This study proposed two cursor capturing functions in mouse operation. One is to move the cursor over a target instantaneously (jumping function) when the cursor reaches around the target, and the other is to move the cursor over the target gradually (gravity function). The effects of cursor capturing functions were examined and compared with the normal condition (i.e., without the functions). Task completion times, number of errors, and subjective preferences were evaluated. The results showed that the gravity function had faster movement times and fewer errors than the normal condition. The gravity function was more preferred than the jumping and the normal condition.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AkamatsuM. (1996). Movement characteristics using a mouse with tactile and force feedback. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies.45, 483–493.
2.
AkamatsuM.MacKenzieI. S. (2002). Changes in applied force to a touchpad during pointing tasks. International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics, 29, 171–182.
3.
BohanM.ChaparroA.ScarlettD. (1998). The effects of selection technique on target acquisition movements made with a mouse, Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting. Chicago, IL: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 473–475.
4.
CardS. K.EnglishW. K.BurrB. J. (1978). Evaluation of mouse, rate-controlled isometric joysticks, step keys, and text keys for text selection on a CRT. Ergonomics, 21, 601–613.
5.
CrossmanE.GoodeveP. (1983). Feedback control of hand movements and Fitts' law. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology.35A, 251–278.
6.
EppsB. W. (1986). Comparison of six cursor control devices based on Fitt's law models. Proceedings of the 30th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society. Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society, 327–331.
7.
JohnsonP.DropkinJ.HewsJ.RempelD. (1993). Office Ergonomics: Motion Analysis of Computer Mouse Usage. Proceedings of the American Industrial Hygiene Conference and Exposition, Fairfax, VA: AIHA.
8.
KeeleS. (1968). Movement control in skilled motor performance. Psychological Bulletin, 70, 387–403.
9.
KeysonD. V. (1997). Dynamic cursor gain and tactual feedback in the capture of cursor movements. Ergonomics.40(12), 1287–1298.
10.
LoricchioD. F. (1992). Comparison of three pointing devices: Mouse, cursor keys, and a keyboard-integrated pushbutton, Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting. Atlanta. GA: Human Factors Society, 303–305.
11.
MacKenzieI. S.SellenA.BuxtonW. (1991). A comparison of input devices in elemental pointing and dragging tasks. Proceedings of CHI '91. Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. Reading, England: Addison-Wesley, 161–166.
12.
MurataA. (1991). An experimental evaluation of mouse, joystick, joycard, lightpen, trackball and touchscreen for pointing: Basic study on human interface design. Proceedings of the 4th international Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. Amsterdam: Elsevier, 123–127.
13.
MurataA. (1998). Improvement of pointing time by predicting targets in pointing with a PC mouse. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction.10(1), 23–32.
14.
WalkerN.MeyerD. E.SmelcerJ. B. (1993). Spatial and temporal characteristics of rapid cursor-positioning movements with electromechanical mice in human-computer interaction, Human Factors.35(3), 431–458.
15.
WordenA.WalkerN.BharatK.HudsonS. (1997). Making computers easier for older adults to use: Area cursors and sticky icons. Proceedings of CHI'97. Atlanta, GA: ACM, 22–27.
