Advertisement

Effects of Practice with Foot- and Hand-Operated Secondary Input Devices on Performance of a Word-Processing Task

  • Fredrick P. Garcia
  • Kim-Phuong L. Vu
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5617)

Abstract

This study compared the performance of users operating a foot controlled input device (foot mouse) with that of users operating a hand controlled input device (hand trackball). Four different tasks that required (1) direct manipulation of on-screen objects and menu command activation, (2) keyboard entry and direct manipulation, (3) keyboard entry and command activation, and (4) keyboard entry, direct manipulation, and command activation were assessed. Performance on each task was measured both before and after participants practiced computing tasks with one of the devices for 750 trials. For all 4 tasks, practice improved performance with the foot mouse but not the hand trackball. However, overall performance was better with the hand trackball.

Keywords

input device foot input hand input practice word processing 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Burgess-Limerick, R., Shemmell, J., Scadden, R., Plooy, A.: Wrist Posture During Computer Pointing Device Use. Clinical Biomechanics 14, 280–286 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Card, S.K., Moran, T.P., Newell, A.: The Keystroke-Level Model for User Performance Time with Interactive Systems. Communications of the ACM 23(7), 396–410 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Fagarasanu, M., Kumar, S.: Carpal Tunnel Syndrome Due to Keyboarding and Mouse Tasks: A Review. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 31, 119–136 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Jensen, C., Borg, V., Finsen, L., Hansen, K., Juul-Kristensen, B., Christensen, H.: Job Demands, Muscle Activity and Musculoskeletal Symptoms in Relation to Work with the Computer Mouse. Scandinavian Journal of Work and Environmental Health 24, 418–424 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Karl, L., Pettey, M., Shneiderman, B.: Speech-Activated Versus Mouse-Activated Commands for Word Processing Applications: An Empirical Evaluation. Technical Report No. CAR-TR-630. University of Maryland Center for Automation Research, College Park, MD (1992)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Monsell, S.: Task Switching. TRENDS in Cognitive Sciences 7(3), 134–140 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Pakkanen, T., Raisamo, R.: Appropriateness of Foot Interaction for Non-accurate Spatial Tasks. In: CHI 2004 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 1123–1126. ACM Press, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Pearson, G., Weiser, M.: Exploratory Evaluation of a Planar Foot-Operated Cursor-Positioning Device. In: O’Hare, J.J. (ed.) Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI 1988, pp. 13–18. ACM Press, New York (1988)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Schneiderman, B.: The Limits of Speech Recognition. Communications of the ACM 43(9), 63–65 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Springer, J., Siebes, C.: Position Controlled Input Device for Handicapped: Experimental Studies with a Footmouse. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 17, 135–152 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fredrick P. Garcia
    • 1
  • Kim-Phuong L. Vu
    • 1
  1. 1.Center for Usability in Design and Accessibility Department of PsychologyCalifornia State University, Long BeachLong BeachUSA

Personalised recommendations