Performance evaluation of gesture-based interaction between different age groups using Fitts' Law

ACM International Conference Proceeding Series

Volumn 07-09-September-2015, Issue , 2015, Pages

  Carvalho, Diana ^a   Magalhães, Luís ^b   Bessa, Maximino ^a   Carrapatoso, Eurico ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TRÁS OS MONTES AND ALTO DOURO   (Portugal)

^b UNIVERSITY OF MINHO   (Portugal)

Author keywords

Fitts' law; Gestural interaction; HCI; Leap Motion; Microsoft Kinect; Natural user interfaces; Performance; Selection tasks; Target acquisition

Indexed keywords

GESTURE RECOGNITION; PALMPRINT RECOGNITION; TRACKING (POSITION); USER INTERFACES;

FITTS' LAW; GESTURAL INTERACTION; LEAP MOTION; MICROSOFT KINECT; NATURAL USER INTERFACES; PERFORMANCE; SELECTION TASKS; TARGET ACQUISITION;

HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION;

EID: 84960129012     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/2829875.2829920     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (25)

1. Accot, J. and Zhai, S. 1999. Performance evaluation of input devices in trajectory-based tasks. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems the CHI is the limit - CHI '99 (New York, New York, USA, May 1999), 466-472
2. Bobeth, J. et al. 2014. Tablet, gestures, remote control? Proceedings of the 2014 ACM international conference on Interactive experiences for TV and online video - TVX '14 (New York, New York, USA, Jun. 2014), 139-146
3. Carvalho, D. et al. 2014. Different interaction paradigms for different user groups: an evaluation regarding content selection. Proceedings of the XV International Conference on Human Computer Interaction - Interaccion'14 (Puerto de la Cruz, Tenerife, Spain, Sep. 2014), 40
4. Cockburn, A. et al. 2012. Understanding performance in touch selections: Tap, drag and radial pointing drag with finger, stylus and mouse. International Journal of Human- Computer Studies. 70, 3 (Mar. 2012), 218-233
5. Dam, A. van 1997. Post-WIMP user interfaces. Commun. ACM. 40, 2 (1997), 63-67
6. Findlater, L. et al. 2013. Age-related differences in performance with touchscreens compared to traditional mouse input. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '13 (New York, New York, USA, Apr. 2013), 343
7. Fitts, P.M. 1954. The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology. 47, 6 (1954), 381-391
8. Goldberg, K. et al. 2013. A New Derivation and Dataset for Fitts' Law of Human Motion
9. Inai, Y. 2013. Age-related differences in pointing movements in restricted visual tasks and their design implication. 2013 ICME International Conference on Complex Medical Engineering (May 2013), 439-443
10. ISO 2007. ISO 9241-400: 2007 - Ergonomics of human- system interaction - Part 400: Principles and requirements for physical input devices: International Organization for Standardization
11. ISO 2000. ISO 9241-9 International standard: Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) - Part 9: Requirements for non-keyboard input devices: International Organization for Standardization
12. Lemos, G.C.E.M.P. de 2006. Habilidades cognitivas e rendimento escolar entre o 5.o e 12.o anos de escolaridade. Universidade do Minho
13. Likert, R. 1932. A technique for the measurement of attitudes. Archives of Psychology. 22 140, (1932), 55
14. MacKenzie, I.S. et al. 2001. Accuracy measures for evaluating computer pointing devices. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '01 (New York, New York, USA, Mar. 2001), 9-16
15. MacKenzie, I.S. 1992. Fitts' Law as a Research and Design Tool in Human-Computer Interaction. Human-Computer Interaction. 7, 1 (Mar. 1992), 91-139
16. Mayer, R.E. and Moreno, R. 2003. Nine Ways to Reduce Cognitive Load in Multimedia Learning. Educational Psychologist. 38, 1 (Mar. 2003), 43-52
17. Nielsen, J. 1993. Noncommand user interfaces. Communications of the ACM. 36, 4 (Apr. 1993), 83-99
18. Osborne, J.W. and Overbay, A. 2004. The power of outliers (and why researchers should always check for them). Practical Assessment, Research & Evaluation. 9, 6 (2004)
19. Oviatt, S.L. 2007. Multimodal Interfaces. The Human- Computer Interaction Handbook: Fundamentals, Evolving Technologies and Emerging Applications, Second Edition. A. Sears and J.A. Jacko, eds. CRC Press. 413-432
20. Ren, Z. et al. 2011. Robust hand gesture recognition with kinect sensor. Proceedings of the 19th ACM international conference on Multimedia - MM '11 (New York, New York, USA, Nov. 2011), 759
21. Sambrooks, L. and Wilkinson, B. 2013. Comparison of gestural, touch, and mouse interaction with Fitts' law. Proceedings of the 25th Australian Computer-Human Interaction Conference on Augmentation, Application, Innovation, Collaboration - OzCHI '13 (New York, New York, USA, Nov. 2013), 119-122
22. Schapira, E. and Sharma, R. 2001. Experimental evaluation of vision and speech based multimodal interfaces. Proceedings of the 2001 workshop on Percetive user interfaces - PUI '01 (New York, New York, USA, Nov. 2001), 1
23. 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. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 61, 6 (Dec. 2004), 751-789
24. Weichert, F. et al. 2013. Analysis of the accuracy and robustness of the leap motion controller. Sensors (Basel, Switzerland). 13, 5 (Jan. 2013), 6380-93
25. Zhai, S. et al. 2004. Speed-accuracy tradeoff in Fitts' law tasks-on the equivalency of actual and nominal pointing precision. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies. 61, 6 (Dec. 2004), 823-856.