两种日本注视类型系统的可用性比较研究

K. Itoh, Hirotaka Aoki, J. P. Hansen
{"title":"两种日本注视类型系统的可用性比较研究","authors":"K. Itoh, Hirotaka Aoki, J. P. Hansen","doi":"10.1145/1117309.1117344","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"The complex interplay between gaze tracker accuracy and interface design is the focus of this paper. Two slightly different variants of GazeTalk, a hierarchical typing interface, were contrasted with a novel interface, Dasher, in which text entry is done by continuous navigation. All of the interfaces were tested with a good and a deliberate bad calibration of the tracker. The purpose was to investigate, if performance indices normally used for evaluation of typing systems, such as characters per minute (CPM) and error-rate, could differentiate between the conditions, and thus guide an iterative system development of both trackers and interfaces. Gaze typing with one version of the static, hierarchical menu systems was slightly faster than the others. Error measures, in terms of rate of backspacing, were also significantly different for the systems, while the deliberate bad tracker calibrations did not have any measurable effect. Learning effects were evident under all conditions. Power-law-of-practice learning models suggested that Dasher might be more efficient than GazeTalk in the long run.","PeriodicalId":440675,"journal":{"name":"Proceedings of the 2006 symposium on Eye tracking research & applications","volume":"21 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2006-03-27","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"25","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"A comparative usability study of two Japanese gaze typing systems\",\"authors\":\"K. Itoh, Hirotaka Aoki, J. P. Hansen\",\"doi\":\"10.1145/1117309.1117344\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"The complex interplay between gaze tracker accuracy and interface design is the focus of this paper. Two slightly different variants of GazeTalk, a hierarchical typing interface, were contrasted with a novel interface, Dasher, in which text entry is done by continuous navigation. All of the interfaces were tested with a good and a deliberate bad calibration of the tracker. The purpose was to investigate, if performance indices normally used for evaluation of typing systems, such as characters per minute (CPM) and error-rate, could differentiate between the conditions, and thus guide an iterative system development of both trackers and interfaces. Gaze typing with one version of the static, hierarchical menu systems was slightly faster than the others. Error measures, in terms of rate of backspacing, were also significantly different for the systems, while the deliberate bad tracker calibrations did not have any measurable effect. Learning effects were evident under all conditions. Power-law-of-practice learning models suggested that Dasher might be more efficient than GazeTalk in the long run.\",\"PeriodicalId\":440675,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Proceedings of the 2006 symposium on Eye tracking research & applications\",\"volume\":\"21 1\",\"pages\":\"0\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2006-03-27\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"25\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Proceedings of the 2006 symposium on Eye tracking research & applications\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.1145/1117309.1117344\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"\",\"JCRName\":\"\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Proceedings of the 2006 symposium on Eye tracking research & applications","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1145/1117309.1117344","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 25

摘要

注视跟踪器精度与界面设计之间复杂的相互作用是本文研究的重点。GazeTalk是一种分层输入界面,两种略有不同的变体与一种新颖的界面Dasher进行了对比,后者的文本输入是通过连续导航完成的。所有的接口都通过跟踪器的良好和故意的不良校准进行了测试。目的是调查通常用于评价打字系统的性能指标,如每分钟字符数(CPM)和错误率,是否可以区分这些条件,从而指导跟踪器和接口的迭代系统开发。使用静态分层菜单系统的一个版本的凝视打字速度比其他版本略快。在退距率方面,系统的误差测量也显着不同,而故意的不良跟踪器校准没有任何可测量的影响。在所有条件下,学习效果都很明显。实践幂律学习模型表明,从长远来看,Dasher可能比GazeTalk更有效。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
A comparative usability study of two Japanese gaze typing systems
The complex interplay between gaze tracker accuracy and interface design is the focus of this paper. Two slightly different variants of GazeTalk, a hierarchical typing interface, were contrasted with a novel interface, Dasher, in which text entry is done by continuous navigation. All of the interfaces were tested with a good and a deliberate bad calibration of the tracker. The purpose was to investigate, if performance indices normally used for evaluation of typing systems, such as characters per minute (CPM) and error-rate, could differentiate between the conditions, and thus guide an iterative system development of both trackers and interfaces. Gaze typing with one version of the static, hierarchical menu systems was slightly faster than the others. Error measures, in terms of rate of backspacing, were also significantly different for the systems, while the deliberate bad tracker calibrations did not have any measurable effect. Learning effects were evident under all conditions. Power-law-of-practice learning models suggested that Dasher might be more efficient than GazeTalk in the long run.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信