Touch Screen User Interfaces for Older Adults: Button Size and Spacing

  • Zhao Xia Jin
  • Tom Plocher
  • Liana Kiff
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4554)


This study investigated the optimal button size and spacing for touch screen user interfaces intended for use by older adults. Current recommendations in the literature are aimed at general audiences and fail to consider the specific needs of older adults. Three independent variables, button size, button spacing, and manual dexterity were studied in two experiments that measured reaction time, accuracy and user preferences. Design recommendations for touch screen button size and spacing for older adults are stated based on these experiments. The paper also discusses the role of manual dexterity in designing appropriate touch screen interfaces for older adults.


older adults usability touch screen user interface design 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    ISO 9241-9. Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) – Part 9: Requirements for non-keyboard input devices (2000)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Monterey Technologies, Inc. Resource Guide for Accessibility: Design of Consumer Electronics. Draft Submitted to: EIA-EIF Committee on Product Accessibility, A Joint Venture of the Electronic Industries Association and the Electronic Industries Foundation Washington, DC 20006 (1996)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Pfauth, M., Priest, J.: Person-computer interface using touch screen devices. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 25th Annual Meeting pp. 500–504 (1981)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Beaton, R.J., Weiman, N.: Effects of touch key size and separation on menu-selection accuracy. In: Tektronix Technical Report TR 500-01, Tektronix Corporate Library pp. 50–510 (1984)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wilson, K.S., Inderreiden, M., Liu, S.: A comparison of five user interface devices designed for point-of-sale in the retail industry. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting pp. 273–277 (1995)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Martin, G.L.: Configuring a numeric keypad for a touch screen. Ergonomics 31, 945–953 (1988)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Bender, G.T.: Touch screen performance as a function of the duration of auditory feedback and target size. In: Ph.D. dissertation Wichita State University, Kansas, USA (1999)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Colle, H.A., Hiszem, K.J.: Standing at a kiosk: Effects of key size and spacing on touch screen numeric keypad performance and user preference. Ergonomics 47(13), 1406–1423 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Sun, X.H., Plocher, T.: An empirical study on the smallest comfortable button/icon size on touch screen. In: Institute of Psychology, Chinese Academy of Sciences, Beijing, China. Unpublished technical report (2004)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Beringer, D.B.: Target size, location, sampling point and instructional set: more effects on touch panel operation. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting pp. 375–379 (1990)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Scott, B., Conzola, M.S.: Designing touch screen numeric keypads: Effects of finger size, key size, and key spacing. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 41st Annual Meeting pp. 360–364 (1997)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Carmeli, E., Patish, H., Coleman, R.: The aging hand. Journal of Gerontology: Medical Sciences 58A(2), 146–152 (2003)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Goggin, N., Meeuwsen, H.J.: Age-related differences in the control of spatial aiming movements. Research Quarterly for Exercise and Sport 63(4), 366–372 (1992)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Pratt, J., Chasteen, A.L., Abrams, R.A.: Rapid limb movements: age differences and practice effects in component submovements. Psychology and Aging 9(2), 325–334 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Ketcham, C.J., Seidler, R.D., van Gemmert, A.W.A, Stelmach, G.E.: Age-related kinematic differences as influenced by task difficulty, target size, and movement amplitude. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences 57B(1), 54–64 (2002)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Morrisby Organisation. Peg Board Test. Morrisby, Focus 31 North, Cleveland Road, Hemel, Hempstead, Hertfordshire, HP2 7EY, UKGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Fitts, P.M.: The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology 47, 381–391 (1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Zhao Xia Jin
    • 1
  • Tom Plocher
    • 2
  • Liana Kiff
    • 2
  1. 1.Honeywell Technology Solutions Laboratory, ShanghaiChina
  2. 2.Honeywell Automation and Control Solutions Laboratory, Minneapolis, MinnesotaUSA

Personalised recommendations