Selecting Small Targets With Gaze Alone: Is Zooming the Answer?

WSU CORE Repository

 

Selecting Small Targets With Gaze Alone: Is Zooming the Answer?

Show simple item record

dc.contributor Skovsgaard, Henrik
dc.contributor Flach, John M.
dc.contributor.author Mateo, Julio
dc.coverage.temporal 2010 en_US
dc.date.accessioned 2011-06-20T18:12:09Z
dc.date.available 2011-06-20T18:12:09Z
dc.date.created 2010-04
dc.date.issued 2010-04
dc.identifier.other celebration_abstract10_mateo_j
dc.identifier.uri http://hdl.handle.net/2374.WSU/4791
dc.description.abstract

Selecting the smallest targets in mainstream graphical user interfaces (GUls) with gaze alone is difficult due to the limited pointing accuracy of gaze input when compared to mouse input. Approaches to address the limited accuracy of gaze pointing include those aimed at reducing the noise of the pointer (e.g., smoothing) and those aimed at increasing target tolerance (e.g., interface design). We focused on a subset of the second type of approaches: the design of interface tools that effectively increase the size of selectable objects in mainstream GUls. We proposed a conceptual framework to organize existing interface tools and guide the development of new tools. Inspired by our previous attempts to use continuous zoom tools to increase the effective size of selectable objects in mainstream GUls, we also designed a discrete zoom tool. To test the potential of our framework and tool, we conducted a proof-ofconcept experiment in which participants performed a point-and-select task with small targets (i.e., 6-and 12-pixel wide). We compared the participants' performance when using no tool (i.e., dwell), a two-step magnification tool (often available in commercial gaze-tracking systems), or one of two versions of our discrete zoom tool. One of these discrete-zoom-tool versions had the same magnification level and dwell time as the two-step magnification tool, whereas the other was optimized. Our results showed that the optimized discrete zoom tool was as fast as and more accurate than the two-step magnification tool. We conclude that our zoom framework shows potential to guide the design, development, and testing of tools to facilitate the accessibility of mainstream interfaces for gaze-input users. Furthermore, we argue that the use of discrete zoom tools that fall between the two ends of the spectrum (i.e., two-step magnification and continuous zoom) can potentially be helpful in certain gazeinteraction situations.

This presentation occurred at the Wright State University Campus-Wide Celebration of Research, Scholarship and Creative Activities on April 16, 2010

dc.language.iso en_US en_US
dc.publisher Wright State University en_US
dc.relation.ispartof Celebration of Research, Scholarship, and Creative Activities en_US
dc.rights.uri http://www.wright.edu/web/copyright.html
dc.subject Mateo, Julio en_US
dc.subject Skovsgaard, Henrik en_US
dc.subject Flach, John M. en_US
dc.subject Wright State University. Department of Psychology en_US
dc.title Selecting Small Targets With Gaze Alone: Is Zooming the Answer? en_US
dc.type Presentation en_US
dc.permissions World
dc.publisher.digital Digital Services Department, Wright State University Libraries en_US
dc.date.digitized 2010-04
dc.publisher.OLinstitution Wright State University

Files in this item

Files Size Format View
celebration_abstract10_mateo_j.pdf 86.89Kb application/pdf Thumbnail

This item appears in the following Collection(s)

Show simple item record

Search CORE


Advanced Search

Browse

My Account

About

Links