Evaluation of Fitts’ Law Index of Difficulty Formulation for Screen Size Variations

It is well-known as Fitts’ law that the time for a user to point a target on a GUI screen can be modeled as a linear function of “index of difficulty (ID).” In this paper, the authors investigate whether the traditional ID formulation is appropriate independently of device screen sizes. Result of our experiment reveals that the ID formulation may not consistently capture actual difficulty: users’ pointing performances are not consistent among pointing target variations of which index of difficulty are consistent. The term A/W may not be appropriate because the term causes the observed inconsistency. Based on this finding, the authors then evaluate the applicability of possible models other than Fitts’ one. Multiple regression models are found to be able to appropriately represent the effects of target design variations. The authors next make an attempt to improve the definition of ID in Fitts’ model. Our idea is to raise the size or the distance values depending on the screen size. The modified model is found to fit well to the users’ pointing data, which supports the idea. 

• Hidehiko Okada
• Takayuki Akiba

• Fitts’ law
• pointing device
• small screen
• touch user interface
• usability.

[1] P. M. Fitts, "The information capacity of the human motor system
in controlling the amplitude of movement,” Journal of Experimental
Psychology, vol.47, vo.6, pp.381-391, 1954.
[2] I. S. MacKenzie, "Fitts’s law as a research and design tool
in human-computer interaction,” Human-Computer Interaction, vol.7,
pp.91-139, 1992.
[3] I. S. MacKenzie, and W. Buxton, "Extending Fitts’ law to
two-dimensional tasks,” Proc. CHI’92, pp.219-226, 1992.
[4] M. Oehl, C. Sutter, and M. Ziefle, "Considerations on efficient touch
interfaces - how display size influences the performance in an applied
pointing task,” in M. J. Smith, and G. Salvendy (eds.), Human Interface,
Part I, HCII 2007, LNCS 4557, pp.136-143, 2007.
[5] R. Fujioka, T. Akiba, and H. Okada, "Evaluation of pointing efficiency
on small screen touch user interfaces,” in M. J. Smith, and G. Salvendy
(eds.), Human Interface and the Management of Information, Part II, HCII
2009, LNCS 5618, pp.375-384, 2009.
[6] M. McClintock, and D. Hoiem, "Minimal target size in a pen-based
system,” Abridged Proc. HCI International’ 93, p.243, 1993.
[7] X. Ren, and S. Moriya, "Selection strategies for small targets and the
smallest maximum target size on pen-based systems,” IEICE trans. on
information and systems, vol.E81-D, no.8, pp.822-828, 1998.
[8] R. L. Potter, L. J. Weldon, and B. Shneiderman, "Improving the accuracy
of touch screens: an experimental evaluation of three strategies,” Proc.
CHI’88, pp.27-32, 1988.
[9] A. Sears, "High precision touchscreens: design strategies and comparisons
with a mouse,” International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, vol.34,
no.4, pp.593-613, 1991.
[10] X. Ren, and S. Mizobuchi, "Investigating the usability of the stylus pen
on handheld devices,” Proc. 4th Annual Workshop on HCI Research in
MIS, pp.30-34, 2005.
[11] R. Plamondon, and A. M. Alimi, "Speed/accuracy trade-offs in
target-directed movements,” Behavioral and Brain Sciences, vol.20, no.2,
pp.279-349, 1997.
[12] ISO 9241, "Ergonomic requirements for office work with visual display
terminals (VDTs) - Part 9: requirements for non-keyboard input devices,”
2000.
[13] T. Kvalseth, "An alternative to Fitts’ law,” Bulletin of the Psychonomic
Society, vol.5, pp.371-373, 1980.