skip to main content
10.1145/1357054.1357106acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Graffiti vs. unistrokes: an empirical comparison

Published:06 April 2008Publication History

ABSTRACT

Unistrokes and Graffiti are stylus-based text entry techniques. While Unistrokes is recognized in academia, Graffiti is commercially prevalent in PDAs. Though numerous studies have investigated the usability of Graffiti, none exists to compare its long-term performance with that of Unistrokes. This paper presents a longitudinal study comparing entry speed, correction rate, stroke duration, and preparation (i.e., inter-stroke) time of these two techniques. Over twenty fifteen-phrase sessions, performance increased from 4.0 wpm to 11.4 wpm for Graffiti and from 4.1 wpm to 15.8 wpm for Unistrokes. Correction rates were high for both techniques. However, rates for Graffiti remained relatively consistent at 26%, while those for Unistrokes decreased from 43% to 16%.

References

  1. Cao, X. and Zhai, S. Modeling human performance of pen stroke gestures. In Proc. CHI '07, ACM Press, (2007), 1495--1504. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Goldberg, D. and Richardson, C. Touch-typing with a stylus. In Proc. Interact '93 and CHI '93, ACM Press, (1993), 80--87. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. MacKenzie, I. S., Chen, J. and Oniszczak, A. Unipad: Single stroke text entry with language-based acceleration. In Proc. NordiCHI '06, ACM Press (2006), 78--85. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. MacKenzie, I. S. and Soukoreff, R. W., Phrase sets for evaluating text entry techniques. Ext. Abstracts CHI '03, ACM Press (2003), 754--755. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. MacKenzie, I. S. and Soukoreff, R. W. Text entry for mobile computing: Models and methods, theory and practice. In MacKenzie, I. S. ed., Human-computer interaction (2002), 147--198.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. MacKenzie, I. S. and Zhang, S. X. The immediate usability of graffiti. In Proc. GI '97, Canadian Information Processing Society (1997), 129--137. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Stroop, J. R. Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 18. 643--662.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Yamada, H. A historical study of typewriters and typing methods: From the position of planning japanese parallels. Journal of Information Processing, 2 (4). 175--202.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. Graffiti vs. unistrokes: an empirical comparison

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

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

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '08: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2008
      1870 pages
      ISBN:9781605580111
      DOI:10.1145/1357054

      Copyright © 2008 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]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 6 April 2008

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '08 Paper Acceptance Rate157of714submissions,22%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader