Pekka Parhi Department of Electrical and Information Engineering University of Oulu pekka.parhi@ee.oulu.fi Wireless Cities 2006 Oulu, Finland - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Slide1 l.jpg
Download
1 / 27

DESIGN ASPECTS OF MOBILE USER INTERFACES Pekka Parhi Department of Electrical and Information Engineering University of Oulu pekka.parhi@ee.oulu.fi Wireless Cities 2006 Oulu, Finland Mobile vs. Desktop UI Design

Related searches for Pekka Parhi Department of Electrical and Information Engineering University of Oulu pekka.parhi@ee.oulu.fi Wireless Cities 2006 Oulu, Finland

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.

Download Presentation

Pekka Parhi Department of Electrical and Information Engineering University of Oulu pekka.parhi@ee.oulu.fi Wireless Cities 2006 Oulu, Finland

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.


- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Presentation Transcript


Slide1 l.jpg

DESIGN ASPECTS OFMOBILE USER INTERFACES

Pekka Parhi

Department of Electrical and Information Engineering

University of Oulu

pekka.parhi@ee.oulu.fi

Wireless Cities 2006

Oulu, Finland


Mobile vs desktop ui design l.jpg

Mobile vs. Desktop UI Design

  • Designing UIs for mobile devices is quite different from designing for fixed terminals

  • Different characteristics


Mobile applications l.jpg

Mobile Applications

  • Context of use

    • Dynamic, unpredictable

    • Often crowded and noisy

    • User’s attention divided among several tasks

  • Supported activities

    • Frequent, short-duration, immediate

    • Focused: few specific tasks can be carried out very well


Mobile devices l.jpg

Mobile Devices

  • Physical issues

    • Limited screen space

    • Limited input capabilities

      • Simple interaction

      • Awkward text entry

  • Technical issues

    • Processing power, memory, storage space, battery life

    • Challenges with wireless networking

      • Slow, intermittent connection


Presentation focus l.jpg

Presentation Focus

  • One-handed interaction

  • UI design to support one-handed

    use of mobile devices

  • Target size study for one-handed thumb use on touchscreen devices


Why one handed interaction l.jpg

Why One-Handed Interaction?

  • One hand occupied

  • Attention divided among tasks

  • Unstable environment

  • Two handed use unnatural


Slide7 l.jpg

Interaction on Existing Handhelds

  • Smartphones

  • Input: Hardware Buttons

  • Interaction:Keypad-mapped functions

    Directional navigation

  • PDAs

  • Input: Touch Sensitive DisplayHardware Buttons

  • Interaction:Software targets for

    direct manipulation

    Directional navigation


Suitability for one handed use l.jpg

Suitability for One-Handed Use?

  • Smartphones

  • Touchscreens offer greater flexibility for UI design

  • UIs traditionally designed for pen-based, two-handed interaction

  • Compact form, proper-sized keys

  • Interaction limited to keypad mapped menus and directional navigation

    • Not efficient nor user-friendly

Touchscreen UIs for

one-handed interaction?

  • PDAs


Related work l.jpg

MessagEase

LaunchTile

Apple iPod

Jackito PDA

Related Work

  • Interfaces for One-Handed Use on PDAs

    • AppLens & LaunchTile

      [Karlson 2005]

      • Command-Based Gestures

      • Direct Manipulation Gestures

    • MessagEase[Nesbat 2003]

      • Scalable Keypad for Text Entry

  • Thumb-Based

    Hardware


Related work10 l.jpg

Related Work

  • Thumb-Based Hardware (cont.)

    • Microsoft’s Ultra-Mobile PC (formerly Project Origami)


Related work11 l.jpg

Related Work

  • Thumb-Based Hardware (cont.)

    • Touch key phone

      (NTT DoCoMo & Mitsubishi)


Direct thumb interaction l.jpg

Direct Thumb Interaction

  • Limited Screen Space

    • UI targets should be as small as possible without degrading performance and user satisfaction

  • No previous target size studies for one-handed use on small touchscreen devices

    • Studies exist for desktop-sized displays and

      pen-based interaction on mobile devices

  • Optimal Size for Targets???


Target size study l.jpg

Target Size Study

To develop guidelines for targets that

maximize performance and user preference

during one-handed thumb use on

small touchscreen devices

  • Objective


Two phase study 1 2 l.jpg

Two-Phase Study (1/2)

Phase 1: Discrete Targets

  • Single-target selection tasks

  • Similar to clicking a button or

    selecting a menu option

Phase 2: Serial Targets

  • Multi-target selection tasks

  • Similar to text entry


Two phase study 2 2 l.jpg

Two-Phase Study (2/2)

  • Participants

    • 20 (17 Male, 3 Female)

    • 18 regular cell phone users

    • 6 regular PDA users

    • All right-handed

  • HP iPAQ Pocket PC used

  • Tasks performed standing

  • Total time: 40-45 minutes

    • Including instruction, both phases and questionnaires


Phase 1 discrete targets 1 2 l.jpg

Phase 1: Discrete Targets (1/2)

  • 5 target sizes (3.8, 5.8, 7.7, 9.6, 11.5 mm)

  • 9 locations (screen divided into a 3x3 grid)

  • Each target size tested 5 times per location


Phase 1 discrete targets 2 2 l.jpg

Phase 1: Discrete Targets (2/2)

  • (1) tap green button, (2) tap actual target ‘x’

  • North <> South movement

  • Measures

    • speed, accuracy, hits distribution, user preferences

  • Constant distance between green button and target ‘x’

  • X surrounded by ‘distractors’

  • Lift-off selection strategy

  • Auditory and visual feedback


Phase 2 serial targets l.jpg

Phase 2: Serial Targets

  • 5 target sizes (5.8 – 13.4 mm), 4 locations

  • (1) Tap green, (2) Enter 4-digit code, (3) Tap END

  • Measures

    • speed, accuracy, user preferences


Results discrete targets 1 3 l.jpg

Results: Discrete Targets (1/3)

  • Speed

    • Differences between all sizes

      were statistically significant

  • Error Rate

    • No difference between 9.6

      and 11.5 mm target sizes

    • Significant differences

      between other sizes

  • Location had no effect on either speed or accuracy


Results discrete targets 2 3 l.jpg

Results: Discrete Targets (2/3)

  • Hits Distribution

    • Hit area increased with target size

      • Users trade off speed for tap accuracy

    • Right-leaning trend for targets on the right side

(white boxes = buttons; dark gray boxes = area enclosing 95% of hits per location;

gray dots = successful hits; black dots = erroneous hits)


Results discrete targets 3 3 l.jpg

Results: Discrete Targets (3/3)

  • User Preferences

    • Centerregion was the easiest

    • Objects on the left side and bottom right corner were the hardest

Mean comfort rating for each region

(1-7; 7 = most comfortable)

Mean of the smallest comfortable

target size in the region


Results serial targets 1 2 l.jpg

Results: Serial Targets (1/2)

  • Speed

    • Differences between all sizes

      were statistically significant

  • Error Rate

    • 5.8 mm differed significantly

      from target sizes ≥ 9.6 mm

    • No difference between

      other target sizes

  • Location had no effect on either speed or accuracy


Results serial targets 2 2 l.jpg

Results: Serial Targets (2/2)

  • User Preferences

    • NE region was the most

      comfortable

    • Minor differences


Discussion l.jpg

Discussion

  • Speed continued to improve significantly with even the largest targets in both phases

  • No difference in error rates with target sizes

    ≥ 9.6 mm (discrete) and ≥ 7.7 mm (serial)

  • Error rates were much higher in serial tasks than in discrete tasks (9.6 mm target: 5.0% vs. 2.8%)

  • Limitations of the study

    • One posture used for performing tasks (standing)

    • One touchscreen-equipped mobile device (PDA)


Conclusion l.jpg

Conclusion

  • Target size recommendations for one-handed use of touchscreen-based handhelds

    • ≥ 9.2 mm for single-target pointing tasks

    • ≥ 9.6 mm for multi-target pointing tasks

  • Recommendations based on error rates data along with user preferences

    • As well as hits distribution data for single-target tasks


References l.jpg

References

  • Parhi P, Karlson A, Bederson B (2006)

    Target Size Study for One-Handed Thumb Use

    on Small Touchscreen Devices.

    Proc. MobileHCI ’06, Espoo, Finland, to appear.

  • The presented study was done in UMD during Fall 2005.


Slide27 l.jpg

Thank You!

Questions?


  • Login