Shift: a technique for operating pen- based interfaces using touch
Abstract
Retrieving the stylus of a pen-based device takes time and requires a second hand. Especially for short intermittent interactions many users therefore choose to use their bare fingers. Although convenient, this increases targeting times and error rates. We argue that the main reasons are the occlusion of the target by the user's finger and ambiguity about which part of the finger defines the selection point. We propose a pointing technique we call Shift that is designed to address these issues. When the user touches the screen, Shift creates a callout showing a copy of the occluded screen area and places it in a non-occluded location. The callout also shows a pointer representing the selection point of the finger. Using this visual feedback, users guide the pointer into the target by moving their finger on the screen surface and commit the target acquisition by lifting the finger. Unlike existing techniques, Shift is only invoked when necessary--over large targets no callout is created and users enjoy the full performance of an unaltered touch screen. We report the results of a user study showing that with Shift participants can select small targets with much lower error rates than an unaided touch screen and that Shift is faster than Offset Cursor for larger targets.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
When entering text, users preferred to use their finger than a stylus.
“When entering text, users preferred to use their finger than a stylus [94,95].”
From Usability Studies on Mobile User Interface Design Patterns: A Systematic Literature Review (2017) · cites this paper as [95]
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Barrier pointing: using physical edges to assist target acquisition on mobile device touch screens
Froehlich, J., Wobbrock, J. O., & Kane, S. K. (2007) · Proceedings of the 9th international ACM SIGACCESS conference on Computers and accessibility · doi:10.1145/1296843.1296849 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
Kwon, S., Lee, D., & Chung, M. K. (2009) · International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2009.02.013 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Jung, E. S., & Im, Y. (2015) · International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics · doi:10.1016/j.ergon.2015.05.008 · Cited by 36 · see citing works
Chen, C., Lifset, E. T., Han, Y., Roy, A., Hogarth, M., Moore, A. A., Farcas, E., & Weibel, N. (2023) · The 25th International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility · doi:10.1145/3597638.3608378 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
“However, the low efficiency of typing due to finger dexterity problems [76] and the complexities of troubleshooting these devicesmight be problematic for older adults.”
BackgroundJustCorrect: Intelligent Post Hoc Text Correction Techniques on Smartphones
Cui, W., Zhu, S., Zhang, M. R., Schwartz, H. A., Wobbrock, J. O., & Bi, X. (2020) · Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology · doi:10.1145/3379337.3415857 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Wobbrock, J. O. (2014) · Advances in Medical Technologies and Clinical Practice · doi:10.4018/978-1-4666-4438-0.ch008 · Cited by 12 · see citing works
Senorita: A Chorded Keyboard for Sighted, Low Vision, and Blind Mobile Users
Rakhmetulla, G., & Arif, A. S. (2020) · Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3313831.3376576 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Li, Z., Zhao, M., Das, D., ZHAO, H., Ma, Y., Liu, W., Beaudouin-Lafon, M., Wang, F., Ramakrishnan, IV, & Bi, X. (2022) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3491102.3517472 · Cited by 10 · see citing works
- Authors
- Vogel, D., & Baudisch, P.
- Affiliations
- University of Toronto (CA)
- Microsoft (United States) (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2007-04-29
- Pages
- 657-666
- OpenAlex
- W2108518773
- Cited by
- 486
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 63 · 2024: 13 · 2023: 17 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 25 · 2020: 15 · 2019: 20 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 21 · 2016: 21 · 2015: 36 · 2014: 35 · 2013: 35 · 2012: 32
- FWCI
- 23.57
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Microsoft Research
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Interactive and Immersive Displays
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
- Keywords
- touchscreen interaction, occlusion, target acquisition, visual feedback
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review