Mouse, Tactile, and Tangible Input for 3D Manipulation

Abstract

We evaluate the performance and usability of mouse-based, touchbased, and tangible interaction for manipulating objects in a 3D virtual environment. This comparison is a step toward a better understanding of the limitations and benefits of these existing interaction techniques, with the ultimate goal of facilitating the integration of different 3D data exploration environments into a single interaction continuum. For this purpose we analyze participants' performance in 3D manipulation using a docking task. We measured completion times, docking precision, as well as subjective criteria such as fatigue, workload, and preference. Our results show that the three input modalities provide similar levels of precision but require different interaction times. We also discuss our qualitative observations as well as people's preferences and put our findings into context of the practical application domain of 3D data analysis environments.

Hybrid Tactile/Tangible Interaction for 3D Data Exploration

“…From the respective challenges and benefits of both input modalities and results from a previous study [5], it appears that the touch and tangible modalities are complementary paradigms and can be combined. Past work that combines tactile and tangible input in a single system is largely found in tangible additions to tabletop displays where props are tracked using fiducial markers.…”

“…In particular, finger fatigue [5], fat finger, and a higher sensitivity to noise in the input data [5,73] are issues that one has to account for when selecting or designing a tactile interaction technique. It is also worth noticing that, although pinching is used and perceived as a natural gesture for zooming, the gesture cannot at the same time provide z-translations [22,23].…”

“…There is also evidence that it requires very little mental effort to use [5]. It has been reported to be preferred by users when compared with other interaction means [5,89], even though it is still unclear whether this reported preference was obtained because of a novelty effect [5].…”

“…It has been reported to be preferred by users when compared with other interaction means [5,89], even though it is still unclear whether this reported preference was obtained because of a novelty effect [5]. Tangible interaction can be a source of fatigue and exit-errors [5] and users have reported feeling that it was less reliable than mouse or touch inputs [5,89]. Furthermore, 3D data space navigation requires zooming which is something that a tangible handle does not naturally provide.…”

Interactive Exploration of Three-Dimensional Scientific Visualizations on Large Display Surfaces

“…To arrive at such a continuum, we have to continue the work on better understanding the suitability of different input paradigms for different data exploration tasks to be able to use tactile, tangible, haptic, traditional, or other sensing as it works best (e. g., [9,48,49]). The future continuum can then also include data exploration environments that effectively integrate tactile, surface-based interaction with other visual or interaction paradigms such as stereoscopic views (e. g., [15,16,21,22,60]) or tangible input (e. g., [71,74]).…”