S t a t u s o f t h i s d o c u m e n tThis document has been reviewed by W3C Members and other interested parties and has been endorsed by the Director as a W3C Recommendation. It is a stable document and may be used as reference material or cited as a normative reference from another documents. W3C's role in making the Recommendation is to draw attention to the specification and to promote its widespread deployment. This enhances the functionality and universality of the Web. The English version of this specification is the only normative version. However, for translations in other languages see http://www.w3.org/WAI/GL/WAI-WEBCONTENT-TRANSLATIONS.

The discrete movement task employed in this study consisted of moving a cursor from the center of a computer display screen to circular targets located 24.4 and 110.9 mm in eight radial directions. The target diameters were 2.7, 8.1, and 24.2 mm. Performance measures included movement time, cursor path distance, and root-mean-square cursor deviation. Ten subjects with no movement disabilities were studied using a conventional mouse and a lightweight ultrasonic head-controlled computer input pointing device. Average movement time was 306 ms greater (63%) for the head-controlled pointer than for the mouse. The effect of direction on movement time for the mouse was relatively small compared with the head-controlled pointer, which was lowest at 90 and 270 deg, corresponding to head extension and head flexion, respectively. Average path distance and root mean square displacement was lowest at off-diagonal directions (0, 90, 180, and 270 deg). This methodology was also shown to be useful for evaluating performance using an alternative head-controlled input device for two subjects having cerebral palsy, and measured subtle performance improvements after providing a disabled subject with lateral torso support.

There are a number of interrelating factors that must be considered and weighed against each other when deciding which features or capabilities should be added to a product to increase its flexibility and usability by a wider range of users. Not all strategies or approaches are created equal, and designers have limited resources in developing and improving products. It is, therefore, important that the different dimensions of usability be understood and that priorities be applied appropriately. This paper attempts to delineate some of the key dimensions of usability and to begin the process of providing a rationale for prioritization between possible changes to a product's interface. The paper discusses a multidimensional prioritization approach that is coupled to a vector-based usability evaluation procedure currently being developed.

No abstract

It is not well understood how people perceive the difficulty of performing brain-computer interface (BCI) tasks, which specific aspects of mental workload contribute the most, and whether there is a difference in perceived workload between participants who are able-bodied and disabled. This study evaluated mental workload using the NASA Task Load Index (TLX), a multi-dimensional rating procedure with six subscales: Mental Demands, Physical Demands, Temporal Demands, Performance, Effort, and Frustration. Able-bodied and motor disabled participants completed the survey after performing EEG-based BCI Fitts’ law target acquisition and phrase spelling tasks. The NASA-TLX scores were similar for able-bodied and disabled participants. For example, overall workload scores (range 0 – 100) for 1D horizontal tasks were 48.5 (SD = 17.7) and 46.6 (SD 10.3), respectively. The TLX can be used to inform the design of BCIs that will have greater usability by evaluating subjective workload between BCI tasks, participant groups, and control modalities.

The purpose of this study was to use a Fitts' task to (1) determine how control-display gain influences performance using a head-controlled computer input device; (2) compare relative sensitivity to gain and optimal gain between head control and hand/arm control; and (3) investigate control-display gain interactions with other task factors including target width, movement amplitude and direction. The task was a discrete target acquisition task using circular targets of 2.9 mm, 8.1 mm, and 23.5 mm, movement amplitudes of 24.3 mm and 61.7 mm, and eight radial directions including 0 degrees, 45 degrees, 90 degrees, 135 degrees, 180 degrees, 225 degrees, 270 degrees, and 315 degrees. Each device was operated at four gain levels. Ten subjects participated. The results indicated that gain had a significant effect on movement time for both types of pointing devices and exhibited local minimums. Discrete target acquisition at all gains was aptly described using Fitts' Law for both input devices. The mouse gain resulting in minimum movement time and RMS cursor deviation was between 1.0 and 2.0. The minimum movement time and RMS cursor deviation for the head-controlled pointer occurred at a gain between 0.3 and 0.6. Average movement time at the optimal head-controlled pointer gain had a slope of 169 ms/bit and was more than 76% greater than at the optimal mouse gain with a slope of 135 ms/bit. In addition, average RMS displacement was more than 27% greater for the head-controlled pointer at its optimal gain setting than for the mouse. Gain had the greatest effect for small target widths and long movement amplitudes using the head-controlled pointer. Average movement time increased 37% when increasing the head-controlled pointer gain from 0.6 to 1.2 for the small target width, but only increased 0.3% when increasing gain for the large target width. Average movement time also increased 12% when decreasing the head-controlled pointer gain from 0.3 to 0.15 for the long movement amplitude, but decreased 0.3% when decreasing gain for the short movement amplitude.

By focusing on users' abilities rather than disabilities, designers can create interactive systems better matched to those abilities.

No abstract