Comparing evaluation methods for encumbrance and walking on interaction with touchscreen mobile devices

ABSTRACT

In this paper, two walking evaluation methods were compared to evaluate the effects of encumbrance while the preferred walking speed (PWS) is controlled. Users frequently carry cumbersome objects (e.g. shopping bags) and use mobile devices at the same time which can cause interaction difficulties and erroneous input. The two methods used to control the PWS were: walking on a treadmill and walking around a predefined route on the ground while following a pacesetter. The results from our target acquisition experiment showed that for ground walking at 100% of PWS, accuracy dropped to 36% when carrying a bag in the dominant hand while accuracy reduced to 34% for holding a box under the dominant arm. We also discuss the advantages and limitations of each evaluation method when examining encumbrance and suggest treadmill walking is not the most suitable approach to use if walking speed is an important factor in future mobile studies.

References

1. Alton, F., Baldey, L., Caplan, S., and Morrissey, M.C. A kinematic comparison of overground and treadmill walking. Clinical biomechanics (Bristol, Avon) 13, 6 (1998), 434--440.
2. Azenkot, S. and Zhai, S. Touch behavior with different postures on soft smartphone keyboards. In Proc. MobileHCI 2012, ACM Press (2012), 251--260.
3. Barnard, L., Yi, J.S., Jacko, J.A., and Sears, A. An empirical comparison of use-in-motion evaluation scenarios for mobile computing devices. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 62, 4 (2005), 487--520.
4. Bergstrom-Lehtovirta, J., Oulasvirta, A., and Brewster, S. The effects of walking speed on target acquisition on a touchscreen interface. In Proc. MobileHCI 2011, ACM (2011), 143--146.
5. Brewster, S. Overcoming the Lack of Screen Space on Mobile Computers. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 6, 3 (2002), 188--205.
6. Crossan, A., Murray-Smith, R., Brewster, S., Kelly, J., and Musizza, B. Gait phase effects in mobile interaction. Ext. Abstracts CHI 2005, ACM Press (2005), 1312--1315.
7. Crossan, A., Williamson, J., Brewster, S., and MurraySmith, R. Wrist rotation for interaction in mobile contexts. In Proc. MobileHCI 2008, ACM Press (2008), 435--438.
8. Goel, M., Findlater, L., and Wobbrock, J. WalkType: using accelerometer data to accomodate situational impairments in mobile touch screen text entry. In Proc. CHI 2012, ACM Press (2012), 2687--2696.
9. Hoober, S. How Do Users Really Hold Mobile Devices? http://www.uxmatters.com/mt/archives/2013/02/howdo-users-really-hold-mobile-devices.php.
10. Hyman, I.E., Boss, S.M., Wise, B.M., Mckenzie, K.E., and Caggiano, J.M. Did You See the Unicycling Clown? Inattentional Blindness while Walking and Talking on a Cell Phone. Applied Cognitive Psychology 24, 5 (2010), 597--607.
11. Jain, S.S.L. The means of mobility. Journal of Consumer Culture 2, 3 (2002), 419--438.
12. Kane, S.K., Wobbrock, J.O., and Smith, I.E. Getting off the treadmill: evaluating walking user interfaces for mobile devices in public spaces. In Proc. MobileHCI 2008, ACM Press (2008), 109--118.
13. Kjeldskov, J. and Stage, J. New techniques for usability evaluation of mobile systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 60, 5--6 (2004), 599--620.
14. Lim, J.J. and Feria, C. Visual search on a mobile device while walking. In Proc. CHI 2012, ACM Press (2012), 295--304.
15. Lin, M., Goldman, R., Price, K.J., Sears, A., and Jacko, J. How do people tap when walking? An empirical investigation of nomadic data entry. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 65, 9 (2007), 759--769.
16. MacKay, B., Dearman, D., Inkpen, K., and Watters, C. Walk 'n scroll: a comparison of software-based navigation techniques for different levels of mobility. In Proc. MobileHCI 2005, ACM Press (2005), 183--190.
17. Mainwaring, S.D., Anderson, K., and Chang, M.F. Living for the global city: mobile kits, urban interfaces, and ubicomp. In Proc. UbiComp 2005, Springer-Verlag (2005), 269--286.
18. Mizobuchi, S., Chignell, M., and Newton, D. Mobile text entry: relationship between walking speed and text input task difficult. In Proc. MobileHCI 2005, ACM Press (2005), 122--128.
19. Murray, M.P., Spurr, G.B., Sepic, S.B., Gardner, G.M., and Mollinger, L. a. Treadmill vs. floor walking: kinematics, electromyogram, and heart rate. Journal of applied physiology 59, 1 (1985), 87--91.
20. Ng, A., Brewster, S., and Crossan, A. The effects of encumbrance on mobile gesture interactions. In Body, Movement, Gestures & Tactility in Interaction with Mobile Devices Workshop, MobileHCI 2011, (2011).
21. Ng, A., Brewster, S., and Williamson, J. The Impact of Encumbrance on Mobile Interactions. In Proc. INTERACT 2013, Springer-Verlag (2013), 92--109.
22. Ng, A., Brewster, S., and Williamson, J. Investigating the Effects of Encumbrance on One- and Two- Handed Interactions with Mobile Devices. In Proc. CHI 2014, (2014), 1981--1990.
23. Oulasvirta, A. and Bergstrom-Lehtovirta, J. Ease of juggling: studying the effects of manual multitasking. In Proc. CHI 2011, ACM Press (2011), 3103--3112.
24. Oulasvirta, A., Tamminen, S., Roto, V., and Kuorelahti, J. Interaction in 4-second bursts: the fragmented nature of attentional resources in mobile HCI. In Proc. CHI 2005, ACM Press (2005), 919--928.
25. Pirhonen, A., Brewster, S., and Holguin, C. Gestural and audio metaphors as a means of control for mobile devices. In Proc. CHI 2002, ACM Press (2002), 291--298.
26. Schildbach, B. and Rukzio, E. Investigating selection and reading performance on a mobile phone while walking. In Proc. MobileHCI 2010, ACM Press (2010), 93--102.
27. Apple Inc. iPhone Human Interface Guidelines. 2009.

Index Terms

• Human-centered computing

  • Human computer interaction (HCI)