research-article

Storyboard-Based Empirical Modeling of Touch Interface Performance

Authors:

Carl GutwinAuthors Info & Claims

CHI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Paper No.: 445, Pages 1 - 12

https://doi.org/10.1145/3173574.3174019

Published: 21 April 2018 Publication History

Abstract

Touch interactions are now ubiquitous, but few tools are available to help designers quickly prototype touch interfaces and predict their performance. For rapid prototyping, most applications only support visual design. For predictive modelling, tools such as CogTool generate performance predictions but do not represent touch actions natively and do not allow exploration of different usage contexts. To combine the benefits of rapid visual design tools with underlying predictive models, we developed the Storyboard Empirical Modelling tool (StEM) for exploring and predicting user performance with touch interfaces. StEM provides performance models for mainstream touch actions, based on a large corpus of realistic data. We evaluated StEM in an experiment and compared its predictions to empirical times for several scenarios. The study showed that our predictions are accurate (within 7% of empirical values on average), and that StEM correctly predicted differences between alternative designs. Our tool provides new capabilities for exploring and predicting touch performance, even in the early stages of design.

Supplementary Material

suppl.mov (pn3691-file3.mp4)

Supplemental video

Download
10.89 MB

References

[1]

Evgeniy Abdulin. 2011. Using the Keystroke-level Model for Designing User Interface on Middle-sized Touch Screens. In Proc. of CHI EA. ACM, 673--686.

Digital Library

[2]

Caroline Appert, Michel Beaudouin-Lafon, and Wendy E. Mackay. 2005. Context matters: Evaluating Interaction Techniques with the CIS Model. In People and Computers XVIII - Design for Life: Proceedings of HCI 2004. Springer London, 279--295.

[3]

Xiaojun Bi, Yang Li, and Shumin Zhai. 2013. FFitts Law: Modeling Finger Touch with Fitts' Law. In Proc. of CHI. New York, NY, USA, 1363--1372. http: //dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?id=2470654.2466180& coll=DL&dl=ACM&CFID=244634215&CFTOKEN=16005854

Digital Library

[4]

Stuart K Card, Thomas P Moran, and Allen Newell. 1980. The keystroke-level model for user performance time with interactive systems. In Communications of the ACM. ACM, 396--410.

Digital Library

[5]

Xu Chu, John Morcos, Ihab F. Ilyas, Mourad Ouzzani, Paolo Papotti, Nan Tang, and Yin Ye. 2015. KATARA: A Data Cleaning System Powered by Knowledge Bases and Crowdsourcing. In Proc. of SIGMOD. ACM, 1247--1261.

Digital Library

[6]

A. Cockburn, D. Ahlstr� om, and C. Gutwin. 2012. Understanding Performance in Touch Selections: Tap, Drag and Radial Pointing Drag with Finger, Stylus and Mouse. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 70, 3 (March 2012), 218--233.

Digital Library

[7]

Paul M Fitts. 1954. The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of experimental psychology 47, 6 (1954), 381.

[8]

Clifton Forlines, Daniel Wigdor, Chia Shen, and Ravin Balakrishnan. 2007. Direct-touch vs. Mouse Input for Tabletop Displays. In Proc. CHI. 647--656.

Digital Library

[9]

Alix Goguey, Mathieu Nancel, G� ery Casiez, and Daniel Vogel. 2016. The Performance and Preference of Different Fingers and Chords for Pointing, Dragging, and Object Transformation. In Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '16). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 4250--4261.

Digital Library

[10]

Alix Goguey, Daniel Vogel, Fanny Chevalier, Thomas Pietrzak, Nicolas Roussel, and G� ery Casiez. 2017. Leveraging finger identification to integrate multi-touch command selection and parameter manipulation. In IJHCS journal, Vol. 99. 21 -- 36.

[11]

Alix Goguey, Julie Wagner, and G� ery Casiez. 2015. Quantifying Object- and Command-Oriented Interaction. In Human-Computer Interaction -- INTERACT 2015: 15th IFIP TC 13 International Conference, Bamberg, Germany, September 14--18, 2015, Proceedings, Part IV (INTERACT '15). Springer International Publishing, Cham, 231--239.

[12]

Carl Gutwin, Andy Cockburn, Joey Scarr, Sylvain Malacria, and Scott C. Olson. 2014. Faster Command Selection on Tablets with FastTap. In Proc. of CHI. ACM, 2617--2626.

Digital Library

[13]

Paul Holleis, Friederike Otto, Heinrich Hussmann, and Albrecht Schmidt. 2007. Keystroke-level Model for Advanced Mobile Phone Interaction. In Proc. of CHI. ACM, 1505--1514.

Digital Library

[14]

H. V. Jagadish, Johannes Gehrke, Alexandros Labrinidis, Yannis Papakonstantinou, Jignesh M. Patel, Raghu Ramakrishnan, and Cyrus Shahabi. 2014. Big Data and Its Technical Challenges. (2014), 86--94.

Digital Library

[15]

Bonnie E John. 2010. Reducing the variability between novice modelers: Results of a tool for human performance modeling produced through human-centered design. In Proc. of BRIMS. 22--25.

[16]

Gordon Kurtenbach and William Buxton. 1991. Issues in Combining Marking and Direct Manipulation Techniques. In Proc. of UIST. ACM, 137--144.

Digital Library

[17]

James A. Landay and Brad A. Myers. 1995. Interactive Sketching for the Early Stages of User Interface Design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '95). ACM Press/Addison-Wesley Publishing Co., New York, NY, USA, 43--50.

Digital Library

[18]

Ahreum Lee, Kiburm Song, Hokyoung Blake Ryu, Jieun Kim, and Gyuhyun Kwon. 2015. Fingerstroke time estimates for touchscreen-based mobile gaming interaction. In Human Movement Science Journal. Elsevier, 211--224.

[19]

Hui Li, Ying Liu, Jun Liu, Xia Wang, Yujiang Li, and Pei-Luen Patrick Rau. 2010b. Extended KLM for Mobile Phone Interaction: A User Study Result. In Proc. of CHI EA. ACM, 3517--3522.

Digital Library

[20]

Yang Li, Xiang Cao, Katherine Everitt, Morgan Dixon, and James A. Landay. 2010a. FrameWire: A Tool for Automatically Extracting Interaction Logic from Paper Prototyping Tests. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '10). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 503--512.

Digital Library

[21]

Wendy E. Mackay. 2002. Which Interaction Technique Works when?: Floating Palettes, Marking Menus and Toolglasses Support Different Task Strategies. In Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI '02). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 203--208.

Digital Library

[22]

I Scott MacKenzie. 1989. A note on the information-theoretic basis for Fitts' law. Journal of motor behavior 21, 3 (1989), 323--330.

[23]

I. Scott MacKenzie. 1992. Fitts' Law As a Research and Design Tool in Human-computer Interaction. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7, 1 (March 1992), 91--139.

Digital Library

[24]

I Scott MacKenzie. 2013. A Note on the Validity of the Shannon Formulation for Fitts' Index of Difficulty. Open Journal of Applied Sciences 3, 06 (2013), 360.

[25]

Mark Micire, Martin Schedlbauer, and Holly Yanco. 2007. Horizontal selection: An evaluation of a digital tabletop input device. In Proc. AMCIS (2007), 164. http://robotics.cs.uml.edu/fileadmin/content/ publications/2007/MJM.AMCIS.2007.MTU.final.pdf

[26]

Brad A. Myers, Richard G. McDaniel, and David S. Kosbie. 1993. Marquise: Creating Complete User Interfaces by Demonstration. In Proceedings of the INTERACT '93 and CHI '93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI '93). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 293--300.

Digital Library

[27]

Nihan Ocak and Kursat Cagiltay. 2016. Comparison of Cognitive Modeling and User Performance Analysis for Touch Screen Mobile Interface Design. In International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. 1--9.

[28]

Manuela Quaresma. 2012. Assessment of visual demand of typical data entry tasks in automotive navigation systems for iPhone. In Work journal, Vol. 41. IOS Press, 6139--6144.

[29]

Andrew D. Rice and Jonathan W. Lartigue. 2014. Touch-level Model (TLM): Evolving KLM-GOMS for Touchscreen and Mobile Devices. In Proc. of ACM SE. ACM, Article 53, 6 pages.

Digital Library

[30]

Andrew Sears and Ben Shneiderman. 1991. High Precision Touchscreens: Design Strategies and Comparisons with a Mouse. Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 34, 4 (April 1991), 593--613.

Digital Library

[31]

Jian Zhao, R. William Soukoreff, and Ravin Balakrishnan. 2015. Exploring and modeling unimanual object manipulation on multi-touch displays. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 78, 0 (2015), 68 -- 80.

Digital Library

Cited By

Faisandaz GGoguey AJouffrais CNigay L(2023)�GeT: Multimodal eyes-free text selection technique combining touch interaction and microgesturesProceedings of the 25th International Conference on Multimodal Interaction10.1145/3577190.3614131(594-603)Online publication date: 9-Oct-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3577190.3614131
Chaffangeon Caillet AGoguey ANigay L(2023)�Glyph: a Microgesture NotationProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3544548.3580693(1-28)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3544548.3580693
Fennedy KSrivastava AMalacria SPerrault S(2022)Towards a Unified and Efficient Command Selection Mechanism for Touch-Based Devices Using Soft Keyboard HotkeysACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction10.1145/347651029:1(1-39)Online publication date: 7-Jan-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3476510
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

Storyboard-Based Empirical Modeling of Touch Interface Performance
1. Human-centered computing
  1. Human computer interaction (HCI)

Recommendations

Storyboard-Based Empirical Modelling of Touch Interface Performance
CHI EA '18: Extended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Touch interactions are now ubiquitous, but few tools are available to help designers quickly prototype touch interfaces and predict their performance. For rapid prototyping, most applications only support visual design. For predictive modelling, tools ...
Understanding performance in touch selections: Tap, drag and radial pointing drag with finger, stylus and mouse

Touch-based interaction with computing devices is becoming more and more common. In order to design for this setting, it is critical to understand the basic human factors of touch interactions such as tapping and dragging; however, there is relatively ...
A study on touch & hover based interaction for zooming
CHI EA '12: CHI '12 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems

Proximity is a useful medium for interaction with high interactive digital contents. It can be used in different contexts such as for navigation through depth in 3D space in zoomable interfaces. In this paper, we propose hover-based zoom interaction as ...

Comments

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image ACM Conferences

CHI '18: Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

April 2018

8489 pages

ISBN:9781450356206

DOI:10.1145/3173574

General Chairs:
Regan Mandryk
University of Saskatchewan, Canada
,
Mark Hancock
University of Waterloo, Canada
,
Program Chairs:
Mark Perry
Brunel University London, UK
,
Anna Cox
University College London, UK

Copyright � 2018 ACM.

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

Sponsors

SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 21 April 2018

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Badges

Honorable Mention

Author Tags

Qualifiers

Research-article

Conference

CHI '18

Sponsor:

SIGCHI

CHI '18: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

April 21 - 26, 2018

Montreal QC, Canada

Acceptance Rates

CHI '18 Paper Acceptance Rate 666 of 2,590 submissions, 26%;

Overall Acceptance Rate 6,199 of 26,314 submissions, 24%

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

9
Total Citations
View Citations
507
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)36
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)1

Reflects downloads up to 21 Oct 2024

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

Faisandaz GGoguey AJouffrais CNigay L(2023)�GeT: Multimodal eyes-free text selection technique combining touch interaction and microgesturesProceedings of the 25th International Conference on Multimodal Interaction10.1145/3577190.3614131(594-603)Online publication date: 9-Oct-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3577190.3614131
Chaffangeon Caillet AGoguey ANigay L(2023)�Glyph: a Microgesture NotationProceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3544548.3580693(1-28)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2023
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3544548.3580693
Fennedy KSrivastava AMalacria SPerrault S(2022)Towards a Unified and Efficient Command Selection Mechanism for Touch-Based Devices Using Soft Keyboard HotkeysACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction10.1145/347651029:1(1-39)Online publication date: 7-Jan-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3476510
He FShen LPeng X(2021)Resource Choreography in Cyber-Physical-Social Systems: Representation, Modeling and ExecutionIEEE Transactions on Services Computing10.1109/TSC.2021.3138637(1-1)Online publication date: 2021
https://doi.org/10.1109/TSC.2021.3138637
Singh KKapoor DSohi B(2021)All about human-robot interactionCognitive Computing for Human-Robot Interaction10.1016/B978-0-323-85769-7.00010-0(199-229)Online publication date: 2021
https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-323-85769-7.00010-0
Mayer SLe HFunk MHenze NLee BLee GScott STory MKim J(2019)Finding the Sweet SpotProceedings of the 2019 ACM International Conference on Interactive Surfaces and Spaces10.1145/3343055.3359705(171-179)Online publication date: 10-Nov-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3343055.3359705
Leino KOulasvirta AKurimo MFu WPan SBrdiczka OChau PCalvary G(2019)RL-KLMProceedings of the 24th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces10.1145/3301275.3302285(476-480)Online publication date: 17-Mar-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3301275.3302285
Wang JParitala PMendieta JKomori YRaffel OGu YLi Z(2019)Optical coherence tomography-based patient-specific coronary artery reconstruction and fluid–structure interaction simulationBiomechanics and Modeling in Mechanobiology10.1007/s10237-019-01191-919:1(7-20)Online publication date: 10-Jul-2019
https://doi.org/10.1007/s10237-019-01191-9
Goguey ACasiez GCockburn AGutwin CMandryk RHancock MPerry MCox A(2018)Storyboard-Based Empirical Modelling of Touch Interface PerformanceExtended Abstracts of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3170427.3186479(1-4)Online publication date: 20-Apr-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3170427.3186479

View Options

Get Access

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Full Access

Get this Publication

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

eReader

View online with eReader.

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

View Table of Contents