Advertisement

A Comprehensive Stylus Evaluation Methodology and Design Guidelines

  • Kanchan JahagirdarEmail author
  • Edward Raleigh
  • Hanan Alnizami
  • Keith Kao
  • Philip J. Corriveau
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9746)

Abstract

The stylus is a flexible input device that enables traditional computer interactions and personalization of input. It extends natural and intuitive ways of interacting with computing devices by bringing in the familiar feel of pen on paper. There are two kinds of Styli, Active and Passive. A passive stylus is one that emulates finger touch interactions with no added functionality, while an active stylus is one with added capabilities that could enhance productivity, creativity, and common consumer functions, allowing for a seamless and easy to use computing experience on the go. This paper presents an evaluation methodology for an active stylus. Various factors were considered to provide a set of guidelines and recommendations to enable an optimal stylus experience. Factors identified were based on biomechanics, ergonomics, user preference, human comfort, usability/ease of use, motor control, and performance, all of which collectively impact the experience. The parameters evaluated include overall physical design, adequate palm rejection, productivity usages, efficiency, and convenience. The automated evaluation involves a specific laboratory setup to assess the creative usages of the stylus including accuracy, latency, and pressure sensitivity.

Keywords

Stylus user experience Stylus evaluation methodology Design Quality testing Electronic pen Active stylus Measurement 

References

  1. 1.
    Annett, M., Anderson, F., Bischof, W., Gupta, A.: The pen is mightier: understanding stylus behaviour while inking on tablets. In: Graphics Interface Conference, pp. 193–200 (2014)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Annett, M., Ng, A., Dietz, P., Bischof, W.F., Gupta, A.: How low should we go? understanding the perception of latency while inking. In: Proceedings of Graphics Interface, pp. 167–174 (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Chirag, Y., Fujii, Y., Valera, J.: Direction measurement of friction acting between a ballpoint pen and paper. In: SICE Annual Conference, pp. 1518–1521 (2004)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Dong, H., Barr, A., Loomer, P., LaRoche, C., Young, E., Rempel, D.: The effects of periodontal instrument handle design on hand muscle load and pinch force. JADA 137, 1123–1130 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
  6. 6.
    Forlines, C., Vogel, D., Kong, N., Balakrishnan, R.: Absolute Vs. Relative Pen Input. Mitsubishi Electric Research Laboratries (2006)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Francik, E., Akagi, K.: Designing a computer pencil and tablet for handwriting. Proc. Hum. Factors Ergon. Soc. Ann. Meet. 33, 445–449 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Goldberg, D., Goodisman, A.: Stylus user interfaces for manipulating text. In: ACM User Interface Software and Technology, pp. 127–135 (1991)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Goonetilleke, R., Hoffmann, E., Luximon, A.: Effects of pen design on drawing and writing performance. Appl. Ergon. 40, 292–301 (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Holtzinger, A., Holler, M., Schedlbauer, M., Urlesberger, B.: An investigation of finger vs stylus input in medical scenarios. In: Proceedings of ITI 30th Conference on Information Technology Interfaces, pp. 433–438 (2008)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kobayahsi, T.: Some experimental studies on writing behavior. Hiroshima Forum Psychol. 8, 27–38 (1981)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Lacquaniti, F.: Central representations of human limb movement as revealed by studies of drawing and handwriting. Trends Neurosci. 12(8), 287–291 (1989)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Annett, M., Anderson, F.: The pen is mightier: Understanding stylus behaviour while inking on tablets. In: Proceedings of Graphics Interface, pp. 193–200 (2014)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Microsoft. (n.d.). Write as fast as you think, https://www.microsoft.com/surface/en-us/accessories/surface-pen
  15. 15.
    Ng, A., Annett, M., Dietz, P., Gupta, A., Bischof, F.W.: In the blink of an eye: investigating latency perception during stylus interaction. In: CHI, pp. 1103–1112 (2014)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    N-Trig: IHS Technology Interactive Summit Presentation (2013)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Pereira, A., Miller, T., Huang, Y., Odell, D., Remple, D.: Holding a tablet computer with one hand: Effect of tablet design featuers on biomechanics and subjective usability among users with small hands. Ergonomics 12(8), 287–291 (2013)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schomaker, L., Plamondon, R.: The relation between pen force and pen-point kinematics in handwriting. Biolog. Cybern. 63, 277–289 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
  20. 20.
  21. 21.
    Wacom.: IHS Technology Interactive Summit Presentation (2013)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Wu, F., Luo, S.: Performance study on touch-pens size inthree screen tasks. Appl. Ergon. 37, 149–158 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wu, F., Luo, S.: Design and evaluation approach for increasing stability and performance of touch pens in screen handwriting tasks. Appl. Ergon. 37, 319–327 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Kanchan Jahagirdar
    • 1
    Email author
  • Edward Raleigh
    • 2
  • Hanan Alnizami
    • 3
  • Keith Kao
    • 2
  • Philip J. Corriveau
    • 3
  1. 1.Intel CorporationFolsomUSA
  2. 2.Intel CorporationSanta ClaraUSA
  3. 3.Intel CorporationHillsboroUSA

Personalised recommendations