skip to main content
10.1145/22627.22390acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article
Free Access

A study in two-handed input

Authors Info & Claims
Published:01 April 1986Publication History

ABSTRACT

Two experiments were run to investigate two-handed input. The experimental tasks were representative of those found in CAD and office information systems.

Experiment one involved the performance of a compound selection/positioning task. The two sub-tasks were performed by different hands using separate transducers. Without prompting, novice subjects adopted strategies that involved performing the two sub-tasks simultaneously. We interpret this as a demonstration that, in the appropriate context, users are capable of simultaneously providing continuous data from two hands without significant overhead. The results also show that the speed of performing the task was strongly correlated to the degree of parallelism employed.

Experiment two involved the performance of a compound navigation/selection task. It compared a one-handed versus two-handed method for finding and selecting words in a document. The two-handed method significantly outperformed the commonly used one-handed method by a number of measures. Unlike experiment one, only two subjects adopted strategies that used both hands simultaneously. The benefits of the two-handed technique, therefore, are interpreted as being due to efficiency of hand motion. However, the two subjects who did use parallel strategies had the two fastest times of all subjects.

References

  1. Apple (1984). MacWrite User's Manual. Apple Computer Inc.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Buxton, W. (1982). Lexical and Pragmatic Considerations of Input Structures. Computer Graphics 17(1), 31 - 37. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Buxton, W., Hill, R. & Rowley, P. (1985). Issues in Touch-Sentitive Tablet Input, Computer Graphics ~Z0(3), 215-224. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Shneiderman, B. (1983). Direct Manipulation: A Step Beyond Programming Languages. IEEE Computer, 16(8), 57 - 69.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. A study in two-handed input

                    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 '86: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
                      April 1986
                      362 pages
                      ISBN:0897911806
                      DOI:10.1145/22627

                      Copyright © 1986 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: 1 April 1986

                      Permissions

                      Request permissions about this article.

                      Request Permissions

                      Check for updates

                      Qualifiers

                      • Article

                      Acceptance Rates

                      CHI '86 Paper Acceptance Rate47of122submissions,39%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

                    PDF Format

                    View or Download as a PDF file.

                    PDF

                    eReader

                    View online with eReader.

                    eReader