1 / 27

Pekka Parhi Department of Electrical and Information Engineering University of Oulu pekka.parhi@ee.oulu.fi Wireless Citi

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

libitha
Download Presentation

Pekka Parhi Department of Electrical and Information Engineering University of Oulu pekka.parhi@ee.oulu.fi Wireless Citi

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. 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

  2. Mobile vs. Desktop UI Design • Designing UIs for mobile devices is quite different from designing for fixed terminals • Different characteristics

  3. 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

  4. 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

  5. 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

  6. Why One-Handed Interaction? • One hand occupied • Attention divided among tasks • Unstable environment • Two handed use unnatural

  7. Interaction on Existing Handhelds • Smartphones • Input: Hardware Buttons • Interaction: Keypad-mapped functions Directional navigation • PDAs • Input: Touch Sensitive Display Hardware Buttons • Interaction: Software targets for direct manipulation Directional navigation

  8. 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

  9. 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

  10. Related Work • Thumb-Based Hardware (cont.) • Microsoft’s Ultra-Mobile PC (formerly Project Origami)

  11. Related Work • Thumb-Based Hardware (cont.) • Touch key phone (NTT DoCoMo & Mitsubishi)

  12. 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???

  13. Target Size Study To develop guidelines for targets that maximize performance and user preference during one-handed thumb use on small touchscreen devices • Objective

  14. 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

  15. 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

  16. 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

  17. 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

  18. 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

  19. 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

  20. 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)

  21. 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

  22. 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

  23. Results: Serial Targets (2/2) • User Preferences • NE region was the most comfortable • Minor differences

  24. 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)

  25. 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

  26. 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.

  27. Thank You! Questions?

More Related