Modeling the Orientation of Graphical Objects on Computer Displays Using Indented Mouse Wheels

Abstract

Graphic designers and model builders frequently rotate graphical objects on computer displays to make a drawing or scene. This experiment measured the movement time and error rate for participants to rotate sectors with various angular widths within larger target sectors with various angular tolerances, using a mouse wheel with discrete physical indentations. Tolerances were varied from very precise and difficult (a single mouse wheel position) to very gross and easy. The analysis modeled orienting by dividing the total movement time into three periods in order to determine the separate effects of the object angular width, angular tolerance and amplitude. The results explain that the mouse wheel with physically discrete indentions is particularly adept at precise orienting but slow at rotating the object through large angles.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Bonnet

Dresp

(2001). Reaction time studies of sensory magnitude and perceptual processing. Psychologica, 28, 65-86.

Bonnet

Gurlekian

Harris

(1992). Reaction time and visual area: Searching for the determinants. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 30, 396-398.

Fitts

P.M.

(1954) The Information Capacity of the Human Motor System in Controlling the Amplitude of Movement, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 381-391

Forlines

Wigdor

Shen

Balakrishnan

(2007). Touch vs. mouse input for tabletop displays. Proc CHI 2007, 647-656, New York: ACM.

Keppel

(1991). Design and analysis: A researcher’s handbook. Englewood Cliffs, NJ, Prentice Hall.

Looser

Cockburn

Savage

(2005). On the Validity of Using First-Person Shooters for Fitts’ Law Studies, In the Proceedings People and Computers XIX (Volume 2): British Computer, Society Conference on Human Computer Interaction, Edinburgh, Scotland, 33-36.

MacKenzie

(1995). Movement time predictions in human-computer interfaces. In Readings in Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd Edition, 483-493, Los Altos, CA: Morgan Kaufman.

Osinki

C. J.

Dury

C. G.

(1995). Accurate movement of two-probe components, Ergonomics, 39, 337-346.

Sasangohar

MacKenzie

Scott

(2009). Evaluation of Mouse and Touch Input for a Tabletop Display Using Fitts. Reciprocal Tapping Task, In Proceedings of the Human Factors And Ergonomics Society 53rd Annual Meeting. (pp. 839-843) Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

10.

Schedlbauer

Pastel

Heines

(2006). Effect of Posture on Target Acquisition with a Trackball and Touch Screen. In Proceedings of the 28th Conference Information Technology Interfaces — Iti 2006, Dubrovnik, Croatia, June 2006, 257-262.

11.

Pastel

(2009). Investigating the difficulty of one degree of freedom positioning: Associating movement phases with regions. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 53rd Annual Meeting (pp. 965-969). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.

12.

Pastel

(2011). Positioning Graphical Objects on Computer Screens: A three-Phase Model. Human Factors, vol. 53, No. 1, pp. 22-37.