Skip to main content

Mastering the machine: A comparison of the mouse and touch screen for children's use of computers

  • Conference paper
  • First Online:
Computer Assisted Learning (ICCAL 1992)

Part of the book series: Lecture Notes in Computer Science ((LNCS,volume 602))

Included in the following conference series:

Abstract

Young children present special problems for the design of instructional computer interfaces. Because they lack the relevant language skills, the keyboard is not an effective input device for preschoolers. If young children cannot operate the computer, then even the best educational software will be unable to make them learn from it. We tested whether the mouse or touch screen provided an effective input device for preschoolers. The children were given four tasks, three of which involved selecting objects on the screen and one that required moving displayed objects. The touch screen showed clear advantages over the mouse on all four tasks. Both devices produced characteristic errors. The children tended to land on the touch screen with more than one finger. They often rotated the mouse while moving it, and had particular difficulty coordinating clicking and dragging. The results argue that the touch screen is the input device of choice for children's early computer use.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Institutional subscriptions

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. Essock, E. (1980). The oblique effect of stimulus identification considered with respect to two classes of oblique effects. Perception, 9, 37–46.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Frye, D., Braisby, N., Lowe, J., Maroudas, C., and Niocholls, J. (1989). Young Children's Understanding of Counting and Cardinality. Child Development, 60, 1158–1171.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Frye, D., Clark, A., Watt, D. and Watkins, C. (1986) Children's Construction Horizontals, Verticals, and Diagonals: An Operational Explanation of the “Oblique Effect”. Developmental Psychology 22:213–217.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Frye, D. and Soloway, E. (1987). Interface design: A neglected issue in educational software. In proceedings of CHI+GI1987 (Toronto, April 5–9). ACM, New York, 93–97.

    Google Scholar 

  5. Karat, J., McDonald, J. and Anderson, M. (1984). A comparison of selection techniques: Touchpanel, mouse and keyboard. IBM Technical Report TR-51.0166, Austin, Texas.

    Google Scholar 

  6. Pickering, J. (1986). Touch-sensitive screens: The technologies and their application. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 25, 249–269.

    Google Scholar 

  7. Potter, R., Weldon, L. and Shneiderman, B. (1988). Improving the accuracy of touch screens: An experimental evaluation of three strategies. In Proceedings of CHI'88 (Washington, D.C., May 15–19). ACM, New York, 27–32.

    Google Scholar 

  8. Shneiderman, B. (1987) Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Editor information

Ivan Tomek

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 1992 Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg

About this paper

Cite this paper

Lu, C., Frye, D. (1992). Mastering the machine: A comparison of the mouse and touch screen for children's use of computers. In: Tomek, I. (eds) Computer Assisted Learning. ICCAL 1992. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 602. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-55578-1_88

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/3-540-55578-1_88

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-540-55578-0

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-540-47221-6

  • eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive

Publish with us

Policies and ethics