GUIs with Haptic Interfaces

  • M. Arda Aydin
  • Nergiz Ercil CagiltayEmail author
  • Erol Ozcelik
  • Emre Tuner
  • Hilal Sahin
  • Gul Tokdemir
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 9170)


While there are many studies regarding utilization of haptic feedback to enhance desktop GUIs and utilizing haptic devices as additional interfaces to improve performance in current interaction techniques, there are not many studies that uses haptic device as a primary input device. In this study, we present an experimentation conducted with 30 students, comparing performance of a haptic device with mouse to use a GUI elements commonly used with mouse gestures. This study is inspired by a system that utilizes both mouse and a haptic device, thus also taking task switching into consideration. We conclude that it is possible to achieve an acceptable performance with a haptic device in a desktop-like GUI but further study and experimentation is necessary.


Human-computer interaction Haptic devices GUI 



The idea of utilizing a haptic interface as an input device came from another project, “E.C.E.” (TUBITAK; 112K287), that incorporates them for medical education where they are used for surgical simulation purposes. As the software contains much more than just the simulation, we questioned the possibility of eliminating separate input devices to control that GUI, i.e. the rest of the system, with the haptic interface, in a way to have a similar comfort and performance to those input devices, mouse, in our case. The research team would like to thank the TUBITAK support for realizing this research study.


  1. 1.
    Tan, H.: Perceptual user interfaces: haptic interfaces. Commun. ACM 43(3), 40–41 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    MacLean, K.E.: Haptic interaction design for everyday interfaces. Rev. Hum. Factors Ergon. 4, 149–194 (2008)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Stone, R.J.: Haptic feedback: a brief history from telepresence to virtual reality. In: Brewster, S., Murray-Smith, R. (eds.) Haptic HCI 2000. LNCS, vol. 2058, pp. 1–16. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Smyth, T.N., Kirkpatrick, A.E.: A new approach to haptic augmentation of the GUI. In: ICMI 2006 Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces, pp. 372–379 (2006)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Oakley, I., Brewster S., Gray, P.: Solving multi-target haptic problems in menu interaction. In: CHI 2001 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 357–358. ACM, New York (2001)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Donker, A., Reitsma, P.: Young children’s ability to use a computer mouse. Comput. Educ. 48, 602–617 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Fitts, P.M.: The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. J. Exp. Psychol. 47, 381–391 (1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Card, S.K., English, W.K., Burr, B.J.: Evaluation of mouse, rate-controlled isometric joystick, step keys and text keys for text selection on a CRT. Ergonomics 21, 601–613 (1978)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Gillan, D.J., Holden, K., Adam, S., Rudisill, M., Magee, L.: How does Fitts’ Law fit pointing and dragging? In: CHI 1990 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference, pp. 227–234. ACM Press, Seattle (1990)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    MacKenzie, I.S., Sellen, A., Buxton, W.: A comparison of input devices in elemental pointing and dragging tasks. In: CHI 1991 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 161–166. ACM Press, New York (1991)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    MacKenzie, I.: Fitts’ Law as a Performance Model in Human-Computer Interaction, Ph.D. thesis. University of Toronto (1991)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Kabbash, P., MacKenzie I.S., Buxton W.: Human performance using computer input devices in the preferred and non-preferred hands. In: CHI 1993 Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 474–481. ACM Press (1993)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Accot, J., Zhai, S.: Beyond Fitts’ Law: models for trajectory-based HCI tasks. In: ACM CHI 1997 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference. ACM Press, Atlanta (1997)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Akamatsu, M., MacKenzie, I.S., Hasbrouq, T.: A comparison of tactile, auditory, and visual feedback in a pointing task using a mouse-type device. Ergonomics 38, 816–827 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Dennerlein, J.T., Martin, D.B., Hasser, C.: Force-feedback improves performance for steering and combined steering-targeting tasks. In: CHI 2000 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference, pp. 423–429. ACM Press (2000)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rogers, R.D., Monsell, S.: Costs of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 124, 207–231 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Massie, T.H., Salisbury, K.J.: The PHANToM haptic interface: a device for probing virtual objects. In: DSC-Dynamic Systems and Control (1994)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Kiesel, A., Steinhauser, M., Wendt, M., Falkenstein, M., Jost, K., Philipp, A.M., Koch, I.: Control and interference in task switching—a review. Psychol. Bull. 136, 849–874 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Monsell, S.: Task switching. Trends Cogn. Sci. 7, 134–140 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Czerwinski, M., Horvitz, E., Wilhite, S.: A diary study of task switching and interruptions. In: CHI 2004 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 175–182. ACM Press (2004)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2015

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. Arda Aydin
    • 1
  • Nergiz Ercil Cagiltay
    • 2
    Email author
  • Erol Ozcelik
    • 1
  • Emre Tuner
    • 2
  • Hilal Sahin
    • 2
  • Gul Tokdemir
    • 3
  1. 1.Department of Computer EngineeringAtilim UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  2. 2.Department of Software EngineeringAtilim UniversityAnkaraTurkey
  3. 3.Department of Computer EngineeringCankaya UniversityAnkaraTurkey

Personalised recommendations