skip to main content
10.1145/1054972.1055036acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article

Experimental analysis of mode switching techniques in pen-based user interfaces

Authors Info & Claims
Published:02 April 2005Publication History

ABSTRACT

Inking and gesturing are two central tasks in pen-based user interfaces. Switching between modes for entry of uninterpreted ink and entry of gestures is required by many pen-based user interfaces. Without an appropriate mode switching technique, pen-based interactions in such situations may be inefficient and cumbersome. In this paper, we investigate five techniques for switching between ink and gesture modes in pen interfaces, including a pen-pressure based mode switching technique that allows implicit mode transition. A quantitative experimental study was conducted to evaluate the performance of these techniques. The results suggest that pressing a button with the non-preferred hand offers the fastest performance, while the technique of holding the pen still is significantly slower and more prone to error than the other techniques. Pressure, while promising, did not perform as well as the non-preferred hand button with our current implementation.

References

  1. Apitz, G. and Guimbretiere, F., CrossY: A Crossing-Based Drawing Application. In UIST'04, CHI Letters, 2004. 6(2): pp. 3--12. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Compaq. Virtual Book: Lectrice Tablet. http://research.compaq.com/SRC/virtualbook/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. Davis, R. Sketch Understanding in Design: Overview of Work at the MIT AI Lab. In AAAI Spring Symposium - Sketch Understanding. 2002: AAAI. pp. 24--31.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. Dillon, R.F., Eday, J.D., and Tombaugh, J.W. Measuring the true cost of command selection: techniques and results. In CHI'90. New York, NY. pp. 19--26. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Forsberg, A., Dieterich, M., and Zeleznik, R. The Music Notepad. In UIST'98. San Francisco, CA. pp. 203--210. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Guiard, Y. and Ferrand, T., Asymmetric Division of Labor in Human Skilled Bimanual Action: The Kinematic Chain as a Model. Journal of Motor Behavior, 1987. 19(4): pp. 486--517.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  7. Kabbash, P., Buxton, W., and Sellen, A.G. Two-Handed Input in a Compound Task. In CHI'94. Boston, Massachusetts. pp. 417--423. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Kurtenbach, G. and Buxton, W. User learning and performance with marking menus. In CHI'94. pp. 258--264. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Lin, J., et al., DENIM: finding a tighter fit between tools and practice for Web site design. In CHI'00, CHI Letters, 2000. 2(1): pp. 510--517. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Microsoft. Windows CE. www.microsoft.com/windowsce/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Microsoft. Windows XP Tablet PC Edition. http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/tabletpc/Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Moran, T.P., Chiu, P., and Melle, W.v. Pen-based interaction techniques for organizing material on an electronic whiteboard. UIST'97. Banff, Alberta. pp. 45--54. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Ramos, G. and Balakrishnan, R., Fluid Interaction Techniques for the Control and Annontation of Digital Video. In UIST'03, CHI Letters, 2003. 5(2): pp. 105--114. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Ramos, G., Boulos, M., and Balakrishnan, R., Pressure Widgets. In CHI'04, CHI Letters, 2004. 6(1): pp. 487--494. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Raskin, J., Meanings, Modes, Monotony, and Myths, In The Humane Interface, Addison Wesley.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. Saund, E. and Lank, E., Stylus Input and Editing Without Prior Selection of Mode. In UIST'03, CHI Letters, 2003. 5(2): pp. 213--216. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Sellen, A.G., Kurtenbach, G.P., and Buxton, W., The Prevention of Mode Errors through Sensory Feedback. Human-Computer Interaction, 1992. 7(2): pp. 141--164.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Stifelman, L., Arons, B., and Schmandt, C., The audio notebook: paper and pen interaction with structured speech. In CHI'01, CHI Letters, 2001. 3(1): pp. 182--189. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Experimental analysis of mode switching techniques in pen-based user interfaces

        Recommendations

        Comments

        Login options

        Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

        Sign in
        • Published in

          cover image ACM Conferences
          CHI '05: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
          April 2005
          928 pages
          ISBN:1581139985
          DOI:10.1145/1054972

          Copyright © 2005 ACM

          Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

          Publisher

          Association for Computing Machinery

          New York, NY, United States

          Publication History

          • Published: 2 April 2005

          Permissions

          Request permissions about this article.

          Request Permissions

          Check for updates

          Qualifiers

          • Article

          Acceptance Rates

          CHI '05 Paper Acceptance Rate93of372submissions,25%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

        PDF Format

        View or Download as a PDF file.

        PDF

        eReader

        View online with eReader.

        eReader