Exploring the Interaction Between Visual Flux and Users on Mobile Devices

  • Shih-Wen Hsiao
  • Yi-Cheng TsaoEmail author
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10289)


This research introduces the concept of visual flux to depict the process of the physical interaction between users and mobile devices in the scenario of controlled visual stimulation over various screen dimensions. Position sensors of mobile devices and motion sensors are applied in this research to incorporate the effects of corresponding distance and orientation between devices and users. A reconstruction system is established to provide a pragmatic approach to the process of user activities. The experimental results indicate that the participant performance under the condition of the same number and even size of stimulation decreases with increasing device dimensions, and the correlation between the angle of view and participant performance is revealed. Future research based on this concept could be conducted to extend the screen dimensions and thereby discover the entire spectrum of the informative glasses.


User experience Mobile touch device Motion sensor 



The authors would like to thank the Ministry of Science and Technology of Taiwan for supporting this research under project No. 105-2221-E-006-115-MY2.


  1. 1.
    Apple Inc. (2017).
  2. 2.
    Hou, J., Nam, Y., Peng, W., Lee, K.M.: Effects of screen size, viewing angle, and players’ immersion tendencies on game experience. Comput. Hum. Behav. 28(2), 617–623 (2012)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Supporting Multiple Screens, Android Developers (2017).
  4. 4.
    Park, J., Han, S.H., Kim, H.K., Oh, S., Moon, H.: Modeling user experience: a case study on a mobile device. Int. J. Ind. Ergon. 43(2), 187–196 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Wu, H.-C.: Electronic paper display preferred viewing distance and character size for different age groups. Ergonomics 54(9), 806–814 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Bababekova, Y., Rosenfield, M., Hue, J.E., Huang, R.R.: Font size and viewing distance of handheld smart phones. Optom. Vis. Sci. 88(7), 795–797 (2011)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shin, G., Hegde, S.: User-preferred position of computer displays: effects of display size. Hum. Factors 52(5), 574–585 (2010)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Parhi, P., Karlson, A.K., Bederson, B.B.: Target size study for one-handed thumb use on small touchscreen devices. In: Proceedings of the Mobile HCI 2006, pp. 203–210. ACM Press (2006)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Thumser, Z.C., Stahl, J.S.: Handheld cellular phones restrict head movements and range of visual regard. Hum. Mov. Sci. 32(1), 1–8 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Werth, A., Babski-Reeves, K.: Effects of portable computing devices on posture, muscle activation levels and efficiency. Appl. Ergonomics 45(6), 1603–1609 (2014)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Kietrys, D.M., Gerg, M.J., Dropkin, J., Gold, J.E.: Mobile input device type, texting style and screen size influence upper extremity and trapezius muscle activity, and cervical posture while texting. Appl. Ergonomics 50, 98–104 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Barmpoutis, A.: Tensor body: real-time reconstruction of the human body and avatar synthesis from RGB-D. IEEE Trans. Cybern. Spec. Issue Comput. Vis. RGB-D Sens. Kinect Appl. 43(5), 1347–1356 (2013)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hsiao, S.-W., Chen, R.-Q., Leng, W.-L.: Applying riding-posture optimization on bicycle frame design. Appl. Ergonomics 51, 69–79 (2015)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fitts, P.M.: The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling amplitude of movement. J. Exp. Psychol. 47, 381–391 (1954)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Seow, S.C.: Information theoretic models of HCI: a comparison of the Hick-Hyman Law and Fitts’ Law. Hum. Comput. Interact. 20, 315–352 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Tang, T.Y., He, M.Y., Cao, V.L.: “One doesn’t fit all”: a comparative study of various finger gesture interaction methods. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU 2016, Part III. LNCS, vol. 9748, pp. 88–97. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-40406-6_9 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Hakoda, H., Shizuki, B., Tanaka, J.: QAZ keyboard: QWERTY based portrait soft keyboard. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU 2016, Part III. LNCS, vol. 9748, pp. 24–35. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-40406-6_3 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Azenkot, S., Zhai, S.: Touch behavior with different postures on soft smartphone keyboards. In: Proceedings of the MobileHCI 2012, pp. 251–260. ACM, New York (2012)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Deniz, G., Onay Durdu, P.: Comparison of mobile input methods. In: Marcus, A. (ed.) DUXU 2016, Part III. LNCS, vol. 9748, pp. 3–13. Springer, Cham (2016). doi: 10.1007/978-3-319-40406-6_1 CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Korkmaz, Y., Onay Durdu, P.: Comparison of user performance and satisfaction of tablet virtual keyboards in three different OS environment. In: 2015 9th International Conference on AICT, pp. 269–273. IEEE (2015)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Industrial DesignNational Cheng Kung UniversityTainanTaiwan

Personalised recommendations