Vous êtes sur la page 1sur 5

Text Messaging

TiltText: Using Tilt for Text Input • Estimated 500,000,000,000 text messages
in 2003 worldwide
to Mobile Phones
• More popular outside North America

Daniel Wigdor & Ravin Balakrishnan

Ambiguity Solutions
• Pressing “2” : {2,a,b,c,A,B,C} • MultiTap
• Language -based disambiguation
• T9
• Letterwise
• Wordwise
• Alternate Layouts:

3 4

MultiTap: ~2.1 KSPC T9: ~1.2 KSPC


e.g.: {6,6,6,>,6,6} = “on” e.g.: {6,6} = “on”, “no”, “mo”,…

5 6

1
T9: Problems What’s best?
• Ambiguity persists • Low KSPC

• Inconsistent
• Eyes-free
• Eyes-free operation impossible
• Non-language specific
• Only English -Like text

• No numerals

• Real “texting” impossible


(“b4”,”btw”,”lol”,”rotflmao”…)

7 8

Tilt as input TiltText: 1 KSPC + Tilt Action


• Add a tilt sensor to device Q
• inexpensive accelerometers
• Hinckley et al. UIST’00
eg: {7} = …

• Tilt for text input:


• Sazawal et al. Unigesture MobileHCI ‘02
• Partridge et al. TiltType UIST’02 P R
• No formal evaluations

S
9 10

Tilt Detection: Key Tilt Tilt Detection: Absolute


• Difference between press & release • Relative to a fixed origin

• Slow: 3 consecutive actions • Keypress & tilt actions concurrent


• keypress, tilt, key- release
• Consecutive same -tilt: savings
• Pilot study: poor performance
• Consecutive opposite -tilt: extra cost

• High error-rate: “creeping posture”

11 12

2
Tilt Detection: Relative Our Prototype
• Most recent tilting gesture • Uses Absolute tilt
• floating origin • Implemented on Motorola i95 in Java
• Tilts from board via serial port
• Maintains advantages of Absolute tilt

• Saves work on consecutive same tilts &


consecutive opposite tilts

• No “creeping posture”

13 14

The Study Results: Overall Speed


• Repeated-measures design • Overall, TiltText 16% faster (including error correction)
10 participants
2 techniques (MultiTap & TiltText) 16
16 blocks of 20 phrases each 14

in 2 sessions 12

10
WPM

8
• Same phrases for both techniques TiltText
6
MultiTap
• Technique order between participant 4

• Measured time & accuracy 2

0
• Participants told to correct mistakes 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16

Block

15 16

Power-law extrapolation Results: Between Participant


• Data from 1 st technique seen by each participant
• TiltText still faster
16 0.2134 16
y = 7.6837x
2
14 R = 0.9263 14

12 12
0.1184
10 y = 8.0297x 10
WPM

WPM

2
R = 0.8963 8
8 TiltText
TiltText
6 6 MultiTap
MultiTap
4 4

2 2

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25

Block Block

17 18

3
Results: Error Rate Error Rate: By Letter
• TiltText error rate higher than MultiTap • Error rates much higher for some letters

20 40
18
Error Rate Percentage

Error Rate Percentage


35
16
30
14
TiltText
12 25
MultiTap
10 20
8
15
6
10
4

2
5

0 0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z

Block Correct Letter

19 20

Error Rate: Tilt Direction Conclusions


• Direction significantly effects error rate • Implemented TiltText
• Creeping posture
• Three distinct approaches for tilt
• Formal study conducted
40
Error Rate Percentage

35

30
• TiltText faster despite errors
25

20

15

10

0
Left Forward Right Back

Correct Tilt Direction

21 22

Future Work Acknowledgements


• Theoretical TiltText speed • Michael McGuffin
• KSPC is not the whole story • Richard Watson
• DGP Lab members
• Study participants
• Implement relative -tilt system
• Microsoft Research
• Deeper analysis of error causes
• Longer study
• Optimizing letter/key assignments

23 24

4
25

Vous aimerez peut-être aussi