Interacting With Notebook Input Devices: An Analysis of Motor Performance and Users' Expertise

Abstract

In the present study the usability of two different types of notebook input devices was examined. The independent variables were input device (touchpad vs. minijoystick) and user expertise (expert vs. novice state). There were 30 participants, of whom 15 were touchpad experts and the other 15 were mini-joystick experts. The experimental tasks were a point-click task (Experiment 1) and a point-drag-drop task (Experiment 2). Dependent variables were the time and accuracy of cursor control. To assess carryover effects, we had the participants complete both experiments, using not only the input device for which they were experts but also the device for which they were novices. Results showed the touchpad performance to be clearly superior to mini-joystick performance. Overall, experts showed better performance than did novices. The significant interaction of input device and expertise showed that the use of an unknown device is difficult, but only for touchpad experts, who were remarkably slower and less accurate when using a mini-joystick. Actual and potential applications of this research include an evaluation of current notebook input devices. The outcomes allow ergonomic guidelines to be derived for optimized usage and design of the mini-joystick and touchpad devices.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Armbrüster, C. , Sutter, C. , & Ziefle, M. (2004). Target size and distance: Important factors for designing user interfaces for older notebook users. In H. M. Khalid , M. G. Helander , & A. W. Yeo (Eds.), Work with computing systems 2004 (pp. 454–459). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Damai Sciences.

Armbrüster, C., Ziefle, M., & Sutter, C. (2004). Notebook input devices put to an age test: The usability of TrackPoint and touchpad for older adults. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Batra, S. , Dykstra, D. , Hsu, P. , Radle, K. , & Wiedenbeck, S. (1998). Pointing device performance for laptop computers. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting (pp. 535–540). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

Card, S. K. , English, W. K. , & Burr, B.J. (1978). Evaluation of mouse, rate-controlled isometric joystick, step keys and text keys for selection tasks on a CRT. In R. Baecker , & W. Buxton (Eds.), Readings in human-computer interaction (pp. 386–392). San Mateo, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

Douglas, S. A. , Kirkpatrick, A. E. , & MacKenzie, I. S. (1999). Testing pointing device performance and user assessment with the ISO 9241, Part 9 standard. In Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems --- CHI '99 (pp. 215–222). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

Douglas, S. A. , & Mithal, A. K. (1997). The ergonomics of computer pointing devices. New York: Springer.

Fernandez, J. E. , Cihangirli, M. , Hommertzheim, D. L. , & Sabuncuoglu, I. (1988). The effects of input devices on task performance. In F. Aghazadeh (Ed.), Trends in ergonomics/human factors V (pp. 83–89). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

Fitts, P. M. (1954). The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 381–391.

Fitts, P. M. (1964). Perceptual-motor skill learning. In A. W. Melton (Ed.), Categories of human learning (pp. 243–285). New York: Academic.

10.

Hastings, S. , Woods, V. , Haslam, R. A. , & Buckle, P. (2000). Health risks from mice and other non-keyboard input devices. In P. T. McCabe , M. A. Hanson , & S. A. Robertson (Eds.), Contemporary ergonomics 2000 (pp. 312–316). London: Taylor & Francis.

11.

Keir, P. J. , Bach, J. M. , & Rempel, D. (1999). Effects of computer design and task on carpal tunnel pressure. Ergonomics, 42, 1350–1360.

12.

MacKenzie, I. S. (1992). Fitts' law as a research and design tool in human-computer interaction. Human-Computer Interaction, 7, 91–139.

13.

MacKenzie, I. S. , Sellen, A. , & Buxton, W. (1991). A comparison of input devices in elemental pointing and dragging tasks. In Proceedings of the CHI' 91 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 161–166). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.

14.

Phillips, J. G. , & Triggs, T. J. (2000). Cursor control device characteristics. Australian Journal of Information Systems, 7, 115–119.

15.

Pitrella, F. D. , & Holzhausen, K.-P. (1982). Selection and experimental comparison of computer input devices (Report No. 57). Wachtberg, Germany: Forschungsgesellschaft für Angewandte Naturwissenschaften.

16.

Sears, A. , & Shneiderman, B. (1991). High precision touchscreens: Design strategies and comparisons with a mouse. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 593–613.

17.

Sheikh, I. H. , & Hoffmann, E. R. (1994). Effect of target shape on movement time in a Fitts task. Ergonomics, 37, 1533–1547.

18.

Sperling, B. B. , & Tullis, T. S. (1988). Are you a better "mouser" or "trackballer"? A comparison of cursor-positioning performance. SIGCHI Bulletin, 19(3), 77–81.

19.

Sutter, C. , & Ziefle, M. (2003a). Health hazard from input devices: The diagnostics of muscular load and motor performance revisited. In H. Luczak , & K. J. Zink (Eds.), Human factors in organizational design and management (pp. 525–530). Santa Monica, CA: International Ergonomics Association.

20.

Sutter, C. , & Ziefle, M. (2003b). How to handle notebook input devices: An insight in button use strategy. In P. McCabe (Ed.), Contemporary ergonomics 2003 (pp. 241–246). London: Taylor & Francis.

21.

Sutter, C. , & Ziefle, M. (2004a). Accuracy measures of cursor movement path validated on notebook input devices. In H. M. Khalid , M. G. Helander , & A. W. Yeo (Eds.), Work with computing systems 2004 (pp. 523–528). Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia: Damai Sciences.

22.

Sutter, C. , & Ziefle, M. (2004b). Psychomotor efficiency in users of notebook input devices: Confirmation and restrictions of Fitts law as an evaluative tool for user-friendly design. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 48th Annual Meeting (pp. 773–777). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

23.

Tränkle, U. , & Deutschmann, D. (1991). Factors influencing speed and precision of cursor positioning using a mouse. Ergonomics, 34, 161–174.

24.

Ziefle, M. (2003). Is the trackball a serious alternative to the mouse? A comparison of trackball and mouse with regard to cursor movement performance in manipulation tasks. In D. Harris , V. Duffy , M. Smith , & C. Stephanidis (Eds.), Humancentred computing: Cognitive, social and ergonomic aspects (pp. 158–162). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.