Mohit Jain
ABSTRACT
Touchscreen phones tend to require constant visual attention, thus not allowing eyes-free interaction. For users with visual impairment, or when occupied with another task that requires a user's visual attention, these phones can be difficult to use. Recently, marks initiating from the bezel, the physical touch-insensitive frame surrounding a touchscreen display, have been proposed as a method for eyes-free interaction. Due to the physical form factor of the mobile device, it is possible to access different parts of the bezel eyes-free. In this paper, we first studied the performance of different bezel menu layouts. Based on the results, we designed a bezel-based text entry application to gain insights into how bezel menus perform in a real-world application. From a longitudinal study, we found that the participants achieved 9.2 words per minute in situations requiring minimal visual attention to the screen. After only one hour of practice, the participants transitioned from novice to expert users. This shows that bezel menus can be adopted for realistic applications.
- Accot, J. and Zhai, S. More Than Dotting the i's - Foundations for Crossing-based Interfaces. CHI 2002, ACM, 73--80. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Andersen, T. H. and Zhai, S. "Writing with Music": Exploring the Use of Auditory Feedback in Gesture Interfaces. ACM Transactions on Applied Perception 7, 3 (2010), 1--24. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Apple - Accessibility - iPhone - VoiceOver. http://www.apple.com/accessibility/iphone/vision.htmlGoogle Scholar
- PlayBook. http://us.blackberry.com/playbook-tablet/Google Scholar
- Bonner, M. N. et al. No-Look Notes: Accessible Eyes-Free Multi-touch Text Entry. Pervasive 2010, 409--426. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Bragdon, A. et al. Experimental Analysis of Touch-Screen Gesture Designs in Mobile Environments. CHI 2011, ACM, 403--412. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Callahan, J. et al. An Empirical Comparison of Pie vs. Linear Menus. CHI 1988, ACM, 95--100. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Castellucci, S. J. and MacKenzie, I. S. Graffiti vs. Unistrokes: An Empirical Comparison. CHI 2008, ACM, 305--308. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Clarkson, E., Clawson, J., Lyons, K. and Starner, T. An Empirical Study of Typing Rates on mini-QWERTY Keyboards. Ext. Abstracts CHI 2005, ACM, 1288--91. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Concise Oxford Dictionary Letter Frequency: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/page/133Google Scholar
- Froehlich, J., Wobbrock, J. and Kane, S. K. Barrier Pointing: Using Physical Edges to Assist Target Acquisition on Mobile Device Touch Screens. ASSETS 2007, ACM, 19--26. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Goldberg, D. and Richardson, C. Touch-Typing with a Stylus. CHI 1993, ACM, 80--87. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hinckley, K. et al. Pen + Touch = New Tools. UIST 2010, ACM, 27--36. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Isokoski, P. and Linden, T. Effect of Foreign Language on Text Transcription Performance: Finns Writing English. NordiCHI 2004, ACM, 109--112. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kristensson, P. and Zhai, S. SHARK2 : A Large Vocabulary Shorthand Writing System for Pen-based Computers. UIST 2004, ACM, 43--52. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Kurtenbach, G. and Buxton, W. The Limits of Expert Performance Using Hierarchic Marking Menus. INTERCHI 1993, ACM, 482--487. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Least Squares Fitting. http://mathworld.wolfram.com/LeastSquaresFitting.htmlGoogle Scholar
- Li, F. C. Y. et al. Virtual Shelves: Interactions with Orientation Aware Devices. UIST 2009, ACM, 125--128. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lyons, K., et al. Twiddler Typing: One-Handed Chording Text Entry for Mobile Phones. CHI 2004, ACM, 671--678. Google ScholarDigital Library
- MacKenzie, I. S. KSPC (Keystrokes per Character) as a Characteristic of Text Entry Techniques. HCI with Mobile Devices 2002, Springer-Verlag, 195--210. Google ScholarDigital Library
- MacKenzie, I. S. and Soukoreff, R. W. A Character-level Error Analysis Technique for Evaluating Text Entry Methods. NordiCHI 2002, ACM, 243--246. Google ScholarDigital Library
- MacKenzie, I. S. and Soukoreff, R. W. Text Entry for Mobile Computing: Models and Methods, Theory and Practice. HCI 17, (2002), 147--198.Google Scholar
- Mankoff, J. and Abowd, G. D. Cirrin: A Word-level Unistroke Keyboard for Pen Input. UIST 1998, ACM, 213--214. Google ScholarDigital Library
- McGookin, D., Stephen, B. and WeiWei, J. Investigating Touchscreen Accessibility for People with Visual Impairments. NordiCHI 2008, ACM, 298--307. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Oulasvirta, A., Tamminen, S., Roto, V. and Kuorelahti, J. Interaction in 4-second Bursts: the Fragmented Nature of Attentional Resources in Mobile HCI. CHI 2005, ACM, 919--928. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Perlin, K. Quikwriting: Continuous Stylus-based Text Entry. UIST 1998, ACM, 215--216. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Roth, V. and Turner, T. Bezel Swipe: Conflict-Free Scrolling and Multiple Selection on Mobile Touch Screen Devices. CHI 2009, ACM, 1523--1526. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sanchez, J. and Aguayo, F. Mobile Messenger for the Blind. ERCIM 2007, Springer-Verlag, 369--385. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sears, A. et al. When Computers Fade: Pervasive Computing and Situationally-induced Impairments and Disabilities. HCI: Theory and Practice 2003, 1298--1302.Google Scholar
- Soukoreff, R. W. and MacKenzie, I. S. Measuring Errors in Text Entry Tasks: An Application of the Levenshtein String Distance Statistic. Ext. Abstracts of CHI 2001, ACM,319--320. Google ScholarDigital Library
- StreamAnalyzer. http://depts.washington.edu/ewrite/downloads/texteval.zipGoogle Scholar
- T9 The Global Standard for Mobile Text Input. http://www.nuance.com/for-business/by-product/t9/index.htmGoogle Scholar
- Tinwala, H. and Mackenzie, I. S. Eyes-free Text Entry on a Touchscreen Phone. TIC-STH 2009, IEEE, 83--89.Google Scholar
- Venolia, D. and Neiberg, F. T-Cube: A Fast, Self-Disclosing Pen-Based Alphabet. CHI 1994, ACM, 265--270. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wobbrock, J. O., Myers, B. A. and Kembel, J. A. EdgeWrite: A Stylus-based Text Entry Method Designed for High Accuracy and Stability of Motion. UIST 2003, ACM, 61--70. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Wobbrock, J. O., Wilson, A. D. and Li, Y. Gestures Without Libraries, Toolkits or Training: a $1 Recognizer for User Interface Prototypes. UIST 2007, ACM, 159--168. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Yfantidis, G. and Evreinov, G. Adaptive Blind Interaction Technique for Touchscreens. Universal Access in the Information Society 4, 4 (2006), 328--337. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Zhao, S. and Balakrishnan, R. Simple vs. Compound Mark Hierarchical Marking Menus. UIST 2004, ACM, 33--42. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- User learning and performance with bezel menus
Recommendations
Bezel swipe: conflict-free scrolling and multiple selection on mobile touch screen devices
CHI '09: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsZooming user interfaces are increasingly popular on mobile devices with touch screens. Swiping and pinching finger gestures anywhere on the screen manipulate the displayed portion of a page, and taps open objects within the page. This makes navigation ...
No-look flick: single-handed and eyes-free japanese text input system on touch screens of mobile devices
MobileHCI '13: Proceedings of the 15th international conference on Human-computer interaction with mobile devices and servicesWe present a single-handed and eyes-free Japanese kana text input system on touch screens of mobile devices. We first conducted preliminary experiments to investigate the accuracy with which subjects could single-handedly point to and flick without ...
Comparing three novel multimodal touch interfaces for infotainment menus
AutomotiveUI '13: Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular ApplicationsThree novel interfaces for navigating a hierarchical menu while driving were experimentally evaluated. Prototypes utilized redundant visual and auditory feedback (multimodal), and were compared to a conventional direct touch interface. All three ...
Comments