions. In: Managing Modern Organizations Through Information Technology (Proceedings of the 2005 Information Resources Management Association Conference), pp. 132–135. Idea Group Publishing (2005)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lin, M., Goldman, R., Price, K.J., Sears, A., Jacko, J.: How do people tap when walking? An empirical investigation of nomadic data entry. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 65, 759–769 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Chamberlain, A., Kalawsky, R.: A comparative investigation into two pointing systems for use with wearable computers while mobile. In: Eighth International Symposium on Wearable Computers, pp. 110–117. IEEE (2004)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Arif, A.S., Iltisberger, B., Stuerzlinger, W.: Extending mobile user ambient awareness for nomadic text entry. In: Proceedings of the 23rd Australian Computer-Human Interaction, OZCHI 2011, pp. 21–30. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Schabrun, S.M., van den Hoorn, W., Moorcroft, A., Greenland, C., Hodges, P.W.: Texting and walking: strategies for postural control and implications for safety. PLoS ONE 9, e84312 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Parr, N.D., Hass, C.J., Tillman, M.D.: Cellular phone texting impairs gait in able-bodied young adults. J. Appl. Biomech. 30, 685–688 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
  18. 18.
    Arif, A.S., Mazalek, A.: WebTEM: a web application to record text entry metrics. In: Proceedings of the 2016 ACM on Interactive Surfaces and Spaces, ISS 2016, pp. 415–420. ACM Press, New York (2016)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Turner, C.J., Chaparro, B.S., He, J.: Texting while walking: is it possible with a smartwatch? J. Usability Stud. 13, 94–118 (2018)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Harvey, M., Pointon, M.: Searching on the go: the effects of fragmented attention on mobile web search tasks. In: Proceedings of the 40th International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval, SIGIR 2017, pp. 155–164. ACM Press, New York (2017)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Rudchenko, D., Paek, T., Badger, E.: Text revolution: a game that improves text entry on mobile touchscreen keyboards. In: Lecture Notes in Computer Science (including subseries Lecture Notes in Artificial Intelligence and Lecture Notes in Bioinformatics), pp. 206–213 (2011)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Barnard, L., Yi, J.S., Jacko, J.A., Sears, A.: An empirical comparison of use-in-motion evaluation scenarios for mobile computing devices. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 62, 487–520 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    MacKenzie, I.S., Soukoreff, R.W.: Phrase sets for evaluating text entry techniques. In: Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computer Systems, CHI 2003, p. 754. ACM Press, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Arif, A.S., Stuerzlinger, W.: Analysis of text entry performance metrics. In: Proceedings of the IEEE Toronto International Conference - Science and Technology for Humanity, TIC-STH 2009, pp. 100–105. IEEE (2009)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Mizobuchi, S., Chignell, M., Newton, D.: Mobile text entry: relationship between walking speed and text input task difficulty. In: Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices & Services, MobileHCI 2005, p. 122. ACM Press, New York (2005)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Human-Computer Interaction GroupUniversity of California, MercedMercedUSA

Personalised recommendations