Advertisement

Design and Evaluation of a Novel Trackball Input Device for Middle-Aged Users

  • Fong-Gong Wu
  • Jack Chuang
  • Chien-Hsu Chen
  • Li-Ru Lai
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6775)

Abstract

This study developed two sets of novel trackball input devices operated by two hands with no space constraints, and required a series of experiments. Besides, the performances of the two newly-developed devices are significantly better than both existing trackball input devices in several tasks. However, the results of stability assessment tests show that the ability of a mouse to control the cursor is still greater than all the other devices. In physical observation part, wrist extension and ulnar deviation were measured while using Jack-1 and Jack-2, and showed apparently slighter than all the other devices.

Keywords

Trackball input device Two-handed operation Middle-aged people 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Jensen, C., Borg, V., Finsen, L., Hansen, K., Juul-Kristensen, B., Christensen, H.: Job demands, muscle activity abd musculoskeletal symptoms in relation to work with the computer mouse. Scandinavian Journal of Work and Environmental Health 24, 418–424 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Woods, V., Hastings, S., Buckle, P., Haslam, R.: Ergonomics of using a mouse or other non-keyboard input device. Health and Safety Executive, Research Report 045 (2002)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Atkinson, S., Woods, V., Haslam, R.A., Buckle, P.: Using non-keyboard input devices: interviews with users in the workplace. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 33, 571–579 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Donker, A., Reitsma, P.: Drag-and-drop errors in young children’s use of the mouse. Interacting with Computers 19, 257–266 (2007)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Fogleman, M., Brogmus, G.: Computer mouse use and cumulative trauma disorders of the upper extremities. Ergonomics 38(12), 2465–2475 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Harvery, R., Peper, E.: Surface electromyography and mouse use position. Ergonomics 4(8), 781–789 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Springer, J., Siebes, C.: Position controlled input device for handicapped: experimental studies with footmouse. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 17, 135–152 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Betke, M., Gips, J., Fleming, P.: The camera mouse: visual tracking of body features to provide computer access for people with severe disabilities. IEEE Trans. Neural Systems Rehab. Eng. 10, 1–10 (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Karlqvist, L., Bernmark, E., Ekenvall, L., Hagberg, M., Isaksson, A., Rostö, T.: Computer mouse and track-ball operation: Similarities and differences in posture, muscular load and perceived exertion. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 23, 157–169 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Chaparro, A., Bohan, M., Fernandez, J., Kattel, B., Choi, S.D.: Is the Trackball a Better Input Device for the Older Computer User? Journal of Occupational Rehabilitation 9(1), 33–43 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Chaparro, A., Bohan, M., Fernandez, J., Kattel, B., Choi, S.D.: The impact of age on computer input device use: Psychophysical and physiological measures. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics 24, 503–513 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Fong-Gong Wu
    • 1
  • Jack Chuang
    • 1
  • Chien-Hsu Chen
    • 1
  • Li-Ru Lai
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Industrial DesignNational Cheng Kung UniversityTainanTaiwan

Personalised recommendations