Changes

Jump to: navigation, search

Team Armour

5 bytes removed, 16:32, 1 December 2011
Primary Research
However, portable touchscreen devices such as the iPad (tablets) still have a very fundamental deficiency when it comes to human-computer interaction; feedback. Most touchscreen devices such as the iPad, Samsung's Galaxy Tab, and most touchscreen cellphones have implemented vibrating feedback, so when the device will vibrate when the touchscreen receives input. This type of feedback works in a very basic “Vibration-No vibration” manner. This neglects what is perhaps our most strong sense. The sense of touch can perceive a very wide range of sensations of very wide magnitudes, and these devices do not take advantage of the fact that “the sense of touch can be used as a high-bandwidth communications channel.” If we review other tools in humanity, we can notice that they have in a way, and perhaps unintentionally, provided feedback. The weight of a hammer, and the way it vibrates when it's used to hammer a nail provided plenty of feedback information regarding the strength was used, whether or not it was enough to nail the nail down, and if there may be a harder layer under the surface the nail may not go thruthrough. When computers were invented, this feedback was also present in some way; the feeling of a key being pressed down, a finger being able to feel gaps between keys, the friction between the mouse and the desk, etc. Haptic feedback, in an ironic way, is meant to make human computer interaction more intuitive by using the sense of touch, but it seems to neglect it more than most conventional input systems. The following chart displays the relation between haptic feedback, visual feedback, and input errors commited by the user:
[[Image:Force-feedbackWinter.jpg|250px| ]]
According to this study conducted by Miika Silfverberg in 2003, the difference in errors between high visual feedback and no visual feedback can be neglected when high haptic feedback is provided. However, the errors raise over 10% when low haptic feedback is provided. Amongst the explanations that could be given is the fact that visual information is usually processed in a very conscious manner, requiring attention. Haptic information can be processed in a less conscious manner, and our brain can interpret it faster. For example, two pieces fitting tight together into position, a button reaching its lowest position, an on and off switch in a middle invalid position, etc. Data that may support this explanation was collected by Stephen Brewster and Lorna Brow in 2004:
1
edit

Navigation menu