The design space of input devices

ABSTRACT

A bewildering variety of devices for communication from humans to computers now exists on the market. In order to make sense of this variety, and to aid in the design of new input devices, we propose a framework for describing and analyzing input devices. Following Mackinlay's semantic analysis of the design space for graphical presentations, our goal is to provide tools for the generation and test of input device designs. The descriptive tools we have created allow us to describe the semantics of a device and measure its expressiveness. Using these tools, we have built a taxonomy of input devices that goes beyond earlier taxonomies of Buxton & Baecker and Foley, Wallace, & Chan. In this paper, we build on these descriptive tools, and proceed to the use of human performance theories and data for evaluation of the effectiveness of points in this design space. We focus on two figures of merit, footprint and bandwidth, to illustrate this evaluation. The result is the systematic integration of methods for both generating and testing the design space of input devices.

References

1. 1.Albert, A., (1982). The effect of graphic input devices on performance in a cursor positioning task. Proceedings of ~he H~man Factors Society- ~6th An~ua! Meeting, pp. 54-58.
2. 2.Anson, E. (1982). The device model of interaction. Computer Graphics, 16(3), 107-114. Also, SIG- GRAPH '82 Proceedings.
3. 3.Baecker, R. M., & Buxton, W. (Eds.), (i987). Readings in human-computer interaction: A multidisciphnar~ approach. Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufmann, 357-365.
4. 4.Buxton, W. (1983). Lexieal and pragmatic considerations of input structures. Computer Graphics 1~(1), 31-37.
5. 5.Card, S.K., English, W.K., & Burr, B.J. (1978). Evaluation of mouse, rate-controlled isometric joystick, step keys, and text keys for text selection on a CRT. Ergonomics P1, 601-613.
6. 6.Card, S.K. (1989). Human factors and artificial intelligence. In P.A. H anccock & M.H. Chignell (Eds.), Intelligent interfaces: theory, research and design. Elsevier Science Publishers B.V. (North- Holland).
7. 7.English, W. K., Engelbart, D. C., & Berman, M. L. (1967). Display-selection techniques for text manipulation. IEEE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics HFE-8, 5-15.
8. 8.Epps, B., Snyder, H., & Mutol, W. (1986). Comparison of six cursor devices on a target acquisition task. Proceedings of the Society for Information Display, pp. 302-5.
9. 9.Fitts, P. M. (1954). The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling amplitude of movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology 47, 381-391.
10. 10.Foley, J. D., Wallace, V. L., & Chan, P. (1984). The human factors of computer graphics interaction techniques. IEEE Computer Graphics 84 Applications 4(11), 13-48.
11. 11.Karat, j., McDonald, J., & Anderson, M. (1985). A comparison of selection techniques: touch panel, mouse and keyboard. In B. Shacket (Ed.), Human- Computer interaction- INTERACT 84, pp. 189- 193.
12. 12.Langolf, G. D. (1973). Human motor performance in precise microscopic work. PdD dissertation. University of Michigan. Also published by the MTM Association, Fairlawn, New Jersey, 1973.
13. 13.Mackinlay, J. (1986a). Automatic design of graphical presentations. PhD dissertation. Computer Science Dept., Stanford University. Also Tech. Rep. Stan-CS-86-1038.
14. 14.Mackinlay~ J. (19865) Automating the design of graphical presentations of relational information. A CM Transactions on Graphics,5(2, April), 11(1- 141.
15. 15.Mackinlay, J.D., Card, S.K., & Robertson, G.G. (in press). A semantic analysis of the design space of input devices. To appear in Human-Computer Interaction, Lawrence Erlbaum.
16. 16.Olsen, D. R., et al. (1987). ACM SIGGRAPH workshop on software tools for user interface management. Computer Graphics 21(2), 71-147.
17. 17.Olsen, D. R., & Halversen, B. W. (1988). Interface usage measurements in a user interface management system. Proceedings of the A CM SIG- GRAPH Symposium on User Interface Software. Banff, Alberta, Canada, Octc)ber, 19988, 102-108. New York: ACM
18. 18.Pfaff, G. E. (1985). User interface management systems. New York: Springer-Verlag.
19. 19.Robertson, G. G., Card, S. K. & Mackinlay, J. (1989). The cognitive coprocessor architecture for interactive user interfaces. Proceedings of A CM Symposium on User Iulerface Software 8J Technology. Williamsburg, VA, in press. New York:ACM.
20. 20.Sheridan, T.B. (1984). Supervisory control of remote manipulators, vehicles and dynamic pro- ~esses" experiments in command and display aiding. Advances in Man.Machine System Research, I, 49-137, JAI Press.
21. 21.Siewiorek, D., Bell, G., & Newell, A. (1981). Computer structures. New York: McGraw-Hill.
22. 22.Tanner, P. P. & Buxton, W. A. S. (1985). Some issues in future UIMS development. In G. E. Pfaff (ed.), User interface management systems, (pp. 67- 79), New York: Springer-Verlag.
23. 23.van den Bos, J. (1988). Abstract iteraetion tools: a language for user interface management systems. ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems, I0(2), 215-247.
24. 24.Welford, A. T. (1968). Fundamentals of skill. London: Methuen.
25. 25.Whitefield, D., Ball, R., & Bird, J. (1983). Some comparisons of on-display and off-display touch input devices for interaction with computer generated displays. Ergonomics, 26(11), pp. 1033-1053.
26. 26.Zwicky, F. (1967) The morphological approach to discovery, invention, research, and construction. In F. Zwicky & A. G. Wilson (Eds.), New methods of thought and procedure. Springer-Verlag (New York).

Index Terms

• Applied computing

  • Physical sciences and engineering

    • Engineering

• Computing methodologies

  • Computer graphics

    • Graphics systems and interfaces

      • Graphics input devices

• Hardware

  • Communication hardware, interfaces and storage

    • Displays and imagers

    • Printers

• Human-centered computing

  • Human computer interaction (HCI)