Efficiency of Multi-tap Text Entry Method on Interactive Television

Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 8082)


The paper investigates the effect of response time and keystroke loss ratio on text entry on an Interactive Digital Television system using a remote control. Both parameters were identified based on previous empirical evidence. They are usually caused by poor hardware, software, or the quality of buttons. We conducted an experiment with 15 participants using a Multi-tap text entry method to perform text-copy tasks under different conditions. Entry rate, error rate, and subjective rating were measured in the experiment. The limit values, which have only minimal effect on user performance, are 200 ms response time and 2% keystroke loss ratio. However, these values still cause a significant decrease in subjective user comfort. Based on this observation we determined the maximum response time to 100 ms and the keystroke loss ratio to 1%.


Text Entry Methods Measuring Performance Text Input Interactive Digital Television Remote Control Multi-tap User Study 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Pavlovych, A., Stuerzlinger, W.: Less-Tap: A fast and easy-to-learn text input technique for phones. In: Graphics Interface, pp. 97–104 (2003)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    MacKenzie, I.S.: KSPC (Keystrokes per Character) as a Characteristic of Text Entry Techniques. In: Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Mobile Human-Computer Interaction, Mobile HCI 2002, pp. 195–210. Springer, London (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    MacKenzie, I.S., Kober, H., Smith, D., Jones, T., Skepner, E.: LetterWise: prefix-based disambiguation for mobile text input. In: Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, UIST 2001, pp. 111–120. ACM, New York (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Grover, D.L., King, M.T., Kushler, C.A.: Reduced keyboard disambiguating computer (1998)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gutowitz, H.: Barriers to adoption of dictionary-based text-entry methods: a field study. In: Proc. 2003 EACL Workshop on Language Modeling for Text Entry Methods, TextEntry 2003, pp. 33–41. ACL, Stroudsburg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Ingmarsson, M., Dinka, D., Zhai, S.: TNT: a numeric keypad based text input method. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2004, pp. 639–646. ACM, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Kandogan, E., Zhai, S.: Two-key input per character text entry apparatus and method (2004)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Sporka, A.J., Polacek, O., Slavik, P.: Comparison of two text entry methods on interactive tv. In: Proceedings of the 10th European Conference on Interactive TV and Video, EuroiTV 2012, pp. 49–52. ACM, New York (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Aoki, R., Maeda, A., Watanabe, T., Kobayashi, M., Abe, M.: Twist tap: text entry for TV remotes using easy-to-learn wrist motion and key operation. IEEE Transactions on Consumer Electronics 56, 161–168 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Vega-Oliveros, D.A., de Carvalho Pedrosa, D., da Graça Campos Pimentel, M., de Mattos Fortes, R.P.: An approach based on multiple text input modes for interactive digital TV applications. In: Proceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication, SIGDOC 2010, pp. 191–198. ACM, New York (2010)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Iatrino, A., Modeo, S.: Text editing in digital terrestrial television: A comparison of three interfaces. In: Proceedings of EuroITV 2006 (2006)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Geleijnse, G., Aliakseyeu, D., Sarroukh, E.: Comparing text entry methods for interactive television applications. In: Proc. 7th European Conf. on European Interactive TV, EuroITV 2009, pp. 145–148. ACM, New York (2009)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Miller, R.B.: Response time in man-computer conversational transactions. In: Proceedings of the Fall Joint Computer Conference, Part I, AFIPS 1968 (Fall, Part I), December 9-11, pp. 267–277. ACM, New York (1968)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Dabrowski, J.R., Munson, E.V.: Is 100 Milliseconds Too Fast? In: CHI 2001 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA 2001, pp. 317–318. ACM, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    MacKenzie, I.S., Soukoreff, R.W.: Phrase sets for evaluating text entry techniques. In: CHI 2003 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI EA 2003, pp. 754–755. ACM, New York (2003)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Isokoski, P., Linden, T.: Effect of foreign language on text transcription performance: Finns writing english. In: Proceedings of the Third Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, NordiCHI 2004, pp. 109–112. ACM, New York (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Wobbrock, J.: Measures of text entry performance. In: MacKenzie, I.S., Tanaka-Ishii, K. (eds.) Text Entry Systems: Mobility, Accessibility, Universality, pp. 47–74. Morgan Kaufmann (2007)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Norman, G.: Likert scales, levels of measurement and the “laws” of statistics. Advances in Health Sciences Education 15, 625–632 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Faculty of Electrical EngineeringCzech Technical University in PraguePraha 2Czech Republic

Personalised recommendations