Comparison of Two Methods to Control the Mouse Using a Keypad
This paper presents a user study comparing two methods for keyboard-driven mouse replacement: CKM, an active Conventional Keyboard Mouse, and DualMouse, an innovative keyboard technique allowing stepwise, recursive target acquisition. Both strategies are
- PDF / 1,814,011 Bytes
- 8 Pages / 439.37 x 666.14 pts Page_size
- 92 Downloads / 198 Views
)
1
2
Institute for Mechatronic Systems, Technische Universität Darmstadt, Darmstadt, Germany [email protected] Department of Electrical Engineering and Computer Science, York University, Toronto, Canada [email protected] 3 Math and Computer Science Department, Clark University, Worcester, MA 01610, USA [email protected]
Abstract. This paper presents a user study comparing two methods for keyboard-driven mouse replacement: CKM, an active Conventional Keyboard Mouse, and DualMouse, an innovative keyboard technique allowing stepwise, recursive target acquisition. Both strategies are implemented in the pointing component of OnScreenDualScribe, a comprehensive assistive software system that turns a compact keypad into a universal input device. The study involves eight non-disabled participants and a single user with Friedreich Ataxia. The results reveal that CKM yields about 60 % higher throughput that DualMouse. However, the DualMouse technique is preferable for certain specific tasks. Our intention with this research is to gain new insights into OnScreenDualScribe and to inspire future developers of mouse-replacement interfaces for persons with physical disabilities. Keywords: Assistive technology · Neuro-muscular diseases · Keyboard replacement · Mouse replacement · Fitts’ law · Real-world use
1
Introduction
Computer users with a motor disability often rely on alternative input interfaces, since standard entry devices (e.g., a keyboard and mouse) might be cumbersome, error-prone, inefficient, effortful, or impossible to use. One example for an alternative interface is OSDS (OnScreenDualScribe) [5] which was designed for persons with certain neuro‐ muscular diseases. OSDS receives input from a modified numeric keypad called DualPad (Fig. 1). The main problem with full-size keyboards is the need to frequently reposition the hands between keys [13]. DualPad avoids this, since it is securely grabbed with both hands with every key reached from the same hand position. However, computer inter‐ action also relies on mouse control. Switching between multiple devices would eliminate DualPad’s advantage. Such was the drawback of the initial version of OSDS [3], which only replaced the keyboard. The current version implements three methods to control
© Springer International Publishing Switzerland 2016 K. Miesenberger et al. (Eds.): ICCHP 2016, Part II, LNCS 9759, pp. 511–518, 2016. DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-41267-2_72
512
T. Felzer et al.
Fig. 1. Input device used in the study: (a) key labels (b) in action
the mouse. The methods are implemented internally and do not require an extra pointing device. Two of those methods are compared in this paper.
2
Related Work
The first author is the creator of OnScreenDualScribe and has previously presented details of its development, evaluation, and related work [3, 6]. The authors previously employed an evaluation technique similar that presented in this paper for mouse selec‐ tion modalities with a camera-based interface [10]. The evaluation used Fitts’ law, which is widely
Data Loading...
