The rapid growth of graphical user interfaces on personal computers has led to the mouse input device playing a prominent and central role in the control of computer applications. As their use increases, mouse design and comfort issues are becoming more and more critical. This report describes the ergonomic design criteria and resulting product attributes of a commercially successful mouse computer input device. Although well-founded ergonomic principles were incorporated into the design criteria, very little ergonomic research has been published on the design of mice. There is a need for additional research on the ergonomics computer mouse input devices.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
ArmstrongT. J.BuckleP.FineL.HagbergM.JonsonB.KilbomA.KuorinkaLSilversteinB.SjogaardG.Viikari-JunturaE. (1993). A conceptual model for work-related neck and upper-limb musculoskeletal disorders. Scandinavian Journal of Work Environmental Health, 19, 73–84
BullingerH.KernP.MuntzingerW.F. (1987). Design of Controls. In SalvendyG. (ed.) Handbook of Human Factors (pp. 577–601). New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons
4.
EppsB. (1986). A Comparison of Cursor Control Devices on Target Acquisition, Text Editing, and Graphics Tasks. Doctoral Dissertation, Blacksburg, VA: Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University. (Available from UMI Dissertation Services, 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106)
5.
FisherR.AndresR.AirthD.SmithS. (1993). Repetitive Motion Disorders: The Design of Optimal Rate-Rest Profiles. Human Factors, 35 (2), 283–304
6.
GrienerT.M. (1991). Hand Anthropometry of U.S. Army Personnel (Tech. Report NATICK/TR-92/011, ADA 244 533). Natick: U.S. Army Natick Research, Development and Engineering Center. (Available from National Technical Information Service, 5285 Port Royal Road, Springfield, VA 22161)
7.
HenningR.A.OrtegaA.M.CallghanE.A.KisselG.V. (1994). Self Management of Rest Breaks by VDT Users. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 38th Annual Meeting (pp. 754–758). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society
8.
HillberryB.M. (1994). Dynamic Effects of Work on Musculoskeletal Loading. Workshop on Repetitive Motion Disorder of the Upper Extremity. In Workshop on Repetitive Motion Disorder of the Upper Extremity (pp. 21–22). Bethesda, MD: National Institute of Health
9.
HillG.W.GunnW.A.MartinS.L.SchwartzD.R. (1991). Perceived Difficulty And User Control In Mouse Usage. In Proceedings of Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting (pp. 295–299). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society
10.
JohnsonP. W.SmutzW. P.TalR.RempelD. M. (1994). Fingertip forces measured during computer mouse operation: a comparison of pointing and dragging. In Proceedings of the 12th Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association Vol. 2 (pp. 208–210). Toronto, Canada: International Ergonomics Association
11.
KroemerK.KroemerH.Kroemer-ElbertK. (1994). Ergonomics: How to Design for Ease and Efficiency (pp. 383–397). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall
12.
LittlerJ.W. (1973). On the adaptability of the man's hand (with reference to the equiangular curve). The Hand, 5 (3). 187–191
13.
MarkisonR.E. (1990). Treatment of Musical Hands: Redesign of the Interface. Hand Clinics, 6 (3), 525–544
14.
PriceL.A.CordovaC.A. (1983). Use of Mouse Buttons. In CHI'83 Proceedings (pp. 262–266). New York, NY: Association for Computing Machinery
15.
Putz-AndersonV. (1988). Cumulative trauma disorders: A manual for musculoskeletal diseases of the upper limbs.Philadelphia, PA: Taylor and Francis
16.
RutterB.G. (1987). Towards an Ecological Model of Prehension. Doctoral Dissertation, Urbana, IL: University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. (Available from UMI Dissertation Services, 300 N. Zeeb Road, Ann Arbor, MI 48106)
17.
AbernethyC.N.HodesD.G. (1987). Economically determined pointing device (mouse) design. Behavior and Information Technology, 6 (3). 311–314
18.
AdamsE.KanekoS.RutterB. (1993). Making Sure it is Right: Three Phases of Ergonomic Research in the Design of a Pointing Device. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 37th Annual Meeting (pp. 443–447). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
19.
AkamatsuM.MacKenzieI.S.HasbroucqT. (1995). A Comparison of tactile, auditory, and visual feedback in a pointing task using a mouse-type device. Ergonomics, 38 (4). 816–827
20.
HodesD.AkagiK. (1986). Study, Development and Design of a Mouse. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 30th Annual Meeting (pp. 900–904). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society
21.
LewisJ.R.AlfonsoP. (1989). Developing the IBM Personal Systems/2 Mouse: An Industrial Design/Human Factors Collaboration. In Proceedings of Interface 89 (pp. 263–267)
22.
NolanP.R. (1988). The Design of a Squishy Mouse. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting (pp. 425–429). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society
23.
OhnoK.FukayaK.NievergeltJ. (1985). A Five-Key Mouse with Built-in Dialog Control. SIGCHI, 17 (1), 29–33. New York, NY: Association for Computer Machinery
24.
VerplankB.OliverK. (1989). Microsoft Mouse: Testing for Redesign. In Proceeding of Interface 89 (pp. 257–261).
