Multi-Touch Screens vs. Mouse-Driven Screens - Coursework Example

Assignment 1: Multi-Touch Screens vs. Mouse-Driven Screens Mouse driven screens and interfaces have dominated the desktop computing experience for close to three decades. All computing tasks were centered on the mouse, keyboard and other devices for input into the computer. However, over the last decade the conventional mouse driven screens are rapidly being replaced by the new touch interaction paradigm. This technology has been introduced by the tablets, smart phones, laptops among other devices (Helander, 2014). The replacement of the mouse driven screens by multi-touch screens is due to the different metaphors used in the design of these interfaces. The section below provides a comparison between the metaphors used in the two interfaces. Metaphors are a basis for the interaction and communication between the user and the computer. According to Carroll, Mack, & Kellogg (2007), applications utilizing menu driven screen have metaphors such as mouse pointers and cursors to indicate the motion of the mouse on the screen. This metaphor has been replaced all together on the multi-touch screen interface. The mouse driven interfaces are operated by dragging the cursor on the screen and effecting commands by clicking. Underling concepts of the application are presented in form of icons for a user to understand. Both the mouse driven and multi-touch screens use icons to represent underlying application concepts (Carroll et al, 2007). For instance the recycle bin is used to represent deleted items. Mouse driven screen interface uses the desktop metaphor which is a unifying concept that helps users to easily use a computer. The desktop metaphor treats the computer monitor as the user’s interaction point. Here, objects such as documents, files, folders and other accessories are placed. On the other hand the multi-touch screens use the home metaphor where all applications can be accessed by the user. In other applications that use both the mouse driven and multi touch screens both the home screen and the desktop metaphors can be used (Carroll et al, 2007). Multi-touch screens allow moving layered views to allow the user to view content beneath them; the screen also uses swiping as a way of viewing different windows. Additionally, the interface uses the dragging, flicking and swiping objects on the screen. This is common when playing games and performing other basic tasks (Carroll et al, 2007). The mouse driven screen will perform this tasks using the minimizing and maximizing option on the window. This interface also utilizes the dragging metaphor for movement of objects on the screen. The mouse driven interface has the – and + for zooming in and out, this is used for increasing and reducing the size of images, documents among others. The screen also uses the scroll bars to scroll up and down the window. Zooming in and out on a multi- touch screens is achieved by pinching the screen to increase or reduce the size of objects and content displayed on windows. To scroll up and down the screen, sliding sliders, spinning pickers and simple sliding is used (Carroll et al, 2007). Interaction types and styles The underlying difference between the two screens with regard to interaction types and styles is the fact that the multi- touch screens are operated by touch while the mouse driven screens are operated by the mouse events. Essentially, the mouse-driven screen involves a series of actions including dragging and clicking. The multi-touch screen has the ability to recognize and accept more than one or two points of contact on the screen surface. This creates an interaction style that enables the user to perform complex functions such as pinching on the screen (Gersh, McKneely & Remington, 2005). According to Helander (2014), the multi-touch screen is implemented in several ways depending on the type and the size of the interface. Some of the interaction types of the multi-touch interface include; Capacitive screens that use; Near Field Imaging (NFI) or surface capacitive technologies and Projected Capacitive Touch (PCT) that include the mutual and self capacitance (Helander, 2014). This type of multi-touch is commonly used in the tablets, smart phones and personal computers. Resistive screen type technologies that use both analogue and digital resistive technologies. Other types include optical technologies, wave technologies and force sensing touch technology (Helander, 2014). Interaction with the Multi- touch screens is achieved using the various interaction styles accorded to the users. Multi-touch screen products such as smart phones, tablets and laptops among others are featured with functions that can only be initiated by multi-touch gestures. Most notably, interaction is effected through the use of the following typical multi –touch gestures (Helander, 2014); Tapping; when the screen is tapped once the icon or object is selected, the gesture also means initiation of a command. Flickering; the user can toggle between screens or scroll horizontally by flicking across the screen. Pinching; this gesture is used to zoom in and out. On the other hand the Mouse driven interfaces use the WIMP (Windows, Icons, Menu, Pointing device) interaction style. The WIMP interaction style basically uses the mouse or any other input device to effect human computer interaction (Gersh et al, 2005). The user uses mouse events such as scrolls, clicks and double clicks on objects and commands to interact with the application. While multi-touch interface use touch as a means of interaction, the mouse-driven interface uses the mouse events that could be similar to the multi-touch screens (Gersh et al, 2005). Conceptual models A user interface creates an interaction platform between the computing device and the user by relaying the computer instructions to the user in a user friendly and understandable manner. Consequently, both interfaces are designed with objects and graphics that will enable the user to understand the computer and issue appropriate commands and instructions (Helander, 2014). There are situations that both interfaces will have the same conceptual model employed in the design of these interfaces. Both screens use icons and menus to represent a set of tasks or instructions. The icons are a graphical representation of underling codes that are executed once the user initiated the process by taping or clicking (Helander, 2014). Interaction conceptual model Both screens will employ the interaction conceptual model since the user interacts with the interface by issuing commands and instructions. Once instructions are issued, the computing device can perform tasks and provide feedback to the user. Interaction in the multi-touch screen or interface is achieved through touch, taping, sliding, flickering and pinching (Helander, 2014). The user taps on icons to effects commands and instructions, slides and flicker across the screen to view more windows and other objects. The mouse- driven interface uses mouse events to initiate interaction with the interface. The mouse events are mainly clicking and dragging. Activities that can be done on these interfaces include opening applications, saving and deleting just to mention a few. Interface metaphors Both screens use interface metaphors to represent the underling instructions. Multi-touch screens and interfaces use metaphors such as the home button, icons, slide bars. These interface metaphors represent the various actions that can be done by the user. Mouse driven screens basically use the desktop metaphor, use icons, status bars, scroll buttons and mouse pointer metaphors. Other interface metaphors used in both interfaces is the web portal metaphor (Helander, 2014). Reference Carroll, J. M., Mack, R. L., & Kellogg, W. A. (2007). Interface metaphors and user interface design. IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Division. Gersh, J. R., McKneely, J. A., & Remington, R. W. (2005). Cognitive engineering: Understanding human interaction with complex systems. Johns Hopkins APL technical digest, 26(4), 377-382. Helander, M. G. (Ed.). (2014). Handbook of human-computer interaction. Elsevier. Read More