Comparing cursor orientations for mouse, pointer, and pen interaction

Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 291-300

  Po, Barry A ^a   Fisher, Brian D ^a   Booth, Kellogg S ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BRITISH COLUMBIA   (Canada)

Author keywords

Cursors; Desktops; Large screens; Mice; Pens; Pointing; Small screens; Styli; Wands

Indexed keywords

HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; MICE (COMPUTER PERIPHERALS); PERSONAL COMPUTERS;

CURSORS; LARGE SCREENS; PENS; POINTING; SMALL SCREENS; STYLI; WANDS;

GRAPHICAL USER INTERFACES;

EID: 57149127356     PISSN: 02749696     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1054972.1055013     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (32)

1. Broadbent, D. E., and Gregory, M. Donders' b- and c- reactions and S-R compatibility. Journal of Experimental Psychology 63, APA (1962), 575-578.
2. Callahan, J., Hopkins, D., Weiser, M., and Shneiderman, B. An empirical comparison of pie vs. linear menus. Proc. CHI 1988, ACM Press (1988), 95-100.
3. Card, S. K., English, W. K., and Burr, B. J. Evaluation of mouse, rate-controlled isometric joystick, step keys, and text keys for text selection on a CRT. Ergonomics 21, Taylor & Francis (1978), 601-613.
4. Card, S. K., Mackinlay, J. D., and Robertson, G. G. The design space of input devices. Multimedia Interface Design, ACM Press (1992), 217-232.
5. Cho,Y.S., and Proctor, R.W. Effect of an initiating action on the up-right/down-left advantage for vertically arrayed stimuli and horizontally arrayed responses. Journal of Experimental Psychology: HPP 27(2), APA (2002), 472-484.
6. Cho, Y. S., and Proctor, R. W. Influences of hand posture and hand position on compatibility effects for up-down stimuli mapped to left-right responses: Evidence for a hand referent hypothesis. Perception and Psychophysics 64(8), Psychonomic Society (2002), 1301-1315.
7. Chua, R., Weeks, D. J., Ricker, K. L., and Poon, P. Influence of operator orientation on relative organizational mapping and spatial compatibility. Ergonomics 44(8), Taylor & Francis (2001), 751-765.
8. Citrin, W., Halbert, D., Hewitt, C., Meyrowitz, N., and Shneiderman, B. Potentials and limitations of pen-based computers. Proc. CSC 1993, ACM Press (1993), 536-539.
9. Fitts, P. M., and Seeger, C. M. S-R compatibility: Spatial characteristics of stimulus and response codes. Journal of Experimental Psychology 46, APA (1954), pp. 199-210.
10. Friesen, C., Ristic, J., and Kingstone, A. Attentional effects of counterpredictive gaze and arrow cues. Journal of Experimental Psychology: HPP 30(2), APA (2004), 319-329.
11. Hancock, M. S., and Booth, K. S. Improving menu placement strategies for pen input. Proceedings of Graphics Interface, 2004, pp. 221-230.
12. Hinckley, K., Pausch, R., Goble, J. C., and Kassell, N. F. A survey of design issues in spatial input. Proc. UIST 1994, ACM Press (1994), 213-222.
13. John, B. E., and Newell, A. Cumulating the science of HCI: From S-R compatibility to transcription typing. Proc. CHI 1989, ACM Press (1989), 109-114.
14. John, B. E., Rosenbloom, P. S., and Newell, A. A theory of stimulus-response compatibility applied to human-computer interaction. Proc. CHI 1985, ACM Press (1985), 213-219.
15. Kantowitz, B.H., Triggs, T. J., and Barnes, V. Stimulusresponse compatibility and human factors. In R.W. Proctor and T. Reeves (Eds.), Stimulus-Response Compatibility, Amsterdam: North Holland, 365-388.
16. Kirstein, C. and Mueller, H. Interaction with a projection screen using a camera-tracked laser pointer. Proc. Multimedia Modeling, (1998), 191-192.
17. Lippa, Y., and Adam, J. J. An explanation of orthogonal S-R compatibility effects that vary with hand or response position: The end-state comfort hypothesis. Perception and Psychophysics 63(1), Psychonomic Society (2001), 156-174.
18. MacKenzie, I. S. Fitts' law as a research and design tool in human-computer interaction. Human-Computer Interaction 7, (1992), 91-139.
19. MacKenzie, I. S., Sellen, A., and Buxton, W. A comparison of input devices in elemental pointing and dragging tasks. Proc. CHI 1991, ACM Press (1991), 161-166.
20. Myers, B. A., Bhatnagar, R., Nichols, J., Peck, C. H., Kong, D., Miller, R., and Long, A. C. Interacting at a distance: Measuring the effects of laser pointers and other devices. Proc. CHI 2002, ACM Press (2002), 33-40.
21. Olsen, D. R., and Nielsen, T. Laser pointer interaction. Proc. CHI 2001, ACM Press (2001), 17-22.
22. Phillips, J. G., Meehan, J. W., and Triggs, T. J. Effects of cursor orientation and required precision on positioning movements on computer screens. International Journal of HCI 15(3), Lawrence Erlbaum (2003), 379-389.
23. Po, B. A., Fisher, B. D., and Booth, K. S. Mouse and touchscreen selection in the upper and lower visual fields. Proc. CHI 2004, ACM Press (2004), 359-366.
24. Ren, X. and Moriya, S. Improving selection performance on pen-based systems: A study of pen-based interaction for selection tasks. ACMTOCHI 7(3), (2000), 384-416.
25. Sears, A. and Shneiderman, B. High precision touchscreens: Design strategies and comparisons with a mouse. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 34(4), (1991), 593-613.
26. Shneiderman, B. Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction, Boston: Addison-Wesley (1992).
27. Tlauka, M. Display-control compatibility: The relationship between performance and judgments of performance. Ergonomics 47(3), Taylor & Francis (2004), 281-295.
28. Vogt, F., Wong, J., Po, B. A., Argue, R., Fels, S. S., and Booth, K. S. Exploring collaboration with group pointer interaction. Proc. Computer Graphics International, (2004), 636-639.
29. Vu, K-P. L., and Proctor, R. W. Naïve and experienced judgments of stimulus-response compatibility: Implications for interface design. Ergonomics 46(1), Taylor & Francis (2003), 169-187.
30. Worringham, C. J., and Beringer, D. B. Directional stimulus-response compatibility: A test of three alternative principles. Ergonomics 41(6), Taylor & Francis (1998), 864-880.
31. Worringham, C. J., and Beringer, D. B. Operator orientation and compatibility in visual-motor task performance. Ergonomics 32(1), Taylor & Francis (1989), 387-399.
32. Wulf, G. and Lee, T. D. Contextual interference effects in movements of the same class: Differential effects on program and parameter learning. Journal of Motor Behavior 25, (1993), 254-263.