Fabian Hennecke
ABSTRACT
Digital office environments often integrate multiple displays in a variety of arrangements. We investigated the combination of a horizontal and a directly connected vertical display, which together form a digital workspace. In particular, we were interested in the effect of the physical transition (bezel, edge or curve) on dragging. In a study participants performed dragging tasks across both display planes with direct touch as well as a pointing device. Contrary to our expectations, we found no significant effect on task completion time. Only regarding accuracy the curved transition performed better than edge and bezel. Interestingly, the subjective judgment did generally not match the objective results. These findings suggest that we need to rethink our understanding of display continuities in terms of usability as well as user satisfaction.
- Acer: http://us.acer.com/ac/en/US/content/iconia. Accessed: 2012-12-28.Google Scholar
- Ball, R. and North, C. 2005. An Analysis of User Behavior on High-Resolution Tiled Displays. INTERACT 2005 (2005), 350--363. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Baudisch, P. et al. 2004. Mouse ether: accelerating the acquisition of targets across multi-monitor displays. CHI 2004 (2004), 1379--1382. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Microsoft: 2007. http://www.microsoft.com/presspass/exec/jeff/10-23convergence.mspx. Accessed: 2011-12--28.Google Scholar
- Foley, J. D. et al. 1984. The human factors of computer graphics interaction techniques. IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications. 4, 11 (1984), 10--48. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Forlines, C. et al. 2007. Direct-touch vs. mouse input for tabletop displays. CHI 2007 (2007), 647--656. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Grudin, J. 2001. Partitioning digital worlds: focal and peripheral awareness in multiple monitor use. CHI 2001 (2001), 458-465. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Guiard, Y. 1987. Asymmetric Division of Labor in Human Skilled Bimanual Action: The Kinematic Chain as a Model. Journal of Motor Behavior. 19, 4 (1987), 486--517.Google ScholarCross Ref
- Hinckley, K. et al. 2004. Stitching: pen gestures that span multiple displays. AVI 2004 (2004), 23--31. Google ScholarDigital Library
- ISO 9241-9 Ergonomic Requirements for Work with Visual Display Terminals, Non-keyboard Input Device Requirements. (2000).Google Scholar
- MacKenzie, I. S. et al. 2001. Accuracy measures for evaluating computer pointing devices. CHI 2001 (2001), 9--16. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Reetz, A. et al. Superflick: a Natural and Efficient Technique for Long-Distance Object Placement on Digital Tables. GI 2006 163--170. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Robertson, G. et al. 2005. The large-display user experience. IEEE computer graphics and applications. 25, 4 (2005), 44--51. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Tognazzini, B. 1994. The "Starfire" Video Prototype A Case History. CHI 1994 (1994), 99--105. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Uray, P. et al. 2005. MRI - A Mixed Reality Interface for the Masses. SIGGRAPH 2006 (2005), 3--3. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Weiss, M. et al. 2010. BendDesk: Dragging Across the Curve. ITS 2010 (2010), 1--10. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wimmer, R. et al. 2010. Curve: Revisiting the Digital Desk. NordiCHI 2010 (2010), 561--570. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- How screen transitions influence touch and pointer interaction across angled display arrangements
Recommendations
In-Car Touch Screen Interaction: Comparing Standard, Finger-Specific and Multi-Finger Interaction
PerDis '15: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Pervasive DisplaysIn this paper, we explore a novel interaction technique for the automotive domain, distinguishing between different fingers when interacting with a touch screen, and compare it against standard and multi-finger gesture interaction. We conducted a pilot ...
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 ...
Effect of screen configuration and interaction devices in shared display groupware
HCC '08: Proceedings of the 3rd ACM international workshop on Human-centered computingInteractive tabletop and wall surfaces support collaboration and interactivity in novel ways. Apart from keyboards and mice, such systems can also incorporate other input devices, namely laser pointers, marker pens with screen location sensors, or touch-...
Comments