Search

On-screen gamepads are increasingly used as controllers for video games on distant screens, yet lack the typical tactile feedback known from hardware controllers. We conducted a comparative lab study to investigate four smartphone gamepads inspired by traditional game controllers and mobile game controls (directional buttons, directional pad, floating joystick, tilt control). The study consisted of both completing a formal control test as well as controlling two popular video games of different genres (Pac-Man and Super Mario Bros.). The results indicate that the directional buttons require the most attention of the user, however, work precisely for direction-restricted navigational tasks. Directional pad and joystick showed a similar performance, yet they encourage drifting and unintended operations when the user is focused on the remote screen. While currently unfamiliar to many users, the floating joystick can reduce the glances at the device. Tilt turned out to be not sufficiently precise and quick for the investigated tasks. The article concludes with derived design guidelines with easily realizable measures for typical contexts such as casual gaming at home or spontaneous gaming on public displays. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Modern handheld devices can act as “magic lenses” for public displays and enable camera-based real-time interaction with their contents, thus allowing for manifold interactive applications in public space. To learn more about the characteristics of common techniques and to provide guidelines for new ones, a comparative user study was conducted. With regard to two basic task types (selection and translation) and two typical devices (smartphone and tablet), three interaction techniques in-depth were evaluated: direct touch-based input (Touch), cross-hair targeting (Target), and a new technique based on a dynamic cross-hair on the screen that snaps to visible nearby screen objects (Snap Target). The study results indicate that successful interaction with the Touch technique strongly depends on the usage context: Although Touch enables fast selection, it incurs many errors when small targets have to be selected on a smartphone. Target supports such difficult selections better, but Snap Target proved to be most robust in both investigated task types. Also, users stated that they felt best supported by the latter technique. Cross-hair-based techniques, especially Snap Target, were found to be well suitable for scenarios where several device types need to be supported under similar conditions. Implications and further work are discussed. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]