Cited By
View all- Xia HGrossman TFitzmaurice GLatulipe CHartmann BGrossman T(2015)NanoStylusProceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software & Technology10.1145/2807442.2807500(447-456)Online publication date: 5-Nov-2015
Hands, hover, and nibs: understanding stylus accuracy on tablets
Abstract
Although tablets and styli have become pervasive, styli have not seen widespread adoption for precise input tasks such as annotation, note-taking, algebra, and so on. While many have identified that stylus accuracy is a problem, there is still much unknown about how the user and the stylus itself influences accuracy. The present work identifies a multitude of factors relating to the user, the stylus, and tablet hardware that impact the inaccuracy experienced today. Further, we report on a two-part user study that evaluated the interplay between the motor and visual systems (i.e., hand posture and visual feedback) and an increasingly important feature of the stylus, the nib diameter. The results determined that the presence of visual feedback and the dimensions of the stylus nib are crucial to the accuracy attained and pressure exerted with the stylus. The ability to rest one's hand on the screen, while providing comfort and support, was found to have surprisingly little influence on accuracy.
References
[1]
M. Annett et al. The Pen is Mightier: Understanding Stylus Behavior While Inking on Tablets. Proc. of GI, 2014, 193--200.
[2]
G. Apitz & F. Guimbretiere. CrossY: A Crossing-Based Drawing Application. Proc. of UIST, 2004, 3--12.
[3]
S. K. Badamet et al. Tracing and Sketching Performance using Blunt-tipped Styli on Direct-Touch Tablets. Proc. of AVI, 2014, 193--200.
[4]
N. Bernstein. The Coordination and Regulation of Movements, 1967. Oxford: Pergamon Press.
[5]
W. S. Buxton. A Three-State Model of Graphical Input. Proc. of CHI, 1990, 449--456.
[6]
L. G. Carlton. Visual Information: The Control of Aiming Movements. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 1981, 33(1), 87--93.
[7]
R. S. Goonetilleke, E. R. Hoffman, & A. Luximon. Effects of Pen Design on Drawing and Writing Performance. Applied Ergonomics, 2009, 40, 292--301.
[8]
T. Grossman et al. Hover-Widgets: Using the Tracking State to Extend the Capabilities of Pen-Operated Devices. Proc. of CHI, 2006, 861--870.
[9]
C. Holz & P. Baudisch. Understanding Touch. Proc. of CHI, 2011, 2501--2510.
[10]
ISO/TS 9241-9:2000E: Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs) - Part 9: Requirements for non-keyboard input devices. International Organization for Standardization, 2000.
[11]
ISO/TS 9241-411:2012(E): Ergonomics of human-system interaction-Part 411: Evaluation methods for the design of physical input devices. International Organization for Standardization, 2012.
[12]
D. Lee et al. PhantomPen: Virtualization of Pen Head for Digital Drawing Free from Pen Occlusion & Visual Parallax. Proc. of UIST, 2012, 331--340.
[13]
I. S. MacKenzie, T. Kauppinen, & M. Silfverberg. Accuracy Measures for Evaluating Computer Pointing Devices. Proc. of CHI, 2001, 9--16.
[14]
F. Matulic & M. C. Norrie. Empirical Evaluation of Uni- and Bimodal Pen and Touch Interaction Properties on Digital Tabletops. Proc. of ITS, 2012, 143--152.
[15]
A. Mohr, D. Y. Xu, & J. Read. Evaluation of Digital Drawing Devices with Primary School Children - A Pilot Study. Proc. of ICL, 2010, 830--833.
[16]
T. Nescher & A. Kunz. An Interactive Whiteboard for Immersive Telecollaboration. The Visual Computer, 2001, 27(4), 311--320.
[17]
A. Ng et al. In the Blink of an Eye: Investigating Latency Perception during Stylus Interaction. Proc. of CHI, 2014, 1103--1112.
[18]
E. Park, K. J. Kim, & A. P. del Pobil. Does Length Matter? A Study Examining How Length of Stylus Pen Helps Effective Electronic Documentation. Proc. of ICIS, 2011, 185--188.
[19]
G. Ramos et al. Pointing Lenses: Facilitating Stylus Input through Visual- and Motor-Space Magnification. Proc. of CHI, 2007, 757--766.
[20]
J. C. Read. The Usability of Digital Ink Technologies for Children and Teenagers. People & Computers XIX-The Bigger Picture, 2006, 19--35.
[21]
X. Ren & S. Mizobuchi. Investigating the Usability of the Stylus Pen on Handheld Devices. Proc. of SIGHCI, 2005, 12.
[22]
M. Sun & X. Ren. An Evaluation of Multimodal Feedback in Tracking State for Pen-Based Interfaces. Proc. of IEEE Mechatronics and Automation, 2009, 72--77.
[23]
M. Sun et al. An Investigation of the Relationship between Texture and Human Performance in Steering Tasks. Proc. of APCHI, 2012, 1--6.
[24]
D. Vogel & R. Balakrishnan. Occlusion-Aware Interfaces. Proc. of CHI, 2010, 263--272.
[25]
D. Vogel & R. Balakrishnan. Direct Pen Interaction with a Conventional Graphical User Interface. Human-Computer Interaction, 2010, 25(4), 324--388.
[26]
J. R. Ward & M. J. Phillips. Digitizer Technology: Performance Characteristics and their Effects on the User Interface. Computer Graphics and Applications, 1987, 7(4), 31--44.
[27]
F. Wu & S. Luo. Performance Study on Touch-Pens Size in Three Screen Tasks. Applied Ergonomics, 2006, 37, 149--158.
[28]
Xda Developers Forum. forum.xda-developers.com/showthread.php?t=2171198. September 2014.
Index Terms
- Hands, hover, and nibs: understanding stylus accuracy on tablets
Recommendations
In the blink of an eye: investigating latency perception during stylus interaction
CHI '14: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsWhile pen computing has become increasingly more popular, device responsiveness, or latency, still plagues such interaction. Although there have been advances in digitizer technology over the last few years, commercial end-to-end latencies are ...
The pen is mightier: understanding stylus behaviour while inking on tablets
GI '14: Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2014Although pens and paper are pervasive in the analog world, their digital counterparts, styli and tablets, have yet to achieve the same adoption and frequency of use. To date, little research has identified why inking experiences differ so greatly ...
Reflective haptics: enhancing stylus-based interactions on touch screens
EuroHaptics'10: Proceedings of the 2010 international conference on Haptics: generating and perceiving tangible sensations, Part IIn this paper, we introduce the prototype of a low cost haptically augmented stylus for pen computing on touch screens. The stylus supports human-computer interaction through a dynamic haptic feedback. This reflective feedback is generated by a ...
Comments
Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.Information & Contributors
Information
Published In
Sponsors
- The Canadian Human-Computer Communications Society / Société Canadienne du Dialogue Humaine Machine (CHCCS/SCDHM)
Publisher
Canadian Information Processing Society
Canada
Publication History
Published: 03 June 2015
Author Tags
Qualifiers
- Research-article
Acceptance Rates
Overall Acceptance Rate 206 of 508 submissions, 41%
Contributors
Other Metrics
Bibliometrics & Citations
Bibliometrics
Article Metrics
- View Citations1Total Citations
- 241Total Downloads
- Downloads (Last 12 months)88
- Downloads (Last 6 weeks)2
Reflects downloads up to 17 Dec 2024
Other Metrics
Citations
Cited By
View all- Xia HGrossman TFitzmaurice GLatulipe CHartmann BGrossman T(2015)NanoStylusProceedings of the 28th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software & Technology10.1145/2807442.2807500(447-456)Online publication date: 5-Nov-2015
View Options
Login options
Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.
Sign in