A Performance Review of Number Entry Interfaces

  • Patrick Oladimeji
  • Harold Thimbleby
  • Anna L. Cox
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8117)

Abstract

Number entry is ubiquitous and there are several ways a number entry interface can be designed. Until recently, research has been focused mainly on one type of number entry interface: the numeric keypad. Various factors such as the range of values, and the space available for the design allows for several alternative interfaces to be used for number entry. In the design of medical devices such as those used for controlled drug delivery, accurate and timely entry of numbers are required in order to reduce any risk of harm to patients. This paper reviews five number entry interface styles and reports the result of an experiment conducted to evaluate the performance differences of the interfaces based on numbers used in infusion therapy in a hospital. The result shows a significant effect of interface style on speed and accuracy.

Keywords

Number entry interfaces number entry error user interface performance safety critical devices 

References

  1. 1.
    National Patient Safety Agency: Safety in doses: medication safety incidents in the NHS. The fourth report from the Patient Safety Observatory (2007)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Bender, G.T., Dean, D.G., Dean, V.: Touch Screen Performance as a Function of the Duration of Auditory Feedback and Target Size. Liberal Arts and Sciences, Wichita State University: 7 (1999)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Card, S.K., Moran, T.P., Newell, A.: The keystroke-level model for user performance time with interactive systems. Commun. ACM 23(7), 396–410 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Cauchi, A., Gimblett, A., Thimbleby, H., Curzon, P., Masci, P.: Safer “5-key” number entry user interfaces using Differential Formal Analysis. In: Proceedings of HCI 2012 the 26th BCS Conference on Human Computer Interaction, pp. 29–38 (2012)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Conrad, R., Hull, A.J.: The preferred layout for numeral data-entry keysets. Ergonomics 11(2), 165–173 (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Doherty, C., Donnell, C.M.: Tenfold Medication Errors: 5 Years’ Experience at a University-Affiliated Pediatric Hospital. Pediatrics 129(5) (2012)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Gimblett, A., Thimbleby, H.: User Interface Model Discovery: Towards a Generic Approach. In: Proceedings of the 2nd ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems, EICS 2010, pp. 145–154 (2010)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    ISMP: Double key bounce and double keying errors. Medication Safety Alert! Acute Care Edition (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Keohane, C.A., Hayes, J., Saniuk, C., Rothschild, J.M., Bates, D.W.: Intravenous medica- tion safety and smart infusion systems: lessons learned and future opportunities. Journal of Infusion Nursing 28(5), 321–328 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Lesar, T.S.: Tenfold medication dose prescribing errors. The Annals of Pharmacotherapy 36(12), 1833–1839 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Marteniuk, R.G., Ivens, C.J., Brown, B.E.: Are there task specific performance effects for differently configured numeric keypads? Applied Ergonomics 27(5), 321–325 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Menninger, K.: Number Words and Number Symbols: A Cultural History of Numbers. Dover Publications (1992)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Norman, D.A.: The design of everyday things. BasicBooks (2002)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    NPSA:Reducing harm from omitted and delayed medicines in hospital. Rapid Response Report NPSA/2010/RRR009 (2010)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Oladimeji, P.: Towards safer number entry in interactive medical systems. In: Proceedings of the 4th ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems, pp. 329–332 (2012)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Oladimeji, P., Thimbleby, H., Cox, A.: Number entry interfaces and their effects on error detection. In: Campos, P., Graham, N., Jorge, J., Nunes, N., Palanque, P., Winckler, M. (eds.) INTERACT 2011, Part IV. LNCS, vol. 6949, pp. 178–185. Springer, Heidelberg (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Deininger, R.L.: Human factors engineering studies of the design and use of push button telephone sets. Bell System Technical Journal 39(4), 995–1012 (1960)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Schedlbauer, M.: Effects of key size and spacing on the completion time and accuracy of input tasks on soft keypads using trackball and touch input. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting 51(5), 429–433 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Thimbleby, H.: PressOn: Priciples of Interaction Programming. The MIT Press (2007)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thimbleby, H., Cairns, P.: Reducing number entry errors: solving a widespread, serious problem. Journal of the Royal Society Interface 7(51), 1429–1439 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Vicente, K.J., Kada-Bekhaled, K., Hillel, G., Cassano, A., Orser, B.A.: Programming errors contribute to death from patient-controlled analgesia: case report and estimate of probability. Canadian Journal of Anesthesia 50(4), 328–332 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Westbrook, J.I., Rob, M.I., Woods, A., Parry, D.: Errors in the administration of intravenous medications in hospital and the role of correct procedures and nurse experience. BMJ Quality & Safety (2011)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Wiseman, S., Cairns, P., Cox, A.: A taxonomy of number entry error. In: Proceedings of the 25th BCS Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 187–196. British Computer Society (2011)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Wiseman, S., Cox, A., Brumby, D.: Designing for the task: what numbers are really used in hospitals? In: Proceedings of the 2012 ACM Annual Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems Extended Abstracts, pp. 1733–1738 (2012)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Patrick Oladimeji
    • 1
  • Harold Thimbleby
    • 1
  • Anna L. Cox
    • 2
  1. 1.Future Interaction Technology LabSwansea UniversityUK
  2. 2.UCL Interaction CenterUniversity College LondonUK

Personalised recommendations