Putting the feel in ’look and feel‘
Abstract
Haptic devices are now commercially available and thus touch has become a potentially realistic solution to a variety of interaction design challenges. We report on an investigation of the use of touch as a way of reducing visual overload in the conventional desktop. In a two-phase study, we investigated the use of the PHANToM haptic device as a means of interacting with a conventional graphical user interface. The first experiment compared the effects of four different haptic augmentations on usability in a simple targeting task. The second experiment involved a more ecologically-oriented searching and scrolling task. Results indicated that the haptic effects did not improve users performance in terms of task completion time. However, the number of errors made was significantly reduced. Subjective workload measures showed that participants perceived many aspects of workload as significantly less with haptics. The results are described and the implications for the use of haptics in user interface design are discussed.
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?
In simple targeting tasks, visuotactile information decreased error rate compared with visual information only.
“In simple targeting tasks, visuotactile information decreased error rate, as compared with visual information only (Oakley, McGee, Brewster, & Gray, 2000).”
From Augmented visual, auditory, haptic, and multimodal feedback in motor learning: A review (2013) · cites this paper as Oakley, McGee, Brewster, & Gray, 2000
Cites
Movement characteristics using a mouse with tactile and force feedback
Akamatsu, M., & MacKenzie, I. S. (1996) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1006/ijhc.1996.0063 · Cited by 129 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Augmented visual, auditory, haptic, and multimodal feedback in motor learning: A review
Sigrist, R., Rauter, G., Riener, R., & Wolf, P. (2013) · Psychonomic Bulletin & Review · doi:10.3758/s13423-012-0333-8 · Cited by 1,416 · see citing works
Mediated social touch: a review of current research and future directions
Haans, A., & IJsselsteijn, W. (2006) · Virtual Reality · doi:10.1007/s10055-005-0014-2 · Cited by 303 · see citing works
Physical disabilities and computing technologies: An analysis of impairments
(2009) · Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1201/9781420088885-11 · Cited by 97 · see citing works
Surfpad: riding towards targets on a squeeze film effect
Casiez, G., Roussel, N., Vanbelleghem, R., & Giraud, F. (2011) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1978942.1979307 · Cited by 73 · see citing works
- Authors
- Oakley, I., McGee, M. R., Brewster, S., & Gray, P.
- Affiliations
- University of Glasgow (GB)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2000-04
- Pages
- 415-422
- OpenAlex
- W1979318584
- Cited by
- 227
- References
- 1
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 7 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 3 · 2021: 8 · 2020: 1 · 2019: 7 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 7 · 2015: 3 · 2014: 5 · 2013: 12 · 2012: 14
- FWCI
- 77.70
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (publishedVersion)
- ENLIGHTEN (Jurnal Bimbingan dan Konseling Islam) (acceptedVersion)
- Topics
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Tactile and Sensory Interactions
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Interactive and Immersive Displays
- Physical Sciences › Engineering › Mechanical Engineering › Teleoperation and Haptic Systems
- Keywords
- haptic devices, touch interaction, visual overload, graphical user interface, PHANToM haptic device, usability, workload, user interface design
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