Predictive Pointing from Automotive to Inclusive Design

  • Bashar I. AhmadEmail author
  • James K. Murphy
  • Patrick M. Langdon
  • Simon J. Godsill
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9739)


With interactive displays, such as touchscreens, becoming an integrated part of the modern vehicle environment, predictive displays have emerged as a solution to minimize the effort as well as cognitive, visual and physical workload associated with using in-vehicle displays. It utilises gesture tracking in 3D as the basis of an input modality enabling interface component acquisition (pointing and selections). Nevertheless, the predictive display technology has the potential to facilitate and assist human computer interaction for motion impaired users, for example, those with cerebral palsy, tremors and spasms, in various scenarios. It also has a wider application in inclusive design addressing general ranges of impairments, such as those arising from ageing. This paper explores the potential of this promising technology and proposes that a predictive display, which was developed to aid drivers in a situationally induced impairment due to using non-driving interfaces in a moving car, can be applicable to the health induced impairment arising from perturbations due to physical movement disorders. It is concluded that 3D predictive gesture tracking can simplify and expedite target acquisition during perturbed pointing movements due to a health/physical-capability impairment.


Interactive displays Bayesian inference Target assistance Motor impairment Endpoint prediction Inclusive design 


  1. 1.
    Burnett, G.E., Porter, J.M.: Ubiquitous computing within cars: designing controls for non-visual use. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 55(4), 521–531 (2001)CrossRefzbMATHGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Harvey, C., Stanton, N.A.: Usability Evaluation for In-vehicle Systems. CRC Press, Boca Raton (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Burnett, G.E., Lawson, G., Millen, L., Pickering, C.: Designing touchpad user-interfaces for vehicles: which tasks are most suitable? Behav. Inf. Technol. 30, 403–414 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jaeger, M.G., Skov, M.B., Thomassen, N.G., et al.: You can touch, but you can’t look: interacting with in-vehicle systems. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1139–1148 (2008)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Klauer, S.G., Dingus, T.A., Neale, V.L., Sudweeks, J.D., Ramsey, D.J.: The impact of driver inattention on near-crash/crash risk: an analysis using the 100-car naturalistic driving study data. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, DOT HS 810 5942006 (2006)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ahmad, B.I., Langdon, P.M., Godsill, S.J., Hardy, R., Skrypchuk, L., Donkor, R.: Touchscreen usability and input performance in vehicles under different road conditions: an evaluative study. In: Proceeding of the 7th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (AutomotiveUI 2015), Nottingham, UK, pp. 47–54 (2015)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ahmad, B.I., Murphy, J., Langdon, P.M., Godsill, S.J., Hardy, R., Skrypchuk, L.: Intent inference for pointing gesture based interactions in vehicles. IEEE Trans. Cybern. 46(4), 878–889 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Mackenzie, S.: Fitts’ law as a research and design tool in human-computer interaction. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 7, 91–139 (1992)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Kopper, R., Bowman, D.A., Silva, M.G., McMahan, R.P.: A human motor behavior model for distal pointing tasks. Int. J. Hum Comput Stud. 68, 603–615 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Meyer, D.E., Smith, J.E., Kornblum, S., Abrams, R.A., Wright, C.E.: Optimality in human motor performance: ideal control of rapid aimed movements. Psychol. Rev. 8, 340–370 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    McGuffin, M.J., Balakrishnan, R.: Fitts’ law and expanding targets: experimental studies and designs for user interfaces. ACM Trans. Comput. Hum. Interact. 12(4), 388–422 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Murata, A.: Improvement of pointing time by predicting targets in pointing with a PC mouse. IJHCI 10(1), 23–32 (1998)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Wobbrock, J.O., Fogarty, J., Liu, S., Kimuro, S., Harada, S.: The angle mouse: target-agnostic dynamic gain adjustment based on angular deviation. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1401–1410 (2009)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Asano, T., Sharlin, E., Kitamura, Y., Takashima, K., Kishino, F.: Predictive interaction using the Delphian desktop. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology. ACM, pp. 133–141 (2005)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Lank, E., Cheng, Y.-C.N., Ruiz, J.: Endpoint prediction using motion kinematics. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human factors in Computing Systems, pp. 637–646 (2007)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Ziebart, B., Dey, A., Bagnell, J.A.: Probabilistic pointing target prediction via inverse optimal control. In: Proceedings of the ACM International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, pp. 1–10 (2012)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Ahmad, B.I., Langdon, P.M., Bunch, P., Godsill, S.J.: Probabilistic intentionality prediction for target selection based on partial cursor tracks. In: Stephanidis, C., Antona, M. (eds.) UAHCI 2014, Part III. LNCS, vol. 8515, pp. 427–438. Springer, Heidelberg (2014)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Langdon, P., Godsill, S., Clarkson, P.J.: Statistical estimation of user’s interactions from motion impaired cursor use data. In: Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Disability, Virtual Reality and Associated Technologies (ICDVRAT 2006), Esbjerg, Denmark (2006)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Keates, S., Hwang, F., Langdon, P., Clarkson, P.J, Robinson, P.: Cursor measures for motion-impaired computer users. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International ACM Conference on Assistive Technologies – ASSETS, New York, pp. 135–142 (2002)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wobbrock, J.O., Gajos, K.Z.: Goal crossing with mice and trackballs for people with motor impairments: performance, submovements, and design directions. ACM Trans. Accessible Comput. (TACCESS) 1(4), 1–37 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Gajos, K.Z., Wobbrock, J.O., Weld, D.S.: Automatically generating user interfaces adapted to users’ motor and vision capabilities. In: ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, pp. 231–240 (2007)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Biswas, P., Langdon, P.: Developing multimodal adaptation algorithm for mobility impaired users by evaluating their hand strength. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 28, 576–596 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Sears, A., Lin, M., Jacko, J., Xiao, Y.: When computers fade: pervasive computing and situationally induced impairments and disabilities. In: Proceedings of HCI International, pp. 1298–1302 (2003)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Newell, A.F., Gregor, P.: Human computer interfaces for people with disabilities. In: Handbook of Human Computer Interaction, pp. 813–824 (1997). ISBN: 0-444-1862-6Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Langdon, P., Persad, U., Clarkson, P.J.: Developing a model of cognitive interaction for analytical inclusive design evaluation. Interact. Comput. 22, 510–529 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Ahmad, B.I., Murphy, J.K., Langdon, P.M., Godsill, S.J.: Filtering perturbed in-vehicle pointing gesture trajectories: improving the reliability of intent inference. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Workshop on Machine Learning for Signal Processing (MLSP 2014) (2014)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Ahmad, B.I., Langdon, P.M., Hardy, R., Godsill, S.J.: Intelligent intent-aware touchscreen systems using gesture tracking with endpoint prediction. In: Antona, M., Stephanidis, C. (eds.) UAHCI 2015. LNCS, vol. 9176, pp. 3–14. Springer, Heidelberg (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Godsill, S., Vermaak, J.: Models and algorithms for tracking using trans-dimensional sequential Monte Carlo. In: Proceedings of the IEEE International Conference on Acoustics, Speech, and Signal Processing (ICASSP 2004), pp. 973–976 (2004)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Langdon, P., Thimbleby, H.: Inclusion and interaction: designing interaction for inclusive populations. Interact. Comput. 22, 439–448 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Bashar I. Ahmad
    • 1
    Email author
  • James K. Murphy
    • 1
  • Patrick M. Langdon
    • 2
  • Simon J. Godsill
    • 1
  1. 1.Signal Processing and Communications Laboratory (SigProC), Department of EngineeringUniversity of CambridgeCambridgeUK
  2. 2.Department of Engineering, Engineering Design Centre (EDC)University of CambridgeCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations