skip to main content
10.1145/2702613.2732903acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Work in Progress

Hover Cursor: Improving Touchscreen Acquisition Of Small Targets With Hover-enabled Pre-selection

Published:18 April 2015Publication History

ABSTRACT

Even with highly-sensitive touchscreens and emphasis on "designing for touch", small target selection remains difficult. Good touch performance cannot solve the "fat-finger" problem, which results from occlusion and the size disparity between fingers and targets. We propose Hover Cursor, a method to improve small target selection using hover-sensing over a touchscreen. Using a capacitive touch sensor that also provides hover data, the hover position of the user's finger is displayed with a cursor, and selection is performed with a tap. In a Fitts' study, we compared Hover Cursor with direct-touch selection. Users made fewer selection errors with Hover Cursor. Hover Cursor was slower overall, but faster and more accurate for small targets.

References

  1. Albinsson, P. and Zhai, S. High precision touch screen interaction. CHI '03,ACM Press (2003), 105--112. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Annett, M., Grossman, T., Wigdor, D., and Fitzmaurice, G. Medusa: a proximity-aware multi-touch tabletop. UIST '11, ACM Press (2011), 337--346. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Benko, H., Wilson A., Baudisch, P. Precise selection techniques for multi-touch screens. CHI '06, ACM Press (2006), 1263--1272. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Buxton, W. A three-state model of graphical input. In INTERACT '90, North-Holland Publishing Co. (1990) 449--456. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Cheung, V., Heydekorn, J., Scott, S., Dachselt, R. Revisiting hovering: Interaction guides for interactive surfaces. ITS '12, ACM Press (2012) 355--358. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Choi, S., Han, J., Kim, S., Heo, S., and Lee, G. ThickPad: a hover-tracking touchpad for a laptop. UIST '11, ACM Press (2011), 15--16. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Fitts, P. The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology 47 (1954), 381--391.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Hilliges, O., Izadi, S., Wilson, A., Hodges, S., Garcia-Mendoza, A., and Butz, A. Interactions in the air: adding further depth to interactive tabletops. UIST '09, ACM Press (2009), 139--148. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. ISO, ISO 9241--411 Ergonomics of human-system interaction -- Part 411: Evaluation methods for the design of physical input devices. International Organization for Standardization, 2012.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  10. Mockler, J. UX suite: a touch sensor evaluation platform. MobileHCI '14, ACM Press (2014), 631--636. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Moeller, J. and Kerne, A. ZeroTouch: an optical multi-touch and free-air interaction architecture. CHI '12, ACM Press (2012), 2165--2174. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Potter, R.L., Weldon, L.J., Shneiderman, B. Improving the accuracy of touchscreens: an experimental evaluation of three strategies. CHI '88, ACM Press (1988), 27--32. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Pyryeskin, D., Hancock, M., Hoey, J. Comparing elicited gestures to designer-created gestures for selection above a multitouch surface. ITS '12,ACM Press(2012),1--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Roudaut, A., Huot, S., Lecolinet, E. TapTap and MagStick: Improving one-handed target acquisition on small touch-screens. AVI '08, ACM Press (2008), 146153. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Synaptics ClearPad® Touch Technology Powers Samsung Galaxy Note 3. http://goo.gl/XaYO4QGoogle ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Takeoka, Y., Miyaki, T., Rekimoto, J. Z-touch: an infrastructure for 3D gesture interaction in the proximity of tabletop surfaces. ITS '10, ACM Press (2010), 91--94. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Vogel, D. and Baudisch, P. Shift: a technique for operating pen-based interfaces using touch. CHI '07, ACM Press (2007), 657--666. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Yang, X., Grossman, T., Irani, P., and Fitzmaurice, G. TouchCuts and TouchZoom: Enhanced Target Selection for Touch Displays using Finger Proximity Sensing. CHI '11, ACM Press (2011), 2585--2594. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Yatani, K., Partridge, K., Bern, M., Newman, M. Escape: a target acquisition technique using visuallycued gestures. CHI '08, ACM Press (2008), 285--294. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Hover Cursor: Improving Touchscreen Acquisition Of Small Targets With Hover-enabled Pre-selection

      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 EA '15: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems
        April 2015
        2546 pages
        ISBN:9781450331463
        DOI:10.1145/2702613

        Copyright © 2015 Owner/Author

        Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all 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 third-party components of this work must be honored. For all other uses, contact the Owner/Author.

        Publisher

        Association for Computing Machinery

        New York, NY, United States

        Publication History

        • Published: 18 April 2015

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • Work in Progress

        Acceptance Rates

        CHI EA '15 Paper Acceptance Rate379of1,520submissions,25%Overall Acceptance Rate6,164of23,696submissions,26%

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader