Towards Mobile Touch Screen Inclusive User Interfaces: Differences and Similarities between Motor...
-
Upload
hugo-nicolau -
Category
Entertainment & Humor
-
view
315 -
download
0
Transcript of Towards Mobile Touch Screen Inclusive User Interfaces: Differences and Similarities between Motor...
Towards Mobile Touch Screen Inclusive User Interfaces: Differences and Similarities between Motor Impaired and Able-Bodied Users
Hugo Nicolau Tiago Guerreiro Daniel Gonçalves Joaquim Jorge
Mobile evolution
Tactile feedback
loss of tactile feedback
Loss of physical stability
hard to select targets
it occurs to everyone
… and motor impaired
some advantages
more pleasant
require less strength
Adapt to users’ needs
Provide the knowledge to build better touch interfaces
We performed …
Tested several …
Interaction Techniques
Screen areas …
… edges
Screen areas …
… middle
Screen areas …
1
2
3
4
5
… vertical distance
7 mm
… and target sizes
12 mm 17 mm
Tapping
Crossing
Directional Gesturing
15 participants 28-64 years old
C4-C7 lesion level 6 left-handed
never used touchscreens
18 participants 5 females, 13 males 20-45 years old
Results
Error Rate
X
Target Size
Motor Impaired
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
7mm 12mm 17mm
Gestures Tapping Crossing
Able-bodied
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
7mm 12mm 17mm
Gestures Tapping Crossing
Differences and Similarities
Tapping is the most similar Magnitude of errors Directional Gesturing
Middle
Motor Impaired
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
7mm 12mm 17mm
Gestures4Way Tapping Middle Crossing
Able-bodied
0%
2%
4%
6%
8%
10%
12%
14%
7mm 12mm 17mm
Gestures Middle Tapping Middle Crossing
Differences and Similarities
Similar performances with all techniques Differences are in the remaining of the screen
Edges
Motor Impaired
0%
20%
40%
60%
7mm 12mm 17mm
Tapping Middle Tapping Edge
0%
20%
40%
60%
Gesture Edge Gesture Middle
Able-bodied
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
7mm 12mm 17mm
Tapping Middle Tapping Edge
Differences and Similarities
Edges do not provide additional support Tapping is hindered on edges
Vertical Distance
Motor Impaired
48% 31% 27%
43% 25% 28%
39% 28% 24%
40% 19% 15%
47% 19% 9%
7mm 12mm 17mm
Tapping
Able-bodied
10% 0% 0%
6% 2% 0%
8% 0% 0%
8% 1% 0%
38% 6% 0%
Tapping
7mm 12mm 17mm
Differences and Similarities
Tapping small targets, particularly near lower edge Reach restrictions
Towards Inclusive Design
Tapping is a suitable interaction technique
The one with more resemblances
Lowest error rates
12mm as a good compromise
Magnitude of errors
Much higher for motor impaired
0%
5%
10%
15%
20%
25%
30%
35%
40%
Gestures Tapping Crossing
5.6x 26x 6x
Able-bodied can easily perform Directional Gestures
Suitable alternative to Tapping (small targets) Motor impaired have many difficulties
Middle of the screen consistency
Similar performance with all interaction techniques
Remaining of the screen can
hinder or favor interaction
Reach restrictions
Upper edge targets are harder to acquire for M.I. For A.B. small targets near bottom edge are harder
Instantiate our findings Investigate situational impairments
Future Work
THE END.
Hugo Nicolau [email protected]