Improving Browsing Performance: A study of four input devices for scrolling and pointing tasks

  • Shumin Zhai
  • Barton A. Smith
  • Ted Selker


Navigating through online documents has become an increasingly common HCI task. This paper investigates alternative methods to improve user performance for browsing World Wide Web and other documents. In a task that involved both scrolling and pointing, we compared three input methods against the status-quo. The results showed that a mouse with a fmger wheel did not improve user’s performance; two other methods, namely a mouse with an isometric rate-control joystick operated by the same hand and a two handed system that put a mouse on the dominant hand and a joystick on the other, both significantly improved users’ performance. A human factors analysis on each of the three input methods is also presented.


Input Devices Interaction Techniques Web Browsing Scrolling Mouse Isometric vs. Isotonic Devices joystick Wheel Mouse IntelliMouseTM TrackpointlIIITM Two-handed Input Bimanual Interaction. 


  1. Barrett, R.C., Selker, E.J., Rutledge, J.D. and Olyha, R.S. (1995) The Negative Inertia: A dynamic pointing function, in CHI’95 conference companion: Human Factors in Computing Systems, 316–317.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buxton, W. (1986) There is more to interaction than meets the eye: some issues in manual input, in Norman, D.A and Draper, S.W. (Eds) User Centered System Design, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 319–337.Google Scholar
  3. Buxton, W. and Myers, B. (1986) A study of two-handed input, in Proc. of CHI86, 321–326.Google Scholar
  4. Fitts, P. (1954) The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 46, 199–210.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Guiard, Y. (1987) Asymmetric division of labor in human skilled bimanual action: The kinematic chain as a model. Journal of Motor Behavior, 19 (4) 486–517.Google Scholar
  6. Kabbash, P., Buxton, W., Seilen, A. Two-handed input in a compound task, in Proc. of CHI94: ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 417–423.Google Scholar
  7. Leganchuk, A., Zhai, S. and Buxton, W. (1996) Manual and Cognitive factors in two-handed input: an experimental study. submitted for publication.Google Scholar
  8. MacKenzie, I. S., Seilen, A., and Buxton, W. A comparison of input devices in elemental pointing and dragging tasks (1991), in Proc. of CHI ‘81: ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems New Orleans, Lousiana, 161–166.Google Scholar
  9. Poulton, E.C. (1974) Tracking skill and manual control. New York, Academic Press.Google Scholar
  10. Rutledge. J. and Selker, Force-to-motion function for pointing, in Proceedings of INTERACT90: The IFIP Conference on Human Computer Interaction 701–705.Google Scholar
  11. Smith, D.C., Irby, C., Kimball, R., Verplank, W. and Harslem, E. (1982) Designing the Star user interface. Byte, 7 (4), 242–282.Google Scholar
  12. Venolia, D. (1993). Facile 3D direct manipulation. In Proc. of INTERCHI’93: ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 31–36.Google Scholar
  13. Zhai, S. (1995) Human Performance in Six Degree-ofFreedom Input Control Ph.D. Thesis, University of Toronto.
  14. Zhai, S. Milgram, P (1993) Human Performance in evaluation of manipulation schemes in virtual environments, in Proc. of VRAIS’93: IEEE Virtual Reality Annual International Symposium, Seattle, USA, 155–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Zhai, S. Milgram, P, Drascic, D. (1993) An Evaluation of four 6 degree-of-freedom input techniques, in Adjunct Proc. of INTERCHI’93: The IFIP Conference on Human Computer Interaction, Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 155–161.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  • Shumin Zhai
    • 1
  • Barton A. Smith
    • 1
  • Ted Selker
    • 1
  1. 1.IBM Almaden Research CenterSan JoseUSA

Personalised recommendations