Evaluation of Accuracy: A Comparative Study Between Touch Screen and Midair Gesture Input

  • Zeeshan Haider MalikEmail author
  • Miran Arfan
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Networks and Systems book series (LNNS, volume 69)


This paper presents a user study on the accuracy measure between Touch Screen and Leap Motion Controller. Touch screen is a popular way to input text whereas leap motion controller is an emerging input device that captures the natural movement of hand. The object of this paper was to approach an affordable and more accurate method of input technology as well as to specify in what cases Leap motion could act as good as or better than Touch screen. For this purpose a program was developed that generated targets that had to be selected by the user. On the basis of the performance of users in the experiment the results were generated. There was a need to be able to compare both input modalities from human performance perspective. New methods of user interface require the developers to rethink about the technologies incorporated in the new products.


Touch screen Mid-air gesture input Leap motion controller Human-centric computing 


  1. 1.
    Jakobsen, M.R., Jansen, Y., Boring, S., Hornbæk K.: Should I stay or should I go? Selecting between touch and mid-air gestures for large-display interaction. In: 15th Human Computer Interaction (INTERACT), LNCS-9298 (Part III), pp. 455–473. Springer, Bamberg, Germany (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Fan, M., Hettiarachchi, A., Lu, Z., Ha, S., Gupta, P.: The performance of un-instrumented in-air pointing. Proc. Graphics Interface 59–66 (2014)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Bruder, G., Steinicke, F., Stuerzlinger, W.: To touch or not to touch? Comparing 2D touch and 3D mid-air interaction on stereoscopic tabletop surfaces. In: Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction, pp. 9–16. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Saalfeld, P., Mewes, A., Luz, M., Preim B., Hansen, C.: Comparative Evaluation of Gesture and Touch Input for Medical Software (2015)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Jones, B., Sodhi, R., Forsyth, D., Bailey, B., Maciocci, G.: Around device interaction for multiscale navigation. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, pp. 83–92. ACM (2012)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bachmann, D., Weichert, F., Rinkenauer, G.: Evaluation of the Leap Motion Controller as a New Contact-Free Pointing Device, pp. 214–233 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Moser, C., Tscheligi M.: Physics-based gaming: exploring touch versus mid-air gesture input. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children (2015)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Henze, N., Rukzio, E., Boll, S.: 100,000,000 taps: analysis and improvement of touch performance in the large. In: Proceedings of the 13th International Conference on Human Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services, pp. 133–142. ACM (2011)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Malik, Z.H.: Usability evaluation of ontology engineering tools. In: Computing Conference 2017, pp. 576–584. IEEE (2017)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Nature Switzerland AG 2020

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Forman Christian College (A Chartered University)LahorePakistan

Personalised recommendations