Hier finden Sie wissenschaftliche Publikationen aus den Fraunhofer-Instituten.

Comparing mouse and MAGIC pointing for moving target acquisition

: Hild, Jutta; Gill, D.; Beyerer, Jürgen

Postprint urn:nbn:de:0011-n-3034904 (2.0 MByte PDF)
MD5 Fingerprint: e150ec7ca8e645475b3a4512166e723d
© ACM This is the author's version of the work. It is posted here by permission of ACM for your personal use. Not for redistribution.
Created on: 19.8.2014

Association for Computing Machinery -ACM-; Association for Computing Machinery -ACM-, Special Interest Group on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques -SIGGRAPH-; Association for Computing Machinery -ACM-, Special Interest Group on Computer and Human Interaction -SIGCHI-:
ETRA 2014, Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications. Proceedings : 26-28 March 2014, Safety Harbor, Florida
New York: ACM, 2014
ISBN: 978-1-4503-2751-0
Symposium on Eye Tracking Research and Applications (ETRA) <8, 2014, Safety Harbor/Fla.>
Conference Paper, Electronic Publication
Fraunhofer IOSB ()
moving target acquisition; input device; eye gaze interaction; MAGIC pointing; mouse; pilot study; video analysis

Moving target acquisition is a challenging and manually stressful task if performed using an all-manual, pointer-based interaction technique like mouse interaction, especially if targets are small, move fast, and are visible on screen only for a limited time. The MAGIC pointing interaction approach combines the precision of manual, pointer-based interaction with the speed and little manual stress of eye pointing. In this contribution, a pilot study with twelve participants on moving target acquisition is presented using an abstract experimental task derived from a video analysis scenario. Mouse input, conservative MAGIC pointing and MAGIC button are compared considering acquisition time, error rate, and user satisfaction. Although none of the participants had used MAGIC pointing before, eight participants voted for MAGIC button being their favorite technique; participants performed with only slightly higher mean acquisition time and error rate than with the familiar mouse input. Conservative MAGIC pointing was preferred by three participants; however, mean acquisition time and error rate were significantly worse than with mouse input.