Advertisement

Universal Access in the Information Society

, Volume 5, Issue 2, pp 199–208 | Cite as

Effects of feedback and dwell time on eye typing speed and accuracy

  • Päivi MajarantaEmail author
  • I. Scott MacKenzie
  • Anne Aula
  • Kari-Jouko Räihä
LONG PAPER

Abstract

Eye typing provides a means of communication that is especially useful for people with disabilities. However, most related research addresses technical issues in eye typing systems, and largely ignores design issues. This paper reports experiments studying the impact of auditory and visual feedback on user performance and experience. Results show that feedback impacts typing speed, accuracy, gaze behavior, and subjective experience. Also, the feedback should be matched with the dwell time. Short dwell times require simplified feedback to support the typing rhythm, whereas long dwell times allow extra information on the eye typing process. Both short and long dwell times benefit from combined visual and auditory feedback. Six guidelines for designing feedback for gaze-based text entry are provided.

Keywords

Eye typing Text entry Feedback modalities People with disabilities 

Notes

Acknowledgments

The work presented in this paper was partly supported by the Graduate School in User-Centered Information Technology (UCIT) and by the COGAIN Network of Excellence funded by the European Commission. The authors would like to thank all volunteers who participated in the experiments, and Mika Käki, Aulikki Hyrskykari, Saila Ovaska, and Harri Siirtola from the TAUCHI unit, and Nancy and Dixon Cleveland from LC Technologies, Inc., for consultation and inspiring discussions.

References

  1. 1.
    Baecker R, Small I, Mander R (1991) Bringing icons to life. In: Proceedings of CHI 1991. ACM Press, Cambridge, pp 1–6. DOI 10.1145/108844.108845Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bates R (2002) Have patience with your eye mouse! Eye–gaze interaction with computers can work. In: Proceedings of 1st Cambridge workshop on universal access and assistive technology, pp 33–38. http://www.rehab-www.eng.cam.ac.uk/cwuaat/02/7.pdf
  3. 3.
    Brewster SA, Räty V-P, Kortekangas A (1996) Enhancing scanning input with non-speech sounds. In: Proceedings of ACM ASSETS ‘96, pp 10–14. DOI 10.1145/228347.228350Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Brewster SA, Crease MG (1999) Correcting menu usability problems with sound. Behav Inf Technol 18(3):165–177. DOI 10.1080/014492999119066Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Frey LA, White KP Jr, Hutchinson TE (1990) Eye-gaze word processing. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 20(4):944–950CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gaver WW (1989) The SonicFinder: an interface that uses auditory icons. Hum Comput Interact 4(1):67–94CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Glenstrup AJ, Engell-Nielsen T (1995) Eye controlled media: present and future of state. Technical report, University of Copenhagen. http://www.diku.dk/∼panic/eyegaze/
  8. 8.
    Hansen JP, Johansen AS, Hansen DW, Itoh K, Mashino S (2003) Command without a click: dwell time typing by mouse and gaze selections. In: Proceedings of INTERACT ’03. IOS Press, Amsterdam, pp 121–128Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hillstrom AP, Yantis S (1994) Visual motion and attentional capture. Percept Psychophys 55(4):399–411Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Hutchinson TE, White KP, Martin WN, Reichert KC, Frey LA (1989) Human–computer interaction using eye-gaze input. IEEE Trans Syst Man Cybern 19(6):1527–1534CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Jacob RJK (1991) The use of eye movements in human–computer interaction techniques: what you look at is what you get. ACM Trans Inf Syst 9(2):152–169. DOI 10.1145/123078.128728Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jacob RJK (1995) Eye tracking in advanced interface design. In: Barfield W, Furness TA (eds) Virtual environments and advanced interface design. Oxford University Press, New York, pp 258–288Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Just MA, Carpenter PA (1976) Eye fixations and cognitive processes. Cogn Psychol 8:441–480CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Lankford C (2000) Effective eye–gaze input into windows. In: Proceedings of ETRA ’00. ACM Press, Cambridge, pp 23–27. DOI 10.1145/355017.355021Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    MacKenzie IS (2003) Motor behaviour models for human–computer interaction. In: Carroll JM (ed) Toward a multidisciplinary science of human–computer interaction. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, pp 27–54Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Majaranta P, Räihä K-J (2002) Twenty years of eye typing: systems and design issues. In: Proceedings of ETRA ’02. ACM Press, Cambridge, pp 15–22. DOI 10.1145/507072.507076Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Majaranta P, MacKenzie IS, Aula A, Räihä K-J (2003a) Auditory and visual feedback during eye typing. In: Ext Abstracts CHI 2003. ACM Press, Cambridge, pp 766–767. DOI 10.1145/765891.765979Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Majaranta P, MacKenzie IS, Räihä K-J (2003b) Using motion to guide the focus of gaze during eye typing. In: Proceedings of 12th European conference on eye movements—ECEM 12, University of Dundee, O42Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Majaranta P, Aula A, Räihä K-J (2004) Effects of feedback on eye typing with a short dwell time. In: Proceedings of ETRA 2004. ACM Press, Cambridge, pp 139–146. DOI 10.1145/968363.968390Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Microsoft Windows User Experience (2002) Official guidelines for user interface developers and designers. Microsoft CorporationGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Nielsen J, Mack RL (1994) Usability inspection methods. Wiley, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Robertson CG, Mackinlay JD, Card SK (1991) Cone trees: animated 3D visualizations of hierarchical information. In: Proceedings of CHI ’91. ACM Press, Cambridge, pp 189–194Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Seifert K (2002) Evaluation multimodaler computer-systeme in frühen entwicklungsphasen (in German). PhD Thesis, Technical University Berlin. Summation of the results involving gaze interaction (in English) available at http://www.roetting.de/eyes-tea/history/021017/seifert.html
  24. 24.
    Soukoreff RW, MacKenzie IS (2001) Measuring errors in text entry tasks: an application of the Levenshtein string distance statistic. In: Ext Abstracts CHI ’01. ACM Press, Cambridge, pp 319–320. DOI 10.1145/634067.634256Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Stampe DM, Reingold EM (1995) Selection by looking: a novel computer interface and its application to psychological research. In: Findlay JM, Walker R, Kentridge RW (eds) Eye movement research: mechanisms, processes and applications. Elsevier, Amsterdam, pp 467–478CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ware C, Mikaelian HH (1987) An evaluation of an eye tracker as a device for computer input. In: Proceedings of CHI/GI ’87. ACM Press, Cambridge, pp 183–188. DOI 10.1145/29933.275627Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  • Päivi Majaranta
    • 1
    Email author
  • I. Scott MacKenzie
    • 2
  • Anne Aula
    • 1
  • Kari-Jouko Räihä
    • 1
  1. 1.Unit for Human–Computer Interaction (TAUCHI), Department of Computer SciencesUniversity of TampereTampereFinland
  2. 2.Department of Computer Science and EngineeringYork UniversityTorontoCanada

Personalised recommendations