An experimental evaluation of input devices for pointing work

Muscular load and performance compared between a pen and a computer mouse as input devices

“…In one of the experiments by Schnoz (2006), subjects judged the pen to cause less exertion. In contrast to these results, the mouse attained more positive values than two different types of pen models in the study by Ichikawa et al (1999). An explanation for these contradictory results could lies in the large diversity for both input devices.…”

“…As varying types of pen and mouse models were used in the different studies, the results of the subjective evaluation of the input devices are expected to depend strongly on the different models used for comparison. This theory is supported by Ichikawa et al (1999), where a considerable difference in subjective evaluation can be seen between the two investigated pen models.…”

“…In most former studies that compared mouse and pen, only simple tracking and pointing tasks were performed (Ichikawa et al, 1999;Kotani and Horii, 2003;Künzi et al, 2007). In these studies, the pen outperformed the mouse.…”

“…In many studies on this topic, Fitt's law is used to measure performance (MacKenzie, 1992;Ichikawa et al,1999;Künzi et al, 2007;Wobbrock et al, 2008). With Fitt's law, a performance index is calculated based on demanded precision, distance to target and time to completion needed (MacKenzie, 1992).…”

“…Equally to the aforementioned mouse a pen provides a reduced pronation of hand and forearm (Schnoz, 2006). There are many recent studies available that deal with alternative input devices to the computer mouse (Ichikawa et al, 1999;Kotani and Horii, 2003;Schnoz, 2006;Park et al, 2006;Dang et al, 2009;Hwang et al, 2009). Künzi et al (2007) compared a different pen model, which is basically a pen-shaped mouse with an optical sensor and therefore does not need a tablet for determination of position.…”