DOCSLIB.ORG

DRAFT: Human Factors Criteria for the Design and Acquisition of Non

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
DRAFT: Human Factors Criteria for the Design and Acquisition of Non Non-keyboard Interaction Devices Draft for review and comment Human Factors Criteria for the Design and Acquisition of Non-keyboard Interaction Devices: A Revision to Chapter 9 of the Human Factors Design Standard Vicki Ahlstrom, Human Factors Team-Atlantic City Bonnie Kudrick, Titan Corporation June 2004 Draft Final Report and Standard DOT/FAA/CTxx/xx This document is available to the public through the National Technical Information Service, Springfield, Virginia 22161 US Department Sponsored by of Transportation The Human Factors Group Federal Aviation Administration Washington, DC 20591 Non-keyboard Interaction Devices Draft for review and comment NOTICE This document is disseminated under the sponsorship of the U.S. Department of Transportation in the interest of information exchange. The United States Government assumes no liability for the contents or use thereof. The United States Government does not endorse products or manufacturers. Trade or manufacturer's names appear herein solely because they are considered essential to the objective of this report. This document does not constitute FAA certification policy. This report is available in Adobe Acrobat portable document format (.pdf) at the Federal Aviation Administration William J. Hughes Technical Center’s full-text technical reports web site: http://actlibrary.tc.faa.gov and at the Human Factors Team website: http://hf.tc.faa.gov/. Non-keyboard interaction devices Draft for review and comment Non-keyboard interaction devices Draft for review and comment Technical Report Documentation Page 1. Report No. 2. Government Accession No. 3. Recipient’s Catalog No. DOT/FAA/CTxx/xx 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date June 2004 Human Factors Criteria for the Design and Acquisition of Non-keyboard Interaction Devices: A Revision to Chapter 9 of the Human Factors Design Standard 6. Performing Organization Code AJP-6110 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Report No. Vicki Ahlstrom & Bonnie Kudrick DOT/FAA/CTXX/XX 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Work Unit No. (TRAIS) Human Factors Team-Atlantic City Federal Aviation Administration 11. Contract or Grant No. William J. Hughes Technical Center Atlantic City International Airport, NJ 08405 12. Sponsoring Agency Name and Address 13. Type of Report and Period Covered Federal Aviation Administration Final Report Human Factors Research and Engineering Group 800 Independence Ave., S.W. 14. Sponsoring Agency Code ATO-P Washington, DC 20591 15. Supplementary Notes 16. Abstract This document contains updates and expands the design criteria and scope of non-keyboard interaction devices from the Human Factors Design Standard. A research team of human factors experts evaluated the existing guidelines for relevance, clarity, and usability. They drafted new guidelines as necessary based on relevant sources and they reorganized the document to increase usability. This resulted in extensive changes to the original document, including the addition of new guidelines, sources, and topic areas. This report contains a brief introduction along with the modified guidelines. 17. Key Words 18. Distribution Statement Guidelines This document is available to the public through Human factors the National Technical Information Service, Joystick Springfield, Virginia, 22161 Mouse Non-keyboard Interaction Devices Pointing devices Standard 19. Security Classif. (of this report) 20. Security Classif. (of this page) 21. No. of Pages 22. Price Unclassified Unclassified 80 Form DOT F 1700.7 (8-72) Reproduction of completed page authorized Non-keyboard interaction devices Draft for review and comment Acknowledgements The authors would like to thank the following people for giving their time and lending their expertise by reviewing this document: Chris Baber, PhD at the University of Birmingham, Birmingham, England, Alex Chaparro, PhD at Wichita State University, Wichita, Kansas and I. Scott Mackenzie, PhD at York University, Toronto, Canada. We would also like to thank Dave Hess and Carol Hewitt, who created clear and accurate graphics for the document. Non-keyboard interaction devices Draft for review and comment Table of Contents Page 1.0 Introduction................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose.......................................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Scope............................................................................................................................. 2 1.3 Shall and Should ........................................................................................................... 2 2.0 Method .......................................................................................................................... 2 2.1 Review of HFDS chapter.............................................................................................. 2 2.2 Reorganization .............................................................................................................. 3 2.3 Additional information.................................................................................................. 3 2.4 Expert review................................................................................................................ 3 3.0 Summary of changes.................................................................................................... 4 Appendix A – Chapter 16 Human Factors Standard for Non-Keyboard Interaction Devices (NKIDs) iii Non-keyboard interaction devices Draft for review and comment 1.0 INTRODUCTION The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) relies on countless devices to interact with the systems that make up the National Airspace System (NAS). In recent years, the number and type of interaction devices available to computer users has increased. As the FAA modernizes the NAS, decision-makers will be faced with a vast array of options for possible interaction devices. It is important for these decision-makers to have current information on non-keyboard interaction devices for the safety and performance of those using the devices as well as minimizing costs to FAA programs. This report and the associated set of updated standards and guidelines were developed to meet this need. This document summarizes the process followed by the research team in the development of an updated and revised set of non-keyboard interaction device design criteria. The research and revision process used for creating this set of design criteria is explained in this document, followed by an appendix containing the design criteria itself. The material in the appendix is intended to replace the current material on non- keyboard interaction devices in the Human Factors Design Standard (HFDS). Although the material on interaction devices was originally combined with the material on keyboards in a single chapter, the research team decided to present the interaction devices and keyboards information in two separate chapters based on an analysis of how people use the HFDS. An informal review of human factors studies conducted for acquisition programs indicated that these two topics are often addressed separately in acquisition and design activities. Thus, having two individual chapters, each focusing on a specific topic, allows the users to be more specific in the requirements definition process. This decision was validated by discussions with human factors practitioners currently working with FAA programs. In this chapter “interaction devices” replaces the term input devices, to imply a less limited functionality of entering data into a computer system (Baber, 1997). In general, the keyboard is the most common data input device, while non-keyboard interaction devices such as mice, trackballs, and joysticks are used more frequently for cursor control and interaction with the system than they are for input. This chapter provides design criteria for pointing devices, touch screens and some alternative interaction devices. Despite overlap in the research on keyboards and touch screens, distinctions between criteria for keyboards and touch screens are sufficient to be addressed separately. 1.1 Purpose The purpose of this document is to provide an updated set of non-keyboard interaction device guidelines and standards that meet the need of the FAA missions and systems. 1 1 Non-keyboard interaction devices Draft for review and comment 1.2 Scope This document is limited in scope to human factors guidance related to non-keyboard interaction devices. Generally, the statements in this chapter refer to devices used to interact with data in computer systems. There are devices that could fit both under the category of control and interaction devices (such as knobs, dials, and switches), however, this chapter focuses on devices primarily used for computer interaction. Some of the most common interaction devices include: touch screens, speech recognition, mice, trackballs, joysticks, and light pens. The majority of the devices referred to in this chapter can be considered pointing devices. A pointing device is a non-keyboard device that allows a user to navigate rapidly around the computer screen and to specify and select objects for manipulation and action. Examples include a mouse, trackball, stylus and grid, and light pen. Pointing devices are typically used for cursor control and direct manipulation of graphical objects such as icons. 1.3 Shall and Should Each standard specified is identified
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Motion and Context Sensing Techniques for Pen Computing
    Motion and Context Sensing Techniques for Pen Computing Ken Hinckley1, Xiang ‘Anthony’ Chen1,2, and Hrvoje Benko1 * Microsoft Research, Redmond, WA, USA1 and Carnegie Mellon University Dept. of Computer Science2 ABSTRACT We explore techniques for a slender and untethered stylus prototype enhanced with a full suite of inertial sensors (three-axis accelerometer, gyroscope, and magnetometer). We present a taxonomy of enhanced stylus input techniques and consider a number of novel possibilities that combine motion sensors with pen stroke and touchscreen inputs on a pen + touch slate. These Fig. 1 Our wireless prototype has accelerometer, gyro, and inertial sensors enable motion-gesture inputs, as well sensing the magnetometer sensors in a ~19 cm Χ 11.5 mm diameter stylus. context of how the user is holding or using the stylus, even when Our system employs a custom pen augmented with inertial the pen is not in contact with the tablet screen. Our initial results sensors (accelerometer, gyro, and magnetometer, each a 3-axis suggest that sensor-enhanced stylus input offers a potentially rich sensor, for nine total sensing dimensions) as well as a low-power modality to augment interaction with slate computers. radio. Our stylus prototype also thus supports fully untethered Keywords: Stylus, motion sensing, sensors, pen+touch, pen input operation in a slender profile with no protrusions (Fig. 1). This allows us to explore numerous interactive possibilities that were Index Terms: H.5.2 Information Interfaces & Presentation: Input cumbersome in previous systems: our prototype supports direct input on tablet displays, allows pen tilting and other motions far 1 INTRODUCTION from the digitizer, and uses a thin, light, and wireless stylus.
    [Show full text]
  • Alternative Perspectives 3.1
    Alternative Perspectives 3.1 Chapter 3: ALTERNATIVE PERSPECTIVES Extending Our Understanding of the Relationships Among Devices In the previous chapter, the grain at which we looked at input devices was fairly coarse, especially if our orientation is the user and usage, and not the technology. If we want to probe deeper, characterizing devices as "mice”, "tablets" or "joysticks" is not adequate. While useful, they are not detailed enough to provide us with the understanding that will enable us to make significant improvements in our interface designs. The design space of input devices is complex. In order to achieve a reasonable grasp of it, we have to refine the grain of our analysis to something far finer than has hitherto been the case. In the sections which follow, we explore some of the approaches to carving up this space in ways meaningful to the designer. If design is choice, then developing a more refined taxonomy will improve the range of choice. And, if the dimensions of the resultant taxonomy are appropriate, the model that emerges will afford better choices. As a start, let us take an example. It illustrates that - even at the top level - the dominant mouse, joystick, trackball ... categorization is not the only way to carve up the "pie." Figure 1 shows a caricature of four generic devices: a touch screen a light pen a touch tablet a tablet with a stylus. Haptic Input 14 September, 2009 Buxton Alternative Perspectives 3.2 (a) (b) (c) (d) Figure 1: Analogy and relationships among different devices The devices characterized in this figure possess some important properties that help us better understand input technologies in context.
    [Show full text]
  • Evaluating the Effect of Four Different Pointing Device Designs on Upper Extremity Posture and Muscle Activity During Mousing Tasks
    Applied Ergonomics 47 (2015) 259e264 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Applied Ergonomics journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/apergo Evaluating the effect of four different pointing device designs on upper extremity posture and muscle activity during mousing tasks * Michael Y.C. Lin a, Justin G. Young b, Jack T. Dennerlein a, c, a Department of Environmental Health, Harvard School of Public Health, 665 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA b Department of Industrial & Manufacturing Engineering, Kettering University, 1700 University Avenue, Flint, MI 48504, USA c Department of Physical Therapy, Movements, and Rehabilitation Sciences, Bouve College of Health Sciences, Northeastern University, 360 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA article info abstract Article history: The goal of this study was to evaluate the effect of different types of computer pointing devices and Received 10 January 2014 placements on posture and muscle activity of the hand and arm. A repeated measures laboratory study Accepted 3 October 2014 with 12 adults (6 females, 6 males) was conducted. Participants completed two mouse-intensive tasks Available online while using a conventional mouse, a trackball, a stand-alone touchpad, and a rollermouse. A motion analysis system and an electromyography system monitored right upper extremity postures and muscle Keywords: activity, respectively. The rollermouse condition was associated with a more neutral hand posture (lower Pointing device inter-fingertip spread and greater finger flexion) along with significantly lower forearm extensor muscle Computer tasks fi Musculoskeletal disorders activity. The touchpad and rollermouse, which were centrally located, were associated with signi cantly more neutral shoulder postures, reduced ulnar deviation, and lower forearm extensor muscle activities than other types of pointing devices.
    [Show full text]
  • Track Ball → It Is Pointing Device That Is Used to Control the Positions Of
    Department Of Computer Application (BBA) Dr. Rakesh Ranjan BCA Sem - 2 Input devices Track ball it is pointing device that is used to control the positions of the cursor on the screen. It is usually used in notebook computers where it is placed on the keyboard . It is nothing but an upside down mouse where the ball rotates in place within a socket. The user can rolls the ball to position the cursor at the appropriate position on the screen and then clicks one of the buttons near the track ball either to select the objects or to position the cursor. The working of a track ball is identical to mouse Touch pad it is small flat rectangular stationary pointing device with a sensitive surface of 1.5 to 2 inch. The user has to slide his or her figure tips across the surface of the pad to point to specific objects on the object. The surface translate the motion and position of the user’s figures to a relative position on the screen The touch pad are widely used in laptop and other handheld devices . The working of the touchpad is similar to that of mouse or a trackball. The pressure of the finger on the surface leads to a capacitance effect, which is detected by the sensors . the sensors send appropriate signals to cpu which interprets them and display the pointer on the screen . Joy stick it is widely used in computer games and computer aided design and manufacturing (CAD/CAM) applications. It has one or more push buttons called switches .
    [Show full text]
  • An Isometric Joystick As a Pointing Device for Handheld Information Terminals
    An Isometric Joystick as a Pointing Device for Handheld Information Terminals Miika Silfverberg I. Scott MacKenzie Tatu Kauppinen Usability Group Department of Computer Science Usability Group Nokia Research Center, Finland York University, Canada Nokia Research Center, Finland Abstract embedded pointing device that is suitable for handheld Meeting the increasing demand for desktop-like appli- use. This work studies the applicability of the isometric cations on mobile products requires powerful interac- joystick to handheld usage. tion techniques. One candidate is GUI-style point-and- click interaction using an integrated pointing device 1.1 Isometric Joystick that supports handheld use. We tested an isometric joy- A joystick is a good candidate for handheld pointing. stick for this purpose. Two prototypes were built. They Since it is mounted in the device chassis, it cannot be were designed for thumb operation and included a sepa- lost, unlike a stylus. It is small and can be manipulated rate selection button. Twelve participants performed potentially with the same hand that holds the device. point-and-select tasks. We tested both one-handed and two-handed interaction, and selection using the separate The device studied herein is an isometric joystick. The selection button and the joystick’s integrated press-to- pointer is moved by applying force to the stick. The select feature. A notebook configuration served as a stick itself doesn't move, or moves very little – hence reference. Results for the handheld conditions, both the name "isometric". The most common input-output one-handed and two-handed, were just slightly off those mapping is known as “velocity-control”, whereby the for the notebook condition, suggesting that an isometric applied force controls the velocity of the pointer.
    [Show full text]
  • Class-4 Computer L-2 Input and Output Devices
    CLASS-4 COMPUTER L-2 INPUT AND OUTPUT DEVICES BOOK EXERCISE A. Tick () the correct options. 1. Which of the following is NOT an input device? a. touchpad ( ) b. projector () c. MICR ( ) 2. What does OCR stands for? a. Optical Character Recognition () b. Oriented Character Recognition ( ) c. Optical Copy Recognition ( ) 3. A plotter prints on paper by using . a. A stylus ( ) b. pencils ( ) c. pens () 4. Which of the following is an output device? a. projector ( ) b. laser printer ( ) c. both a and b () B. Fill in the blanks. Picture barcode biometric projection MICR typeface 1. A barcode is a pattern of parallel lines of varying width printed on different products. 2. OCR does not treat the text as picture. 3. A projector projects an image (or moving images) onto a large surface known as projection screen. 4. The MICR technology recognizes the data printed bin the MICR typeface. 5. A biometric device uses fingerprint, facial scans or voice recognition to identify users. CLASS-4 COMPUTER L-2 INPUT AND OUTPUT DEVICES C. Identify each of the following as input or output devices. Projector, Light pen, Touchpad, Touchscreen, web-cam, Monitor, Printer, Plotter, Keyboard, Mouse, MICR, Speakers, Scanner, OCR, Microphone. Ans: Input Devices Output Devices MICR Projector Touchpad Monitor Scanner Printer Touchscreen Speakers Keyboard Plotter OCR Web Cam Mouse Microphone D. Answer in one word- 1. A latest input device enables you to choose options on the computer screen by simply touching with a finger. (Touchscreen) 2. A device that projects an image onto a large surface. (Projector) 3. A device that draws on paper with one or more automated pens.
    [Show full text]
  • 2019 Streamlight® Tactical Catalog
    CELEBRATING 45 YEARS SOLVING LIGHTING PROBLEMS. INTRODUCING NEW PRODUCTS. ® 90 IT’S WHAT WE DO. PROTAC Since 1973, Streamlight has delivered effective, efficient high-performance lighting solutions. The latest technology delivers unmatched performance, unheard of durability and incredible value. We’ve earned our reputation one customer at a time. And we’re not about to let up now. SIEGE ® X USB 2 GET MORE INFO AT: STREAMLIGHT.COM / 800-523 –7488 / 610-631-0600 TLR-8 ® G RAIL-MOUNTED LIGHT TLR-6 ® NON-LASER TLR-6 ® FOR SIG SAUER P365 PROTAC ® RAIL MOUNT HL-X LASER BANDIT ® PRO USB HEADLAMP TLR-VIR ® II SPECIALTY PRODUCT TL-RACKER ™ FOREND LIGHT 3 STREAMLIGHT TLRs THE WIDEST RANGE OF WEAPON-MOUNTED LIGHTS Streamlight produces a full line of weapon-mounted lights with the features that law enforcement, conceal & carry, and sportsmen need: high-lumen, laser, and IR. Models to fit long guns and full-size and compact pistols. LIGHT ONLY LIGHT ONLY COMPACT & FULL FRAME PISTOLS UNIVERSAL RAIL-MOUNT MODELS TLR-7® TLR-1 HL® TLR-1® TLR-3® WHITE LIGHT ILLUMINATOR WHITE LIGHT ILLUMINATOR TLR-1®s WHITE LIGHT ILLUMINATOR WHITE LIGHT ILLUMINATOR NEW SUB-COMPACT & COMPACT PISTOLS TRIGGER GUARD & TLR-6® NON-LASER TLR-7® TLR-3® RAIL-MOUNT MODELS WHITE LIGHT ILLUMINATOR WHITE LIGHT ILLUMINATOR WHITE LIGHT ILLUMINATOR NEW LONG GUN / AR SHOTGUN FOREND & RAIL-MOUNT MODELS TLR-1 HL® PROTAC® RAIL MOUNT 1 PROTAC® T L R -1 HP L® TL-RACKER™ (Long Gun Kit) PROTAC® RAIL MOUNT 2 RAIL MOUNT HL-X (Long Gun Kit) WHITE LIGHT ILLUMINATOR/FOREND WHITE LIGHT ILLUMINATOR WHITE
    [Show full text]
  • Evans, Gareth; Blenkhorn, Paul a Head Operated Joystick
    DOCUMENT RESUME ED 430 330 EC 307 177 AUTHOR Evans, Gareth; Blenkhorn, Paul TITLE A Head Operated Joystick--Experience with Use. PUB DATE 1999-03-00 NOTE 6p. PUB TYPE Reports Descriptive (141) EDRS PRICE MF01/PC01 Plus Postage. DESCRIPTORS *Accessibility (for Disabled); *Assistive Devices (for Disabled); *Input Output Devices; *Severe Disabilities; Use Studies IDENTIFIERS *Joysticks ABSTRACT This paper describes the development and evaluation of a low-cost head-operated joystick for computer users with disabilities that prevent them from using a conventional hand-operated computer mouse and/or keyboard. The paper focuses on three issues: first, the style of head movement required by the device; second, whether a head-operated device should work as an absolute positioning device or as a joystick; and, third, the accuracy required by the device. It finds that the device's "nose following" style of head movement is more accepted by users than alternatives; that users also preferred the joystick relative pointing device over absolute positioning devices; and that users did not notice inaccuracies inherent in the device's design, thus allowing production at a lower cost. (DB) ******************************************************************************** Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be made from the original document. ******************************************************************************** PERMISSION TO REPRODUCE AND DISSEMINATE THIS MATERIAL HAS ert BEEN GRANTED BY r1) el") EXPERIENCE WITHUSE ans A HEADOPERATEDJOYSTICK - TO THE EDUCATIONAL RESOURCES INFORMATION CENTER (ERIC) Gareth Evans and PaulBlenkhorn 1 Manchester, UK, [email protected] of Computation, UMIST, Technology for DisabledPeople Unit, Department Introduction computer mouse and/orkeyboard, may use a head- Computer users who cannot use aconventional hand-operated computer and, by using anon-screen keyboard, totype operated mouse or joystickin order to control their user's head movements aretranslated into mouse pointer information.
    [Show full text]
  • Writing with a Joystick: a Comparison of Date Stamp, Selection Keyboard, and Edgewrite Jacob O
    Writing with a Joystick: A Comparison of Date Stamp, Selection Keyboard, and EdgeWrite Jacob O. Wobbrock, Brad A. Myers and Htet Htet Aung Human-Computer Interaction Institute School of Computer Science Carnegie Mellon University Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, USA {jrock, bam, hha}@cs.cmu.edu http://www.cs.cmu.edu/~edgewrite/ Abstract A joystick text entry method for game controllers and mobile phones would be valuable, since these devices often have joysticks but no conventional keyboards. But prevalent joystick text entry methods are slow because they are selection-based. EdgeWrite, a new joystick text entry method, is not based on selection but on gestures from a unistroke alphabet. Our experiment shows that this new method is faster, leaves fewer errors, and is more satisfying than date stamp and selection keyboard (two prevalent Figure 1. The Saitek P2500 Rumble Force Pad. Our experiment selection-based methods) for novices after minimal used the two thumbsticks and one of the silver buttons. practice. For more practiced users, our results show that EdgeWrite is at least 1.5 times faster than selection messenger-style text. With only selection-based text entry keyboard, and 2.4 times faster than date stamp. methods for game controllers, this can be awkward. Keywords: Text entry, text input, joystick, game controller, Mobile devices have also placed high demands on text game console, physical edges, corners, gestures, unistrokes. entry development. Numerous text entry methods have been investigated, including those driven by buttons, character 1 Introduction – Why Joystick Text Entry? recognition, virtual keyboards, thumbwheels, and voice. Joysticks have served as input devices since the earliest Many new handheld devices, such as the Ericsson T68i computers [7].
    [Show full text]
  • Evolution of the Graphical Processing Unit
    University of Nevada Reno Evolution of the Graphical Processing Unit A professional paper submitted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree of Master of Science with a major in Computer Science by Thomas Scott Crow Dr. Frederick C. Harris, Jr., Advisor December 2004 Dedication To my wife Windee, thank you for all of your patience, intelligence and love. i Acknowledgements I would like to thank my advisor Dr. Harris for his patience and the help he has provided me. The field of Computer Science needs more individuals like Dr. Harris. I would like to thank Dr. Mensing for unknowingly giving me an excellent model of what a Man can be and for his confidence in my work. I am very grateful to Dr. Egbert and Dr. Mensing for agreeing to be committee members and for their valuable time. Thank you jeffs. ii Abstract In this paper we discuss some major contributions to the field of computer graphics that have led to the implementation of the modern graphical processing unit. We also compare the performance of matrix‐matrix multiplication on the GPU to the same computation on the CPU. Although the CPU performs better in this comparison, modern GPUs have a lot of potential since their rate of growth far exceeds that of the CPU. The history of the rate of growth of the GPU shows that the transistor count doubles every 6 months where that of the CPU is only every 18 months. There is currently much research going on regarding general purpose computing on GPUs and although there has been moderate success, there are several issues that keep the commodity GPU from expanding out from pure graphics computing with limited cache bandwidth being one.
    [Show full text]
  • Computer Input Devices
    COMPUTER - INPUT DEVICES http://www.tuto rialspo int.co m/co mputer_fundamentals/co mputer_input_devices.htm Copyrig ht © tutorialspoint.com Following are few of the important input devices which are used in Computer Systems Keyboard Mouse Joy Stick Lig ht pen Track Ball Scanner Graphic Tablet Microphone Mag netic Ink Card Reader(MICR) Optical Character Reader(OCR) Bar Code Reader Optical Mark Reader Keyboard Most common and very popular input device is keyboard. The keyboard helps in inputting the data to the computer.The layout of the keyboard is like that of traditional typewriter, althoug h there are some additional keys provided for performing some additional functions. Keyboard are of two sizes 84 keys or 101/102 keys, but now 104 keys or 108 keys keyboard is also available for Windows and Internet. The keys are following Sr. Keys Description No. 1 Typing Keys These keys include the letter keys (A-Z) and dig its keys (0-9) which are g enerally g ive same layout as that of typewriters. 2 Numeric Keypad It is used to enter numeric data or cursor movement. Generally, it consists of a set of 17 keys that are laid out in the same config uration used by most adding machine and calculators. 3 Function Keys The twelve functions keys are present on the keyboard. These are arrang ed in a row along the top of the keyboard.Each function key has unique meaning and is used for some specific purpose. 4 Control keys These keys provides cursor and screen control. It includes four directional arrow key.Control keys also include Home, End,Insert, Delete, Pag e Up, Pag e Down, Control(Ctrl), Alternate(Alt), Escape(Esc).
    [Show full text]
  • KSPC (Keystrokes Per Character) As a Characteristic of Text Entry Techniques
    KSPC (Keystrokes per Character) as a Characteristic of Text Entry Techniques I. Scott MacKenzie Dept. of Computer Science York University Toronto, Ontario, Canada M3J 1P3 +1 416 736 2100 WQEGOIR^MI$EGQSVK Abstract. KSPC is the number of keystrokes, on average, to generate each character of text in a given language using a given text entry technique. We systematically describe the calculation of KSPC and provide examples across a variety of text entry techniques. Values for English range from about 10 for methods using only cursor keys and a SELECT key to about 0.5 for word prediction techniques. It is demonstrated that KSPC is useful for a priori analyses, thereby supporting the characterisation and comparison of text entry methods before labour-intensive implementations and evaluations. 1 Introduction An important research area in mobile computing is the development of efficient means of text entry. Interest is fueled by trends such as text messaging on mobile phones, two-way paging, and mobile web and email access. Coincident with this is the continued call in HCI for methods and models to make systems design tractable at the design and analysis stage [5]. This paper addresses these two themes. We propose a measure to characterise text entry techniques. It is calculated a priori, using a language model and a keystroke-level description of the technique. The measure is used to characterise and compare methods at the design stage, thus facilitating analyses prior to labour-intensive implementations and evaluations. 2 Keystrokes per Character (KSPC) KSPC is an acronym for keystrokes per character. It is the number of keystrokes required, on average, to generate a character of text for a given text entry technique in a given language.
    [Show full text]