skip to main content
10.1145/2702123.2702300acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

How Much Faster is Fast Enough?: User Perception of Latency & Latency Improvements in Direct and Indirect Touch

Authors Info & Claims
Published:18 April 2015Publication History

ABSTRACT

This paper reports on two experiments designed to further our understanding of users' perception of latency in touch- based systems. The first experiment extends previous efforts to measure latency perception by reporting on a unified study in which direct and indirect form-factors are compared for both tapping and dragging tasks. Our results show significant effects from both form-factor and task, and inform system designers as to what input latencies they should aim to achieve in a variety of system types. A follow-up experiment investigates peoples' ability to perceive small improvements to latency in direct and indirect form-factors for tapping and dragging tasks. Our results provide guidance to system designers of the relative value of making improvements in latency that reduce but do not fully eliminate lag from their systems.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

pn0922-file3.mp4

mp4

87.2 MB

p1827-deber.mp4

mp4

161.4 MB

References

  1. Allison, R.S., Harris, L.R., Jenkin, M., Jasiobedzka, U., and Zacher, J.E. (2001). Tolerance of Temporal Delay in Virtual Environments. In Proc. IEEE VR '01, 247--254. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Anderson, G., Doherty, R., and Ganapathy, S. (2011). User Perception of Touch Screen Latency. In Proc. Design, User Experience, and Usability (DUXU) '11, 195--202.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  3. Annett, M., Ng, A., Dietz, P., Bischof, W.F., and Gupta, A. (2014). How Low Should We Go? Understanding the Perception of LatencyWhile Inking. In Proc. GI '14,167--174. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Cheshire, S. (1996). Latency and the Quest for Interactivity. White paper for the Synchronous Person-toPerson Interactive Computing Env Meeting, Nov. 1996.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Ellis, S.R., Bréant, F., Manges, B., Jacoby, R., and Adelstein, B.D. (1997). Factors Influencing Operator Interaction with Virtual Objects Viewed via Head-Mounted See-Through Displays: Viewing Conditions and Rendering Latency. In Proc. IEEE VR '97, 138--145. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Ellis, S.R., Young, M.J., Adelstein, B.D., and Ehrlich, S.M. (1999). Discrimination of Changes of Latency During Voluntary Hand Movements of Virtual Objects. In Proc. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society '99, 1182--1186.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  7. Harris, L., Harrar, V., Jaekl, P., and Kopinska, A. (2010). Mechanisms of Simultaneity Constancy. In Nijhawan, R., and Khurana, B. (Eds.). Space and Time in Perception and Action. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 232--253.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  8. Jota, R., Ng, A., Dietz, P., and Wigdor, D. (2013). How Fast is Fast Enough? A Study of the Effects of Latency in DirectTouch Pointing Tasks. In Proc. CHI '13, 2291--2300. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Kaaresoja, T., and Brewster, S. (2010). Feedback is Late: Measuring Multimodal Delays in Mobile Device Touchscreen Interaction. In Proc. ICMI '10, Article 2, 8 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Kaaresoja, T., Brewster, S., and Lantz, V. (2014). Towards the Temporally Perfect Virtual Button: Touch-Feedback Simultaneity and Perceived Quality in Mobile Touchscreen Press Interactions. ACM Trans. Appl. Percept. 11, 2, Article 9 (Jun. 2014), 25 pages. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Kaernbach, C. (1991). Simple Adaptive Testing with the Weighted Up-Down Method. Perception & Psychophysics 49, 3 (Mar. 1991), 227--229.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  12. Leigh, D., Forlines, C., Jota, R., Sanders, S., and Wigdor, D. (2014). High-Rate, Low-Latency Multi-Touch Sensing with Simultaneous Orthogonal Multiplexing. In Proc. UIST '14, 355--364. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Levitt, H. (1971). Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J. Acoustical Soc. of Am. 49, 2 (Feb. 1971), 467--477.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  14. MacKenzie, I.S., and Ware, C. (1993). Lag as a Determinant of Human Performance in Interactive Systems. In Proc. CHI '93, 488--493. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Meehan, M., Razzaque, S., Whitton, M.C., and Brooks, F.P. (2003). Effect of Latency on Presence in Stressful Virtual Environments. In Proc. IEEE VR '03, 141--138. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Miller, R.B. (1968). Response Time in Man-Computer Conversational Transactions. In Proc. AFIPS '68, 267--277. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Nelson, W.T., Roe, M.M., Bolia, R.S., and Morley, R.M. (1998). Assessing Simulator Sickness in a See-Through HMD: Effects of Time Delay, Time on Task, and Task Complexity. In Proc. IMAGE '00.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. Ng, A., Annett, M., Dietz, P., Gupta, A., and Bischof, W.F. (2014). In the Blink of an Eye: Investigating Latency Perception During Stylus Interaction. In Proc. CHI '14, 1103--1112. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Ng, A., Lepinski, J., Wigdor, D., Sanders, S., and Dietz, P. (2012). Designing for Low-Latency Direct-Touch Input. In Proc. UIST '12, 453--464. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Pavlovych, A., and Gutwin C. (2012). Assessing Target Acquisition and Tracking Performance for Moving Targets in the Presence of Latencyand Jitter. In Proc. GI '12, 109--116. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. Pavlovych, A., and Stürzlinger, W. (2011). Target Following Performance in the Presence of Latency, Jitter, and Signal Dropouts. In Proc. GI '11, 33--40. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Pavlovych, A., and Stürzlinger, W. (2009). The Tradeoff between Spatial Jitter and Latency in Pointing Tasks. In Proc. ACM EICS '09, 187--196. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Savage, W.C. (1970). The Measurement of Sensation: A Critique of Perceptual Psychophysics. Berkley: UC Press.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  24. So, R.H.Y., and Chung, G.K.M. (2005). Sensory Motor Responses in Virtual Environments: Studying the Effects of Image Latencies for Target-directed Hand Movement. In Proc. IEEE-EMBS '05, 5006--5008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  25. Steed, A. (2008). A Simple Method for Estimating the Latency of Interactive, Real-Time Graphics Simulations. In Proc. ACM VRST '08, 123--129. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Teather, R., Pavlovych, A., Stürzlinger, W., and MacKenzie, I.S. (2009). Effects of Tracking Technology, Latency, and Spatial Jitter on Object Movement. In Proc. 3DUI '09, 43--50. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Vogels, I.M.L.C. (2004). Detectionof Temporal Delays in Visual-Haptic Interfaces. Hum. Fact. 46, 1 (Spr. 2004), 118--134.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Ware, C., and Balakrishnan, R. (1994). Reaching for Objects in VR Displays: Lag and Frame Rate. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 1, 4 (Dec. 1994), 331--356. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. How Much Faster is Fast Enough?: User Perception of Latency & Latency Improvements in Direct and Indirect Touch

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '15: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2015
      4290 pages
      ISBN:9781450331456
      DOI:10.1145/2702123

      Copyright © 2015 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than the author(s) must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected].

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 18 April 2015

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '15 Paper Acceptance Rate486of2,120submissions,23%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader