Haptic feedback for pen computing

Poupyrev, Ivan; Okabe, Masaru; Maruyama, Shigeaki

doi:10.1145/985921.986051

Cited by 65 publications

(59 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They hypothesized that tactile feedback would improve standard Fitt's-style tapping tasks; however, their results showed no significant difference in selection times between trials with and without tactile feedback. Two important differences exist between the experiment described by Poupyrev et al [15] and those described in this paper. First, it is important to note that Poupyrev et al's experiment was performed on a direct input device, and so it is not clear if their results would transfer to an indirect input device.…”

Section: Stylus With Tactile Feedbackcontrasting

confidence: 56%

“…Several terms are used interchangeably by researchers investigating tactile and force-feedback for enhancing interfaces [2,3,[12][13][14][15], so we must define our terminology. We use the term tactile feedback to mean that the system is indicating state to the user through the sense of touch, and force feedback when the system is providing physical resistance to the user in response to the user's movements.…”

Section: Tactile Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Poupyrev et al [15] described a study in which participants used an actuated-display-glass system [14] to perform pointing selection in a direct input configuration. They hypothesized that tactile feedback would improve standard Fitt's-style tapping tasks; however, their results showed no significant difference in selection times between trials with and without tactile feedback.…”

Section: Stylus With Tactile Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Evaluating tactile feedback and direct vs. indirect stylus input in pointing and crossing selection tasks

Forlines

Balakrishnan

2008

Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We present a pair of experiments that explore the effects of tactile-feedback and direct vs. indirect pen input on pointing and crossing selection tasks. While previous work has demonstrated the validity of crossing as a useful selection mechanism for pen-based computing, those experiments were conducted using an indirect input device -one in which the pen-input and display were separated. We investigate users' performance with pointing and crossing interfaces controlled via not only an indirect input device, but also a direct input device -one in which the pen-input and display are co-located. Results show that direct input significantly outperforms indirect input for crossing selection, but the two modalities are essentially equivalent in pointing selection. A small amount of tactile feedback is shown to be beneficial for both pointing and crossing selection, most noticeably in crossing tasks when using direct input where visual feedback is often occluded by a hand or stylus.

show abstract

Section: Stylus With Tactile Feedbackcontrasting

confidence: 56%

Section: Tactile Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Stylus With Tactile Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating tactile feedback and direct vs. indirect stylus input in pointing and crossing selection tasks

Forlines

Balakrishnan

2008

Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Several previous systems have explored how haptic feedback may improve humancomputer interaction, including Ambient Touch [24] and Haptic Touch screen [25]. In addition, previous work on a haptified GUI [21,26] has used tactile channels to provide ambiguity warnings and to improve gesture accuracy.…”

Section: Haptic Feedbackmentioning

confidence: 99%

Pen-top feedback for paper-based interfaces

Liao

Guimbretière

Löckenhoff³

2006

Proceedings of the 19th Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Current paper-based interfaces such as PapierCraft, provide very little feedback and this limits the scope of possible interactions. So far, there has been little systematic exploration of the structure, constraints, and contingencies of feedback-mechanisms in paper-based interaction systems for paper-only environments. We identify three levels of feedback: discovery feedback (e.g., to aid with menu learning), status-indication feedback (e.g., for error detection), and task feedback (e.g., to aid in a search task). Using three modalities (visual, tactile, and auditory) which can be easily implemented on a pen-sized computer, we introduce a conceptual matrix to guide systematic research on pen-top feedback for paper-based interfaces. Using this matrix, we implemented a multimodal pen prototype demonstrating the potential of our approach. We conducted an experiment that confirmed the efficacy of our design in helping users discover a new interface and identify and correct their errors.

show abstract

“…Consequently, research into pen-based interaction has intensified in recent years [5], [8], [9], [13], [19], [24], etc.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A Comparison of Pressure and Tilt Input Techniques for Cursor Control

Zhou

Ren

2009

IEICE Trans. Inf. & Syst.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

SUMMARYThree experiments were conducted in this study to investigate the human ability to control pen pressure and pen tilt input, by coupling this control with cursor position, angle and scale. Comparisons between pen pressure input and pen tilt input have been made in the three experiments. Experimental results show that decreasing pressure input resulted in very poor performance and was not a good input technique for any of the three experiments. In "Experiment 1-Coupling to Cursor Position", the tilt input technique performed relatively better than the increasing pressure input technique in terms of time, even though the tilt technique had a slightly higher error rate. In "Experiment 2-Coupling to Cursor Angle", the tilt input performed a little better than the increasing pressure input in terms of time, but the gap between them is not so apparent as Experiment 1. In "Experiment 3-Coupling to Cursor Scale", tilt input performed a little better than increasing pressure input in terms of adjustment time. Based on the results of our experiments, we have inferred several design implications and guidelines. key words: pressure input, tilt input, target selection tasks, pen-based interfaces

show abstract

Haptic feedback for pen computing

Cited by 65 publications

References 10 publications

Evaluating tactile feedback and direct vs. indirect stylus input in pointing and crossing selection tasks

Evaluating tactile feedback and direct vs. indirect stylus input in pointing and crossing selection tasks

Pen-top feedback for paper-based interfaces

A Comparison of Pressure and Tilt Input Techniques for Cursor Control

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About