Two-Part Models Capture the Impact of Gain on Pointing Performance

Abstract

We establish that two-part models of pointing performance (Welford’s model) describe pointing on a computer display significantly better than traditional one-part models (Fitts’s Law). We explore the space of pointing models and describe how independent contributions of movement amplitude and target width to pointing time can be captured in a parameter k. Through a reanalysis of data from related work we demonstrate that one-part formulations are fragile in describing pointing performance, and that this fragility is present for various devices and techniques. We show that this same data can be significantly better described using two-part models. Finally, we demonstrate through further analysis of previous work and new experimental data that k increases linearly with gain. Our primary contribution is the demonstration that Fitts’s Law is more limited in applicability than previously appreciated, and that more robust models, such as Welford’s formulation, should be adopted in many cases of practical interest.

References

1. Agrawala, M., Beers, A. C., McDowall, I., Frohlich, B., Bolas, M., and Hanrahan, P. 1997. The two-user responsive workbench: Support for collaboration through individual views of shared space. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH International Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (SIGGRAPH’97). 327--332.
2. Akaike, H. 1974. A new look at the statistical model identification. IEEE Trans. Autom. Control 19, 6, 716--723.
3. Akamatsu, M., MacKenzie, I. S., and Hasbrouq, T. 1995. A comparison of tactile, auditory, and visual feedback in a pointing task using a mouse-type device. Ergonomics 38, 816--827.
4. Arnaut, L. Y. and Greenstein, J. S. 1990. Is display/control gain a useful metric for optimizing an interface? Human Factors 13, 651--663.
5. Baudisch, P., Cutrell, E., Robbins, D., Czerwinski, M., Tandler, P., Bederson, B., and Zierlinger, A. 2003. Drag-and-pop and drag-and-pick: Techniques for accessing remote screen content on touch- and pen-operated systems. In Proceedings of International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. 57--64.
6. Bezerianos, A. and Balakrishnan, R. 2005. The Vacuum: Facilitating the manipulation of distant objects. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’05). 361--370.
7. Boritz, J., Booth, K. S., and Cowan, W. B. 1991. Fitts’ law studies of directional mouse movement. In Proceedings of Graphics Interface ’91. 216--223.
8. Brignull, H., Izadi, S., Fitzpatrick, G., Rogers, Y., and Rodden, T. 2004. The introduction of a shared interactive surface into a communal space. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’04). ACM, New York, NY, 49--58.
9. Buxton, B. 2008. Surface and tangible computing, and the “small” matter of people and design. In Proceedings of the IEEE International Solid-State Circuits Conference Digest of Technical Papers. 24--29.
10. Card, S. K., English, W. K., and Burr, B. J. 1978. Evaluation of mouse, rate-controlled isometric joystick, step keys, and text keys for selection on a CRT. Ergonomics 21, 601--613.
11. Casiez, G. and Roussel, N. 2011. No more bricolage! methods and tools to characterize, replicate and compare pointing transfer functions. In Proceedings of the Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST’11).
12. Casiez, G., Vogel, D., Balakrishnan, R., and Cockburn, A. 2008. The impact of control-display gain on user performance in pointing tasks. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 23, 3, 215--250.
13. Chapuis, O. and Dragicevic, P. 2011. Effects of motor scale, visual scale, and quantization on small target acquisition difficulty. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 18, 13:1--13:32.
14. Cherubini, M., Venolia, G., DeLine, R., and Ko, A. J. 2007. Let’s go to the whiteboard: How and why software developers use drawings. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’07). 557--566.
15. Douglas, S., Kirkpatrick, A., and MacKenzie, I. 1999. Testing pointing device performance and user assessment with the ISO 9241, Part 9 standard. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’99). 215--222.
16. Draper, N. R. and Smith, H. 1998. Applied Regression Analysis 3rd Ed. Wiley-Interscience.
17. Drewes, H. 2010. Only one Fitts’ law formula please! In Extended Abstracts of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’10). 2813--2822.
18. Epps, B. W. 1986. Comparison of six cursor control devices based on Fitts’ law models. In Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society. 327--331.
19. Fernquist, J., Shoemaker, G., and Booth, K. S. 2011. “Oh Snap” -- Helping users align digital objects on touch interfaces. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. 338--355.
20. Fitts, P. M. 1954. The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. J. Exp. Psych. 47, 6, 381--391.
21. Forlines, C. and Balakrishnan, R. 2008. Evaluating tactile feedback and direct vs. indirect stylus input in pointing and crossing selection tasks. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’08). 1563--1572.
22. Forlines, C., Wigdor, D., Shen, C., and Balakrishnan, R. 2007. Direct-touch vs. mouse input for tabletop displays. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’07). 647--656.
23. Fowler, B., Meehan, S., and Singhal, A. 2008. Perceptual-motor performance and associated kinematics in space. Human Factors 50, 6, 879--892.
24. Graham, E. D. 1996. Pointing on a computer display. Doctoral dissertation. Simon Fraser University.
25. Graham, E. D. and MacKenzie, C. L. 1996. Physical versus virtual pointing. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’96). 292--299.
26. Grossman, T. and Balakrishnan, R. 2004. Pointing at trivariate targets in 3D environments. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’04). 447--454.
27. Guiard, Y. 2009. The problem of consistency in the design of Fitts’ law experiments: Consider either target distance and width or movement form and scale. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’09). 1809--1818.
28. Guiard, Y., Beaudouin-Lafon, M., and Mottet, D. 1999. Navigation as multiscale pointing: Extending Fitts’ model to very high precision tasks. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’99). 450--457.
29. Han, S. H., Jorna, G. C., Miller, R. H., and Tan, K. C. 1990. A comparison of four input devices for the macintosh interface. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting. 267--271.
30. Hoffman, E. 1991. A comparison of hand and foot movement times. Ergonomics 34, 397--406.
31. Hollingworth, H. L. 1909. The inaccuracy of movement. Arch. Psych. 13, 1--87.
32. Hornof, A. J. 2001. Visual search and mouse pointing in labeled versus unlabeled two-dimensional visual hierarchies. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 8, 3, 171--197.
33. Huang, E. and Mynatt, E. D. 2003. Semi-public displays for small, co-located groups. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’03). 49--56.
34. Inkpen, K. M. 2001. Drag-and-drop versus point-and-click mouse interaction styles for children. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 8, 1, 1--33.
35. Izadi, S., Brignull, H., Rodden, T., Rogers, Y., and Underwood, M. 2003. Dynamo: a public interactive surface supporting the cooperative sharing and exchange of media. In Proceedings of the 16th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST’03). 159--168.
36. Johnsgard, T. 1994. Fitts’ law with a virtual reality glove and a mouse: Effects of gain. In Proceedings of Graphics Interface ’94. 8--15.
37. Jones, T. 1989. Psychology of computer use: XVI. Effect of computer-pointing devices on children’s processing rate. Perceptual and Motor Skills 69, 1259--1263.
38. Jones, T. 1991. An empirical study of children’s use of computer pointing devices. J. Edu. Comput. Resear. 7, 1, 61--76.
39. Kerr, R. 1973. Movement time in an underwater environment. J. Motor Behav. 5, 175--178.
40. Keulen, R. F., Adam, J. J., Fischer, M. H., Kuipers, H., and Jolles, J. 2002. Selective reaching: Evidence for multiple frames of reference. J. Exp. Psych. Hum. Percept. Perform. 28, 3, 515--526.
41. Khan, A., Fitzmaurice, G., Almeida, D., Burtnyk, N., and Kurtenbach, G. 2004. A remote control interface for large displays. In Proceedings of the Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST’04). 127--136.
42. Koester, H. H., LoPresti, E., and Simpson, R. C. 2005. Toward Goldilocks’ pointing device: Determining a “just right” gain setting for users with physical impairments. In Proceedings of the ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computer and Accessibility (Assets’05). 84--89.
43. Kopper, R., Bowman, D. A., Silva, M. G., and McMahan, R. P. 2010. A human motor behavior model for distal pointing tasks. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 68, 603--615.
44. Langolf, G. D., Chaffin, D. B., and Foulke, J. A. 1976. An investigation of Fitts’ law using a wide range of movement amplitudes. J. Motor Behav. 8, 113--128.
45. MacKenzie, I. S. 1992. Fitts’ law as a research and design tool in human-computer interaction. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 7, 91--139.
46. MacKenzie, I. S. and Buxton, W. 1992. Extending Fitts’ law to two-dimensional tasks. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’92). 219--226.
47. MacKenzie, I. S. and Buxton, W. 1994. Prediction of pointing and dragging times in graphical user interfaces. Interact. Comput. 6, 2, 213--227.
48. MacKenzie, I. S. and Isokoski, P. 2008. Fitts’ throughput and the speed-accuracy tradeoff. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’08). 1633--1636.
49. MacKenzie, I. S. and Riddersma, S. 1994. Effects of output display and control-display gain on human performance in interactive systems. Behav. Inf. Techn. 13, 328--337.
50. MacKenzie, I. S. and Ware, C. 1993. Lag as a determinant on human performance in interactive systems. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’93). 488--493.
51. MacKenzie, I. S., Sellen, A., and Buxton, W. 1991. A comparison of input devices in elemental pointing and dragging tasks. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’91). 161--166.
52. Malone, T. W. 1983. How do people organize their desks?: Implications for the design of office information systems. ACM Trans. Inf. Syst. 1, 1, 99--112.
53. McGuffin, M. J. and Balakrishnan, R. 2005. Fitts’ law and expanding targets: Experimental studies and designs for user interfaces. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 12, 4, 388--422.
54. Mithal, A. K. and Douglas, S. A. 1996. Differences in movement microstructures of the mouse and the finger-controlled isometric joystick. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’96). 300--307.
55. Myers, B. A., Bhatnagar, R., Nichols, J., Peck, C. H., Kong, D., Miller, R., and Long, A. C. 2002. Interacting at a distance: Measuring the performance of laser pointers and other devices. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’02). 33--40.
56. Mynatt, E. D., Igarashi, T., Edwards, W. K., and LaMarca, A. 1999. Flatland: New dimensions in office whiteboards. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’99). 346--353.
57. Po, B. A., Fisher, B. D., and Booth, K. S. 2004. Mouse and touchscreen selection in the upper and lower visual fields. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’04). 359--366.
58. Po, B. A., Fisher, B. D., and Booth, K. S. 2005. Comparing cursor orientations for mouse, pointer, and pen interaction. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’05). 291--300.
59. Pratt, J., Adam, J. J., and Fischer, M. H. 2007. Visual layout modulates Fitts law: The importance of first and last positions. Psychonomic Bull. Rev. 14, 2, 350--355.
60. Radix, C., Robinson, P., and Nurse, C. 1999. Extension to fitts’ law to modeling motion performance in man-machine interfaces. Trans. Syst. Man Cybern. 29, 2.
61. Rogers, Y. and Lindley, S. 2004. Collaborating around vertical and horizontal large interactive displays: Which is best? Interact. Comput. 16, 1133--1152.
62. Rutledge, J. D. and Selker, T. 1990. Force-to-motion functions for pointing. In Proceedings of the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. 701--706.
63. Sandfeld, J. and Jensen, B. R. 2005. Effect of computer mouse gain and visual demand on mouse clicking performance and muscle activation in a young and elderly group of experienced computer users. Appl. Ergon. 36, 547--555.
64. Schmidt, R. A., Zelaznik, H., Hawkins, B., Frank, J., and Quinn Jr., J. T. 1979. Motor-output variability: A theory for the accuracy of rapid motor acts. Psych. Rev. 86, 5, 415--451.
65. Schofield, W. N. 1976. Do children find movements which cross the body midline difficult? The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 28, 4, 571--582.
66. Schwarz, G. 1978. Estimating the dimension of a model. Ann. Statist. 6, 2, 461--468.
67. Scott, S. D., Carpendale, M. S. T., and Inkpen, K. M. 2004. Territoriality in collaborative tabletop workspaces. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work (CSCW’04). 294--303.
68. Shoemaker, G., Tang, A., and Booth, K. S. 2007. Shadow Reaching: A new perspective on interaction for large displays. In Proceedings of the Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST’07). 53--56.
69. Shoemaker, G., Findlater, L., Dawson, J. Q., and Booth, K. S. 2009. Mid-air text input techniques for very large wall displays. In Proceedings of Graphics Interface ’09. 231--238.
70. Shoemaker, G., Tsukitani, T., Kitamura, Y., and Booth, K. S. 2010. Body-centric interaction techniques for very large wall displays. In Proceedings of the Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (NordiCHI’10). 463--472.
71. Soukoreff, R. W. and MacKenzie, I. S. 2004. Towards a standard for pointing device evaluation, perspectives on 27 years of Fitts’ law research in HCI. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 61, 751--789.
72. Strunk, W., Jr. and White, E. B. 1979. The Elements of Style 3rd Ed. Macmillan, New York.
73. Tang, A., Lanir, J., Greenberg, S., and Fels, S. 2009. Supporting transitions in work: Informing large display application design by understanding whiteboard use. In Proceedings of the International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work (GROUP’09). 149--158.
74. Tsukitani, T., Shoemaker, G., Booth, K. S., Takashima, K., Itoh, Y., Kitamura, Y., and Kishino, F. 2011. A Fitts’ law analysis of shadow metaphor mid-air pointing on a very large wall display. IPSJ Journal 52, 4, 1495--1503.
75. Welford, A. T. 1971. Fundamentals of Skill. Methuen, London.
76. Wobbrock, J. O., Cutrell, E., Harada, S., and MacKenzie, I. S. 2008. An error model for pointing based on Fitts’ law. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’08). 1613--1622.
77. Woodworth, R. S. 1899. The accuracy of voluntary movement. Psych. Rev. 3, 1--114.
78. Zhai, S., Conversy, S., Beaudouin-Lafon, M., and Guiard, Y. 2003. Human on-line response to target expansion. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI’03). 177--184.
79. Zhai, S., Kong, J., and Ren, X. 2004. Speed-accuracy tradeoff in Fitts’ law tasks-on the equivalency of actual and nominal pointing precision. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Studies 61, 6, 823--856.

Index Terms

• Human-centered computing

  • Human computer interaction (HCI)

    • HCI theory, concepts and models

  • Interaction design

    • Interaction design theory, concepts and paradigms