Finger Instead of Mouse: Touch Screens as a Means of Enhancing Universal Access

  • Andreas Holzinger
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2615)


Touch-Screen Technology is the most natural of all input devices — even children can easily learn how to operate them. But this simple interaction proved also to be ideal for people who are not overly familiar with computers including elderly and/or disabled patients in a hospital. A pilot system of an interactive Patient Communications System (PACOSY) has been developed in a User Centered Design (UCD) process. Patients were enabled to retrieve and enter information interactively via various touch screen systems connected to the Hospital Intranet. This paper concentrates primarily on experimental experiences with touch technology and the technological requirements for a touch based Patient Information System (PATIS) serving as Point of Information (POI) for patients within a hospital or a future Point of Consultation (POC). People with low or no computer literacy found using touch screens easy and motivating. Together with a cheap, simple and user friendly interface design, such systems can enhance universal access within an information society for all.

“Each Pointing concept has its enthusiasts and detractors, motivated by commercial interests, by personal preference and increasingly by empirical evidence” (Ben Shneiderman, 1998, p.323 [1]).”


Surface Acoustic Wave Ultra Sound Touch Screen Medical Informatics Computer Literacy 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Shneiderman, B. Designing the User Interface. Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction. Reading (MA): Addison Wesley (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Holzinger, A., User-Centered Interface Design for disabled and elderly people: First experiences with designing a patient communication system (PACOSY), In: Computers Helping People with Special Needs, 8th International Conference, ICCHP, Linz, K. Miesenberger, J. Klaus, and W. Zagler (ed.), Berlin et al.: Springer (2002) 34–41Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stephanidis, C., Savidis, A. Universal Access in the Information Society: Methods, Tools and Interaction Technologies, Universal Access in the Information Society, 1 (1) (2001) 40–55Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Emiliani, L.P., Stephanidis, C. From Adaptations to User Interfaces for All. 6th ERCIM Workshop “User Interfaces for All”. Florence, Italy: (2000)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    McMillan, S. Literacy and computer literacy: definitions and comparisons, Computers & Education, 27 (3–4) (1996) 161–170CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    King, J., Bond, T., Blandford, S. An investigation of computer anxiety by gender and grade, Computers in Human Behavior, 18 (1) (2002) 69–84CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Robertson, G.L., Hix, D. Making Computer Accessible to Mentally Retarded Adults, Communications of the ACM, 45 2002) 171–183CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Lewis, D. Computer-based approaches to patient education: a review of the literature, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association: JAMIA, 6 (4) (1999) 272–282Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Rippey, R.M., Bill, D., Abeles, M., Day, J., Downing, D.S., Pfeiffer, C.A., Thal, S.E., Wetstone, S.L. Computer-based patient education for older persons with osteoarthritis, Arthritis and Rheumatism, 30 (8) (1987) 932–935CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Downing, D.S., Rippey, R., Peterson, M., Weinstein, A., Sheehan, T.J. Rheumatology education in an undergraduate program of physical therapy. A new outlook, Physical Therapy, 67 (9) (1987) 1393–1398Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Bill-Harvey, D., Rippey, R., Abeles, M., Donald, M.J., Downing, D., Ingenito, F., Pfeiffer, C.A. Outcome of an osteoarthritis education program for low-literacy patients taught by indigenous instructors, Patient Education and Counseling, 13 (2) (1989) 133–142CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Jones, J.M., Nyhof-Young, J., Friedman, A., Catton, P. More than just a pamphlet: development of an innovative computer-based education program for cancer patients, Patient Education and Counseling, 44 (3) (2001) 271–281CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Ellis, L.B.M. Computer-based patient education, Computers in Human Services, 2 (3–4) (1987) 117–130Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Bental, D.S., Cawsey, A., Jones, R. Patient Information Systems that tailor to the individual., Patient Education and Counseling, 36 1999) 171–180.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hanna, A.W., Pynsent, P.B., Learmonth, D.J., Tubbs, O.N. A comparison of a new computer-based interview for knee disorders with conventional history taking, The Knee, 6 (4) (1999) 245–256CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    van’t Riet, A., Berg, M., Hiddema, F., Sol, K. Meeting patients’ needs with patient information systems: potential benefits of qualitative research methods, International Journal of Medical Informatics, 64 (1) (2001) 1–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Brennan, P.F., Kuang, Y.S., Volrathongchai, K., Patient-centered information systems: Patient Centered Systems, In: Yearbook of Medical Informatics 2000, J.H.v. Bemmel and A.T. McCray (ed.), Stuttgart: Schattauer (2000) 79–86Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Peterson, L., Johannsson, V. Computerized Testing in a Hospital Setting: Psychometric and Psychological Effects, Computers in Human Behavior, 12 (3) (1996) 339–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Nielsen, J. Usability Engineering. New York: Academic Press (1993)MATHGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Greenstein, J.S., Arnaut, L.Y., Input Devices, In: Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, M. Helander (ed.), Amsterdam: North Holland (1988) 495–519Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Srinivasan, M.A., Basdogan, C. Haptics in virtual environments: taxonomy, research status, and challenges, Computers & Graphics, 21 (4) (1997) 393–404CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Holzinger, A. Multimedia Basics, Volume 1: Technology. Technological Fundamentals of multimedial Information Systems. New Delhi: Laxmi Publications (2002)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Holzinger, A. Basiswissen Multimedia. Band 1: Technologische Grundlagen multimedialer Informationssyteme. 2. Auflage. Würzburg: Vogel (2002)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Fitts, P.M. The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47 1954) 381–391CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    MacKenzie, I.S. Fitts’ law as a research and design tool in human-computer interaction, Human-Computer Interactions, 7 (1) (1992) 91–139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Schultz, K.L., Batten, D.M., Sluchak, T.J. Optimal viewing angle for touch-screen displays: Is there such a thing?, International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 22 (4–5) (1998) 343–350CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Zajicek, M. Interface Support for Elderly People with Impaired Sight or Memory. 6th ERCIM Workshop “User Interfaces for All”. Florence, Italy: (2000)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    McTear, M.F. Spoken Dialogue Technology: Enabling the Conversational User Interface, ACM Computing Surveys, 34 (1) (2002) 90–169CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Stephanidis, C. From User Interfaces for all to an Information Society for All: Recent achievements and future challenges. 6th ERCIM Workshop “User Interfaces for All”. Florence, Italy: (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2003

Authors and Affiliations

  • Andreas Holzinger
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute for Medical Informatics, Statistics and Documentation (IMI)Graz University HospitalGrazAustria

Personalised recommendations