1. Symbol Creator Usability evaluation of a novel pen- based text input technique Melinda Luoma New Interaction Techniques February 25, 2003

2. Introduction to the Problem 4 Lot of time spent writing SMSs - how about faster text entry? 4 Smaller keyboards needed for smaller devices

3. Previous Research 4 Symbol Creator = assembling characters using symbols that resemble basic elements of Latin cursive 4 Two competing paradigms for mobile text entry: –pen-based input vs keyboard-based input 4 Most work has focused on expert performance; however, novice performance and experience is much more important (MacKenzie, 2002)

4. Objectives in General 4 The project aims to carry out a comparative research of two pen-based text input techniques: Symbol Creator and multi-tap –speed, accuracy, subjective experiences –learning 4 In particular, to measure novice performance –problems: novice with SC, but not multi-tap; where to find novice subjects in both methods?

5. Schedule

6. Research Methods 4 Overview to introduction to the field of pen- based text entry techniques 4 Empirical research based on earlier research on novel pen-based text entry techniques

7. Experiment Design

8. Experimental Setup (1) 4 PDA Jornada 4 Tauchi laboratory 4 PhEntry software by Grigori 4 Text entry parameters and user performance –speed = wpm –accuracy = errors –keystrokes & time per word –reaction time per character and variations

9. Experimental Setup (2) 4 PDA Jornada 4 Tauchi laboratory 4 PhEntry software by Grigori 4 Text entry parameters and user performance –speed = wpm –accuracy = errors –keystrokes & time per word –reaction time per character and variations

10. Preliminary Results (1) 4 With these subjects, SC demanded more clicks per word than multi-tap 4 Why? –novice status with SC –learning would probably decrease the differences between the methods

11. Preliminary Results (2) 4 Text entry speed measured by seconds per writing one word –faster with multi-tap 4 Learning in both methods

12. Preliminary Results (3) 4 Reaction times (ms) –shorter with multi-tap 4 Good learning effect in Symbol Creator

13. Preliminary Results (4) 4 Number of errors in Symbol Creator decreases fastly 4 Nearly no errors in multi-tap

14. Forecasted Results 4 In a test with novices, multi-tap will probably be faster when measured by reaction times and words per minute 4 However, learning can be fast measured by reduction of errors and increase of text entry speed 4 Test method may need some improving: “faster” keyboard for better differentiation of users

15. Prospective Applications 4 Handwriting (italic) fonts learning-game for kindergarten 4 Layout optimization 4 Applications for special needs (cyclic mode, one- dimensional choice, eye-typing (dwelling time), SC for numerical keyboard (blind manipulations) 4 Mini-Touchscreen requires mini-keyboard (watches, other mobile…)

16. References 4 Blickenstorfer, C. H. (1995), Graffiti: Wow!!!! Pen Computing Magazine, January, 30-31. 4 Brewster, S. (2001), Overcoming the Lack of Screen Space on Mobile Computers. Technical Report TR-2001-87, April. Glasgow University, available at: http://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~stephen/papers/tr200187.pdfhttp://www.dcs.gla.ac.uk/~stephen/papers/tr200187.pdf 4 Exner, Ch., & Henderson, A. (1995), Cognition and motor skill. In Anne Henderson & Charlane Pehoski (Eds.), Hand function in the child. St. Louis: Mosby-Year Book, pp. 93-110. 4 Goldberg, D., & Richardson, C. (1993). Touch-typing with a stylus. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - INTERCHI '93, 80-87. New York: ACM. 4 Handwriting styles, fontware. Available at: http://www.educationalfontware.com/LG_style.htmlhttp://www.educationalfontware.com/LG_style.html 4 Isokoski, P. and Raisamo, R. (2000), Device Independent Text Input: A Rationale and an Example. In V. D. Gesù, S. Levialdi and L. Tarantino (eds.), Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces AVI 2000, Palermo, Italy, pp. 76-83. 4 Kirsh D. (1995), Complementary Strategies: Why we use our hands when we think. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, available at: http://cogsci.ucsd.edu/~kirsh/Cogsci95/cogsci95.html http://cogsci.ucsd.edu/~kirsh/Cogsci95/cogsci95.html 4 MacKenzie, I.S, and Soukoreff, R. W. (2002). Text entry for mobile computing: Models and methods, theory and practice. Human-Computer Interaction. Available at: http://www.yorku.ca/mack/hci3.htmlhttp://www.yorku.ca/mack/hci3.html 4 Mankoff, J. and Abowd, G.D. (1998), Cirrin: A word-level unistroke keyboard for pen input. In Proceedings of UIST '98. Technical notes. pp.213-214, available at: http://www.cc.gatech.edu/fce/pendragon/publications/index.html#Cirrin98http://www.cc.gatech.edu/fce/pendragon/publications/index.html#Cirrin98 4 Quikwriting. Product information is available at: http://mrl.nyu.edu/projects/quikwriting/http://mrl.nyu.edu/projects/quikwriting/ 4 Western script, handwriting styles, available at: http://www.educationalfontware.com/EFI_home_page.htmlhttp://www.educationalfontware.com/EFI_home_page.html 4 Zagler, W.I. (2002), Matching Typing Persons and Intelligent Interfaces. In J.Klaus, K.Miesenberger, W. L. Zagler (Eds.), Proceedings of the 8 th International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs. ICCHP 2002 Linz, Austria, LNCS Vol. 2398, Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg, pp. 241-242. 4 Zhai, S., Hunter, M., & Smith, B. A. (2000), The Metropolis keyboard - An exploration of quantitative techniques for virtual keyboard design. Proceedings of the ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology - UIST 2000, New York: ACM, pp. 119-128