A horizontal, table-sized computer display was used to examine one- and two-finger search performances. 31 college students participated in a basic computer operation and target landmark search task. The mean completion times of the target landmark search task were analyzed by a repeated-measures analysis of variance with the following factors: input device, environmental familiarity, and cue. Compared to the mouse, directly touching the computer display with one finger was inefficient when the task required more precise human-computer interactions, such as selecting small objects, or complicated tasks such as searching for targets in a computerized geographic application. However, directly touching the computer display with two fingers, one finger of each hand, appears efficient in complicated tasks. Additionally, familiar and cued environments can aid in the target landmark search task especially when searching within the cued conditions. However, the unfavorable effect of using a one-finger touch technique in searching may eliminate such cue effects.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AccotJ.ZhaiS. (1997) Beyond Fitts' Law: Models for trajectory-based HCI tasks. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Atlanta, Georgia. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Pp. 295–302.
2.
AllenbyA.MatthewsJ.BeresfordJ.McLachlanS. (2002) The application of computer touch-screen technology in screening for psychosocial distress in an ambulatory oncology setting. European Journal of Cancer Care, 11, 245–253.
3.
BalakrishnanR.HinckleyK. (1999) The role of kinesthetic reference frames in two-handed input performance. In Proceedings of the 12th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Asheville, North Carolina. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Pp. 171–178.
4.
CardS. K.EnglishW. K.BurrB. J. (1978) Evaluation of mouse, rate-controlled isometric joystick, step keys and text keys for text selection on a CRT. Ergonomics, 21, 601–613.
5.
CohenO.MeyerS.NilsenE. (1993) Studying the movement of high tech rodentia: Pointing and dragging. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Pp. 135–136.
6.
CornellE. H.SorensonA.MioT. (2003) Human sense of direction and wayfinding. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 93, 399–425.
7.
DietzP.LeighD. (2001) Diamondtouch: A multi-user touch technology. In Proceedings of the 14th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST '01). New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Pp. 219–226.
8.
FolkC. L.RemingtonR. W.JohnstonJ. C. (1992) Involuntary covert orienting is contingent on attentional control setting. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 18, 1030–1044.
9.
ForlinesC.WigdorD.ShenC.BalakrishnanR. (2007) Direct-touch vs. mouse input for tabletop displays. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, California. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Pp. 647–656.
10.
HanJ. Y. (2005) Low-cost multi-touch sensing through frustrated total internal reflection. In Proceedings of the 18th Annual ACM symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, Seattle, Washington. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Pp. 115–118.
11.
KaratJ.McDonaldJ. E.AndersonM. (1986) A comparison of menu selection techniques: Touch panel, mouse, and keyboard. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 25, 73–88.
12.
KeleneF.DougP. (2009) The effects of geographic familiarity and map complexity on mental rotation. In Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings. Vol. 53. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society. Pp. 51–55.
13.
LeganchukA.ZhaiS.BuxtonW. (1998) Manual and cognitive benefits of two-handed input: An experimental study. Transactions on Human–Computer Interaction, 5, 326–359.
14.
LeonardJ. A. (1958) Partial advance information in a choice reaction task. British Journal of Psychology, 49, 89–96.
15.
MeyerS.CohenO.NilsenE. (1994) Device comparisons for goal-directed drawing tasks. In Conference Companion on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston, Massachusetts. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Pp. 251–252.
16.
OnoF.JiangY.KawaharaJ. (2005) Intertriai temporal contextual cuing: Association across successive visual search trials guides spatial attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 31, 703–712.
17.
OwenR.KurtenbachG.FitzmauriceG.BaudelT.BuxtonB. (2005) When it gets more difficult, use both hands: Exploring bimanual curve manipulation. In Proceedings of Graphics Interface 2005, Victoria, British Columbia. Waterloo, Ontario, Canada: Canadian Human–Computer Communications Society. Pp. 17–24.
18.
PomplunM.ReingoldE. M.ShenJ. (2001) Investigating the visual span in comparative search: The effects of task difficulty and divided attention. Cognition, 81, B57–B67.
19.
PosnerM. I. (1980) Orienting of attention. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 32, 3–25.
20.
PrestopnikJ. L.Roskos-EwoldsenB. (2000) The relations among wayfinding strategy use, sense of direction, sex, familiarity, and wayfinding ability. Journal of Environmental Psychology, 20, 177–191.
21.
RecarteM. A.NunesL. M. (2003) Mental workload while driving: Effects on visual search, discrimination, and decision making. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9, 119–137.
22.
SearsA.ShneidermanB. (1991) High precision touchscreens: Design strategies and comparisons with a mouse. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 34, 593–613.
23.
SheligaB. M.RiggioL.RizzolattiG. (1994) Orienting of attention and eye movements. Experimental Brain Research, 98, 507–522.
24.
SherwoodD. E. (2009) Spatial error detection in rapid unimanual and bimanual aiming movements. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 108, 3–14.
StevisonB. K.BiggsP. T.AbramsonC. I. (2010) Google Earth as a source of ancillary material in a history of psychology class. Psychological Reports, 106, 665–670.
27.
TreismanA. M.GeladeG. (1980) A feature-integration theory of attention. Cognitive Psychology, 12, 97–136.
28.
VelikovaG.WrightE. P.SmithA. B.CullA.GouldA.FormanD.PerrenT.SteadM.BrownJ.SelbyP. J. (1999) Automated collection of quality-of-life data: A comparison of paper and computer touch-screen questionnaires. Journal of Clinical Oncology, 17, 998.
