Interaction Styles in Context: Comparing Drag-and-Drop, Point-and-Touch, and Touch in a Mobile Spelling Game

Abstract

The choice of appropriate interaction style for children's application has been a divisive subject of debate. For example, drag-and-drop is often said to perform worse than point-and-click in educational applications -and vice versa. In this paper, we argue for the need to choose the interaction style in context, considering a range of factors. We compare drag-and-drop, pointand-touch, and simple touch for selecting letters to form words in a spelling line as part of an educational spelling game. We evaluate the perceived workload, user experience, preference, and writing times of twenty-five children (8-11 years), eight of whom were dyslexic. We found that touch received better ratings and was ranked highest most often on all subscales compared to drag-and-drop and point-and-touch. Children needed less time using touch and 68% chose it as their favorite interaction style. We also found small advantages for drag-and-drop over pointand-touch, which runs counter to some recent recommendations. This becomes particularly clear when using ranking responses, which support a particularly fine-grained picture.

The State of Web Accessibility for People with Cognitive Disabilities: A Rapid Evidence Assessment

“…Furthermore, the majority of the studies that included a specific group of people with cognitive disabilities explored web accessibility issues for people with dyslexia [ 49 , 50 , 51 , 52 , 53 , 54 , 55 , 56 , 57 ]. Not surprisingly, these studies all explored elements of text-based webpages or web applications and highlighted a need for more graphical and/or visual presentation of online information.…”

“…Of the 45 studies reviewed, 31 directly investigated websites, web applications, or web-based tools that support web accessibility for PwCDs. Many studies, 14 to be exact, either developed novel tools through the study or explored the use of novel tools created by the authors [ 31 , 38 , 40 , 41 , 47 , 50 , 51 , 58 , 60 , 62 , 63 , 64 , 65 , 66 ]. Additionally, 17 studies [ 30 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36 , 42 , 45 , 49 , 53 , 55 , 56 , 57 , 62 , 67 , 68 , 69 ] investigated the potential for existing apps or web-based tools to support web accessibility for PwCDs.…”

Grundlagen der sprachlichen Bildung

“…Digitale Werkzeuge mit direkten Interaktionsschnittstellen für Lernende stellen auch an diese gewisse Anforderungen, insbesondere die Schnittstelle zwischen Nutzer:innen und System. So kann die Nutzung von computerbasierten Systemen für jüngere Lernende eine Herausforderung darstellen, deren motorische Fähigkeiten noch nicht vollständig entwickelt sind (Holz & Meurers, 2021). Zudem wurde wiederholt darauf hingewiesen, dass viele Schüler:innen Defizite beim Schreiben mit einer Tastatur haben (Frahm & Blatt, 2015;Jung, Möller, Klein & Heller, 2021), was die Nutzung digitaler Werkzeuge beeinträchtigt.…”

Ceramic Shape Design Based on Intelligent Space Simulation Technology

“…Then, after a simple interactive operation in the software, the drag-and-drop model can be simulated according to the user's imagination. In the useroriented interactive simulation interface, the focus should be placed on the realization of the interface and the experience of human-computer interaction [30][31][32]. Therefore, as shown in Figure 5, in the process of designing and developing the simulation interactive interface, the part displayed to the user should be enhanced, and the implementation of specific functions related to simulation should be placed in the simulator.…”