Advertisement

User-Acceptance of Latency in Touch Interactions

  • Walter RitterEmail author
  • Guido Kempter
  • Tobias Werner
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9176)

Abstract

Nowadays direct input interfaces are nearly ubiquitous due to the advent of touch screen based smartphones, tablets, and computers. Latency in human-computer interfaces has been discussed since a long time, but established numbers have been questioned in recent research regarding their applicability for direct input interfaces like touch screens. This pilot study focuses on user-acceptable levels of latency in two distinct tasks: simple tapping on interface elements for invoking an action, and dragging tasks to control analog settings. Our results show acceptable latency levels around 300 ms for low attention tapping tasks and around 170 ms for dragging tasks, where visual feedback is essential. These findings are in accordance to previous findings and confirm the importance of considering the task to be fulfilled for drawing conclusions.

Keywords

Latency Touch Interaction Acceptance Gesture recognition 

Notes

Acknowledgements

Financial support for this project was provided by the Austrian research funding association (FFG) under the scope of the COMET program within the research project “Easy to use professional business and system control applications (LiTech)” (contract # 843535). This programme is promoted by BMVIT, BMWFJ and the federal state of Vorarlberg. We also express our gratitude to WolfVision Innovation GmbH for their in-kind contributions.

References

  1. 1.
    Anderson, G., Doherty, R., Ganapathy, S.: User perception of touch screen latency. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) HCII 2011 and DUXU 2011, Part I. LNCS, vol. 6769, pp. 195–202. Springer, Heidelberg (2011) CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Card, S.K., Robertson, G.G., Mackinlay, J.D.: The information visualizer, an information workspace. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 181–186. CHI 1991. ACM, New York, NY, USA (1991)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Gallaway, G.R.: Response times to user activities in interactive man/machine computer systems. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Ann. Meet. 25, 754–758 (1981)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jota, R., Ng, A., Dietz, P., Wigdor, D.: How fast is fast enough?: a study of the effects of latency in direct-touch pointing tasks. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI 2013, pp. 2291–2300. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2013)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    MacKenzie, I.S., Ware, C.: Lag as a determinant of human performance in interactive systems. In: Proceedings of the INTERACT 1993 and CHI 1993 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI 1993, pp. 488–493. ACM, New York, NY, USA (1993)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Miller, R.B.: Response time in man-computer conversational transactions. In: Proceedings of the Fall Joint Computer Conference on 9–11 December 1968, Part I. AFIPS 1968 (Fall, part I), pp. 267–277. ACM, New York, NY, USA (1968)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Mori, M.: The uncanny valley. Energy 7(4), 33–35 (1970)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ng, A., Lepinski, J., Wigdor, D., Sanders, S., Dietz, P.: Designing for low-latency direct-touch input. In: Proceedings of the 25th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. UIST 2012, pp. 453–464. ACM, New York, NY, USA (2012)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Shneiderman, B.: Response time and display rate in human performance with computers. ACM Comput. Surv. 16(3), 265–285 (1984)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Shneiderman, B., Plaisant, C.: Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction, 4th edn. Pearson Addison Wesley, Boston (2004)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ware, C., Balakrishnan, R.: Reaching for objects in vr displays: lag and frame rate. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 1(4), 331–356 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Zhicheng, L., Heer, J.: The effects of interactive latency on exploratory visual analysis. IEEE Trans. Vis. Comput. Graph. (Proceedings InfoVis 2014) 20(12), 2122–2131 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Vorarlberg University of Applied SciencesDornbirnAustria

Personalised recommendations