Advertisement

Anisotropic Haptic Texture of Buttons for User Interfaces

  • Daiji Kobayashi
  • Nobuki Nanjo
Conference paper
Part of the Advances in Intelligent Systems and Computing book series (AISC, volume 824)

Abstract

In recent years, we have gained access to an increasing number of aesthetical devices with buttons having similar haptic textures, thus enabling users to distinguish between the buttons using haptic sense. Haptic cues, in addition to visual cues, could therefore help the user to understand the functions of the buttons. However, the users tend to grope the buttons and attempt to push them without looking, although the visual cues were typically attached to the buttons. In this study, we propose the use of anisotropic haptic texture as a haptic cue for paired buttons, because it is possible to attach the haptic texture, such as sharkskin, to existing buttons, without the need for reconstruction. In this regard, our previous study evaluated and confirmed the effectiveness with respect to young individuals; however, the effectiveness with respect to elderly users has not yet been considered. Therefore, herein, the effectiveness was evaluated for elderly participants and assessed using experiments. The results revealed the ineffectiveness of anisotropic haptic texture as a cue for the appropriate button choice. Considering the factor of erroneous choices made by the elderly, it is discovered that their frictional images vary due to perception issues. Thus, we created a standard for the recognition of anisotropic haptic texture with respect to the creation of frictional images. To clarify the effectiveness of the proposed method, an evaluation experiment was conducted, and the validity results for elderly people were obtained.

Keywords

Anisotropic haptic texture Frictional image Accessibility 

References

  1. 1.
    ISO 24503 (2011) Ergonomics, Accessible design, Tactile dots and bars on consumer productsGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Guest S, Dessirier JM, Mehrabyan A, McGlone F, Essick G, Gescheider G, Fontana A, Xiong R, Ackerley R, Blot K (2011) The development and validation of sensory and emotional scales of touch perception. Attention Percept Psycho Phys 73:531–550CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Okamoto S, Nagano H, Yamada Y (2013) Psychophysical dimensions of tactile perception of textures. IEEE Trans Haptics 6(1):81–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Yamamoto S, Yokomizo Y, Kobayashi D (2015) Study of haptics and tactile sense of the direction of movement. HIMI, Part I, LNCS vol 9172, pp 477–487CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    ISO 1503 (2008) Spatial orientation and direction of movement, Ergonomic requirementsGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Kobayashi D, Suzuki Y (2017) Study on haptic texture of buttons for user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 2nd Asian conference on ergonomics and design, pp 568–571Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    ISO 2575 (2010) Road vehicles, Symbols for controls, indicators and tell-talesGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Tremblay F, Master S Touch in aging. http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Touch_in_aging. Accessed 28 May 2018
  9. 9.
    ISO/WD 9241-971 (2017) Ergonomics of human-system interaction, Part 971, Guidance on physical (tactile/haptic) accessibility of ICGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Agresti A, Caffo B (2000) Simple and effective confidence intervals for proportions and differences of proportions and differences of proportions result from adding two success and two failures. Am Stat 54(4):280–288zbMATHGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Chitose Institute of Science and TechnologyHokkaidoJapan

Personalised recommendations