Fitts’ paradigm is a classic theory to describe the relationship between movement time, distance and accuracy for rapid aimed movement. Generally speaking, it describes the Speed-Accuracy Tradeoff (SAT) along task condition as well as along users. A controlled factorial experiment is conducted for small touch-sensitive input device to observe SAT relationship within task condition and large number of users. Fitts’ paradigm did not successfully model the SAT relationship, due to ambiguous definition of accuracy index and lack of variables to reflect subject bias. Fitts’ paradigm was adjusted by revising accuracy index appropriate for direct finger input, and by introducing a trajectory variable to keep track of the subject bias. It raised the model fit (R2) from 0.523 to 0.833 for a model of task condition.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AccotJZhaiS. (1997). Beyond Fitts’ law: models for trajectory-based HCI tasks. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (CHI ’97). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 295-302
ChanR. B.ChildressD. S. (1990), On a unifying noise-velocity relationship and information transmission in human-machine systems. Proceedings of the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers Transactions on Systems,Man, and Cybernetics20(5):1125–35.
4.
ConnellyE. M. (1984) A control model: An alternative interpretation of Fitts’ law. Proceedings 28th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society, San Antonio, TX.
5.
CrossmanE.R.F.W., (1960). The information-capacity of the human motor-system in pursuit tracking, Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology12, 1–16
6.
CrossmanE. R. F. W.GoodeveP. J. (1983). Feedback control of hand-movement and Fitts’ law: Communication to the Experimental Society. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 35A, 251-278.
7.
DouglasS.A.KirkpatrickA.E.MacKenzieI.S. (1999). Testing Pointing Device Performance and User Assessment with the ISO 9241, Part 9 standard, Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing—CHI ‘99. ACM, New York, pp. 215–222.
8.
FittsP.M. (1954), The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement, Journal of Experimental Psychology47 (6), 381–391.
9.
FittsP.M.RadfordB.K. (1966), Information capacity of discrete motor responses under different cognitive sets. Journal of Experimental Psychology71, 475–482
10.
ForlinesC.WigdorDanielShenChiaBalakrishnanRavin. (2007), Direct-touch vs. mouse input for tabletop displays. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (CHI ’07). ACM, New York, NY, USA, 647-656
11.
International Organisation for Standardisation, (2002), Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display terminals (VDTs)—Part 9— Requirements for non-keyboard input devices, ISO9241-9
12.
KlappS. T. (1975). Feedback versus motor programming in the control of aimed movements. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Human Perception and Performance, 1, 147-153.
13.
LangolfG. D.ChaffinD. B.FoulkeJ. A. (1976), An investigation of Fitts’ law using a wide range of movement amplitudes. Journal of Motor Behavior, 8, 113-128
14.
LuceR.D. (1986), Response times: Their Role in Inferring Elementary Mental Organization. Oxford University Press, New York
15.
MacKenzieI. S. (1989). A note on the information-theoretic basis for Fitts’ law. Journal of Motor Behavior, 21, 323-330.
16.
MacKenzieI.S.JusohS. (2001), An Evaluation of Two Input Devices for Remote Pointing, Proceedings of the Eighth IFIP Working Conference on Engineering for Human–Computer Interaction—EHCI 2000. Springer, Heidelberg, Germany, pp. 235–249.
17.
MacKenzieI.S.KauppinenT.SilfverbergM. (2001), Accuracy Measures for Evaluating Computer Pointing Devices, Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems—CHI 2001. ACM, New York, pp. 9–16.
18.
MannH. B.WaldA. (1942), On the Choice of the Number of Class Intervals in the Application of the Chi Square Test, The Annals of Mathematical StatisticsVol. 13, No. 3, pp. 306-317
19.
OsmanA.LouLianggangMuller-GethmannHiltrautRinkenauerGerhardMattesStefanUlrichRolf, (2000), Mechanisms of speed–accuracy tradeoff: evidence from covert motor processes, Biological Psychology, Volume 51, Issues 2–3, pp.173-199
20.
PachellaR.G. (1974), The interpretation of reaction time in information processing research. In: KantowitzB. (Ed.), human Information Processing: Tutorials in Performance and Cognition. Halstead Press, New York, pp. 41–82.
21.
ParhiP.KarlsonA. M.BedersonBenjamin B. (2006), Target size study for one-handed thumb use on small touchscreen devices, In Proceedings of the 8th conference on Human-computer interaction with mobile devices and services (MobileHCI ’06), ACM, New York, NY, USA
22.
PlamondonR.AlimiA.M. (1997), Speed/accuracy trade-offs in target-directed movements, Behavioural and Brain Sciences20, 279–349.
23.
RuthruffE., (1996), A test of the deadline model for speed-accuracy tradeoffs. Percept. Psychophys. 58, 56–64.
24.
SandersA.F. (1998), Elements of Human Peformance: Reaction Processes and Attention in Human Skill. Erbaum, Mahwah, NJ.
25.
ShannonC.E.WeaverW. (1949), The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana, IL.
26.
SoukoreffR.W.MacKenzieS. I. (2004), Towards a standard for pointing device evaluation, perspectives on 27 years of Fitts’ law research in HCI, Int. J. Human-Computer Studies, 61, 751–789.
27.
WelfordA.T. (1960), The measurement of sensory-motor performance: survey and reappraisal of twelve years’ progress. Ergonomics3, 189–230.
28.
WelfordA. T. (1968). Fundamentals of skill. London: Methuen.
29.
WelfordA.T.NorrisA.H.ShockN.W. (1969), Speed and accuracy of movement and their changes with age, Attention and performance II, 30, 3– 15.
30.
WickelgrenW.A. (1977), Speed-accuracy tradeoff and information processing dynamics. Acta Psycholog. 41, 67–85.
31.
ZhaiS.KongJ.RenX. (2004), Speed-accuracy tradeoff in Fitts’ law tasks: on the equivalency of actual and nominal pointing precision. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 61, 6, 823-856
