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.
Supplemental Material
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- Cheshire, S. (1996). Latency and the Quest for Interactivity. White paper for the Synchronous Person-toPerson Interactive Computing Env Meeting, Nov. 1996.Google Scholar
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- 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 ScholarCross Ref
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- Kaernbach, C. (1991). Simple Adaptive Testing with the Weighted Up-Down Method. Perception & Psychophysics 49, 3 (Mar. 1991), 227--229.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- Levitt, H. (1971). Transformed up-down methods in psychoacoustics. J. Acoustical Soc. of Am. 49, 2 (Feb. 1971), 467--477.Google ScholarCross Ref
- MacKenzie, I.S., and Ware, C. (1993). Lag as a Determinant of Human Performance in Interactive Systems. In Proc. CHI '93, 488--493. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- Miller, R.B. (1968). Response Time in Man-Computer Conversational Transactions. In Proc. AFIPS '68, 267--277. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 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 Scholar
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- Pavlovych, A., and Stürzlinger, W. (2009). The Tradeoff between Spatial Jitter and Latency in Pointing Tasks. In Proc. ACM EICS '09, 187--196. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Savage, W.C. (1970). The Measurement of Sensation: A Critique of Perceptual Psychophysics. Berkley: UC Press.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 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 Scholar
- Steed, A. (2008). A Simple Method for Estimating the Latency of Interactive, Real-Time Graphics Simulations. In Proc. ACM VRST '08, 123--129. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
- Vogels, I.M.L.C. (2004). Detectionof Temporal Delays in Visual-Haptic Interfaces. Hum. Fact. 46, 1 (Spr. 2004), 118--134.Google Scholar
- 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 ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- How Much Faster is Fast Enough?: User Perception of Latency & Latency Improvements in Direct and Indirect Touch
Recommendations
How fast is fast enough?: a study of the effects of latency in direct-touch pointing tasks
CHI '13: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsAlthough advances in touchscreen technology have provided us with more precise devices, touchscreens are still laden with latency issues. Common commercial devices present with latency up to 125ms. Although these levels have been shown to impact users' ...
Designing for low-latency direct-touch input
UIST '12: Proceedings of the 25th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technologySoftware designed for direct-touch interfaces often utilize a metaphor of direct physical manipulation of pseudo "real-world" objects. However, current touch systems typically take 50-200ms to update the display in response to a physi-cal touch action. ...
Video Interaction on Tablet Computers: Browsing with Pinch Gesture and Pen Tilt
MUM '22: Proceedings of the 21st International Conference on Mobile and Ubiquitous MultimediaDigital video technologies have been changing dramatically in the field of media production but reduced the tangibility of working with film. One interesting approach to get back such tangibility in digital systems is using pen and touch interactions. ...
Comments