skip to main content
10.1145/2642918.2647354acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesuistConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Swipeboard: a text entry technique for ultra-small interfaces that supports novice to expert transitions

Published:05 October 2014Publication History

ABSTRACT

Ultra-small smart devices, such as smart watches, have become increasingly popular in recent years. Most of these devices rely on touch as the primary input modality, which makes tasks such as text entry increasingly difficult as the devices continue to shrink. In the sole pursuit of entry speed, the ultimate solution is a shorthand technique (e.g., Morse code) that sequences tokens of input (e.g., key, tap, swipe) into unique representations of each character. However, learning such techniques is hard, as it often resorts to rote memory. Our technique, Swipeboard, leverages our spatial memory of a QWERTY keyboard to learn, and eventually master a shorthand, eyes-free text entry method designed for ultra-small interfaces. Characters are entered with two swipes; the first swipe specifies the region where the character is located, and the second swipe specifies the character within that region. Our study showed that with less than two hours' training, Tested on a reduced word set, Swipeboard users achieved 19.58 words per minute (WPM), 15% faster than an existing baseline technique.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

uistf1155-file3.mp4

mp4

80.9 MB

References

  1. Blasko, G. and Feiner, S. Evaluation of an Eyes-Free Cursorless Numeric Entry System for Wearable Computers. IEEE Wearable Computers, (2006), 21--28.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  2. Buxton, W.A.S. Chunking and phrasing and the design of human-computer dialogues. IFIP Congress (1995), 494--499. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Cao, X. and Zhai, S. Modeling human performance of pen stroke gestures. CHI '07, 1495--1504. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Cornwell, J.M. Morse Code at 140 WPM. The National Association for Amateur Radio, 2008.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. Kristensson, P.-O. and Zhai, S. SHARK 2. ACM UIST '04, 43--52. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Kurtenbach, G., Fitzmaurice, G., Baudel, T., and Buxton, B. The design of a GUI paradigm based on tablets, two-hands, and transparency. ACM CHI '97, 35--42. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Kurtenbach, G.P. The design and evaluation of marking menus. Diss., University of Toronto, 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. MacKenzie, I.S., Soukoreff, R.W., and Helga, J. 1 thumb, 4 buttons, 20 words per minute. ACM UIST '11, 471--480. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. MacKenzie, I.S. and Zhang, S.X. The design and evaluation of a high-performance soft keyboard. ACM CHI '99, 25--31. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Oney, S., Harrison, C., Ogan, A., and Wiese, J. ZoomBoard. ACM CHI '13, 2799--2802. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  11. Partridge, K., Chatterjee, S., Sazawal, V., Borriello, G., and Want, R. TiltType. ACM UIST (2002), 201--204. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Perlin, K. Quikwriting. ACM UIST '98, 215--216. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Siek, K.A., Rogers, Y., and Connelly, K.H. Fat finger worries: how older and younger users physically interact with PDAs. INTERACT 2005. 267--280. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Welford, A.T. Reaction time, speed of performance, and age. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 515, 1 (1988), 1--17.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  15. Wigdor, D. and Balakrishnan, R. TiltText. ACM UIST , 81--90. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Wigdor, D. and Balakrishnan, R. A comparison of consecutive and concurrent input text entry techniques for mobile phones. ACM CHI '04, 81--88. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Wobbrock, J.O., Fogarty, J., Liu, S.-Y.S., Kimuro, S., and Harada, S. The angle mouse. ACM CHI '09, 1401--1410. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Wobbrock, J.O., Myers, B.A., and Kembel, J.A. EdgeWrite. ACM UIST '03, 61--70. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Zhai, S. and Kristensson, P.-O. Shorthand writing on stylus keyboard. ACM CHI '03, 97--104. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Zhao, S., and Balakrishnan, R. Simple vs. compound mark hierarchical marking menus. ACM UIST '04. 3342). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Swipeboard: a text entry technique for ultra-small interfaces that supports novice to expert transitions

      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
        UIST '14: Proceedings of the 27th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology
        October 2014
        722 pages
        ISBN:9781450330695
        DOI:10.1145/2642918

        Copyright © 2014 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 ACM 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: 5 October 2014

        Permissions

        Request permissions about this article.

        Request Permissions

        Check for updates

        Qualifiers

        • research-article

        Acceptance Rates

        UIST '14 Paper Acceptance Rate74of333submissions,22%Overall Acceptance Rate842of3,967submissions,21%

        Upcoming Conference

        UIST '24

      PDF Format

      View or Download as a PDF file.

      PDF

      eReader

      View online with eReader.

      eReader