Input devices enable users to interact with systems. In two experiments, we assessed whether and how task demands and user age influenced task performance for a direct input device (touch screen) and an indirect input device (rotary encoder). In Experiment 1, 40 younger (18-28 years) and 40 middle-aged to older adults(51--65 years) performed tasks using controls such as sliders, up/down buttons, list boxes, and text boxes while using a system. The optimal input device to facilitate performance was dependent on the task being performed and the age of the user. In Experiment 2, touch screen use was assessed for 20 younger (19--23 years) and 20 older adults (51--70 years). Task demands were manipulated through button size, movement distance, direction, and type of movement. Performance was moderated by the age of the user and by task demands. Actual or potential applications of this research include guidance for the optimal selection of input devices for different user populations and task characteristics.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Charness, N., Holley, P., Feddon, J., & Jastrzembski, T. (2004). Light pen use and practice minimize age and hand performance differences in pointing tasks. Human Factors, 46, 373–384.
2.
Charness, N., Kelley, C. L., Bosman, E. A., & Mottram, M. (2001). Word processing training and retraining: Effects of adult age, experience, and interface. Psychology and Aging, 16, 110–127.
3.
Department of Defense. (1989). MIL-STD-1472D: Human engineering design criteria for military systems, equipment, and facilities. Washington, DC: Author.
4.
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.
5.
Friedlander, N., Schlueter, K., & Mantei, M. (1998). Bullseye? When Fitts' law doesn't fit. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 257-264). New York: Association for Computing Machinery Press/Addison-Wesley.
6.
Fritz, M. (2000). Keys to the kiosk --- The temptations of touchscreens. Emedia, 13, 28–39.
7.
Greenstein, J. S. (1997). Pointing devices. In M. Helander, T. K. Landauer, & P. Prabhu (Eds.), Handbook of human-compute interaction (pp. 1317–1348). New York: Wiley.
8.
Greenstein, J. S., & Arnaut, L. Y. (1987). Human factors aspects of manual computer input devices. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors (pp. 1450–1489). New York: Wiley.
9.
MacKenzie, I. S., & Buxton, W. (1992). Extending Fitts' law to two-dimensional tasks. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 219–226). New York: Association for Computing Machinery Press/Addison-Wesley.
10.
Oldfield, R. C. (1971). The assessment and analysis of handedness: The Edinburgh inventory. Neuropsychologia, 9, 97–113.
11.
Pak, R., McLaughlin, A. C., Lin, C. C., Rogers, W. A., & Fisk, A. D. (2002). An age-related comparison of a touch screen and a novel input device. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 47th Annual Meeting (pp. 189–192). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
12.
Rogers, W. A., Fisk, A. D., McLaughlin, A. C., Pak, R., Lin, C. C., & Whittle, J. (2002). An assessment of input devices for younger and older adults (HFA-TR-0201). Atlanta, GA: Georgia Institute of Technology, School of Psychology, Human Factors and Aging Laboratory.
13.
Rogers, W. A., Hertzog, C., & Fisk, A. D. (2000). Age-related differences in associative learning: An individual differences analysis of ability and strategy influences. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 26, 359–394.
14.
Salthouse, T. A. (1992). Reasoning and spatial abilities. In F. I. M. Craik, & T. A. Salthouse (Eds.), The handbook of aging and cognition (pp. 167–211). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
15.
Shipley, W. (1940). Shipley Institute of Living Scale.Los Angeles: Western Psychological Press.
16.
Smith, M. W., Sharit, J., & Czaja, S. J. (1999). Aging, motor control, and the performance of computer mouse tasks. Human Factors, 41, 389–396.
17.
Vercruyssen, M. (1997). Movement control and speed of behavior. In A. D. Fisk, & W. A. Rogers (Eds.), Handbook of human factors and the older adult (pp. 55–86). New York: Academic Press.
18.
Walker, N., Meyer, D. E., & Smelcer, J. B. (1993). Spatial and temporal characteristics of rapid cursor-positioning movements with electromechanical mice in human-computer interaction. Human Factors, 35, 431–458.
19.
Walker, N., Millians, J., & Worden, A. (1996). Mouse accelerations and performance of older computer users. In Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 40th Annual Meeting (pp. 151–154). Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society.
20.
Walker, N., Philbin, D. A., & Fisk, A. D. (1997). Age-related differences in movement control: Adjusting submovement structure to optimize performance. Journal of Gerontology: Psychological Sciences, 52B, P40-P52.
21.
Wechsler, D. (1997). Wechsler Memory Scale III (3rd ed.). San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corp.
22.
Welford, A. T. (1976). Skilled performance: Perceptual and motor skills.Glenview, IL: Scott, Foreman.
23.
Zacks, R. T., Hasher, L., & Li, K. Z. H. (2000). Human memory. In F. I. M. Craik, & T. A. Salthouse (Eds.), The handbook of aging and cognition (2nd ed., pp. 293–357). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
