Alphanumeric text entry is a challenge for Virtual Reality (VR) applications. VR enables new capabilities, impossible in the real world, such as an unobstructed view of the keyboard, without occlusion by the user's physical hands. Several hand representations have been proposed for typing in VR on standard physical keyboards. However, to date, these hand representations have not been compared regarding their performance and effects on presence for VR text entry. Our work addresses this gap by comparing existing hand representations with minimalistic fingertip visualization. We study the effects of four hand representations (no hand representation, inverse kinematic model, fingertip visualization using spheres and video inlay) on typing in VR using a standard physical keyboard with 24 participants. We found that the fingertip visualization and video inlay both resulted in statistically significant lower text entry error rates compared to no hand or inverse kinematic model representations. We found no statistical differences in text entry speed.
@cite_26 investigated typing on a physical keyboard in Augmented Virtuality @cite_9 . Specifically, they compared a full keyboard view in reality with a no keyboard condition, a partial and full blending condition. For the blending conditions the authors added a camera view of a partial or full scene into the virtual environment as a billboard without depth cues. They found, that providing a view of the keyboard (partial or full blending) has a positive effect on typing performance. Their implementation is restricted to typing with a monoscopic view of the keyboard and hands and the visualization of hand movements is bound by the update rate of the employed camera (typically 30 Hz). We study a complementary setup, in which we focus on virtual representations of the keyboard and hands. @cite_13 investigated the effects of different keyboard representations on user performance and preference for typing in VR but did not study different hand representations in depth.
@cite_9 @cite_26 @cite_13
2160641905 2795166434 2795433822 2134512786
Given the ease that humans have with using a keyboard and mouse in typical, non-colocated computer interaction, many studies have investigated the value of colocating the visual field and motor workspaces using immersive display modalities. Significant understanding has been gained by previous work comparing physical tasks against virtual tasks, visuomotor colocation versus non-colocation, and even visuomotor rotational misalignments in virtual environments (VEs). However, few studies have explored all of these paradigms in context with each other, and it is difficult to perform interstudy comparisons because of the variation in tested motor tasks. Therefore, using a stereoscopic fish tank display setup, the goal for the current study was to characterize human performance of a 3D Fitts' point-to-point reaching task using a stylus-based haptic interface in the physical, colocated non-colocated, and rotated VE visualization conditions. Five performance measures---throughput, efficiency, initial movement error, corrective movements, and peak velocity---were measured and used to evaluate task performance. These measures were studied in 22 subjects (11 male, 11 female, ages 20--32) performing a 3D variant of Fitts' serial task under 10 task conditions: physical, colocated VE, non-colocated VE, and rotated VEs from 45---315° in 45° increments. Hypotheses: All performance measures in the colocated VE were expected to reflect significantly reduced task performance over the real condition, but also reflect increased performance over the non-colocated VE condition. For rotational misalignments, all performance measures were expected to reflect the highest performance at 0°, reduce to the lowest performance at 90°, and rise again to a local maximum at 180° (symmetric about 0°). Results: All performance measures showed that the colocated VE condition resulted in significantly lower task performance than the physical condition and higher mean performance than the non-colocated VE condition, but the difference was not statistically significant. Also, rotation misalignments showed that task performance was mostly reduced to a minimum at 90°, 135°, and 225°. We conclude that colocated VEs may not significantly improve point-to-point reaching performance over non-colocated VEs. Also, visual rotations of ±45° affected throughput, efficiency, peak velocity, and initial movement error, but the number of corrective movements were not affected until ± 90°. Touch typing on flat surfaces (e.g. interactive tabletop) is challenging due to lack of tactile feedback and hand drifting. In this paper, we present TOAST, an eyes-free keyboard technique for enabling efficient touch typing on touch-sensitive surfaces. We first formalized the problem of keyboard parameter (e.g. location and size) estimation based on users' typing data. Through a user study, we then examined users' eyes-free touch typing behavior on an interactive tabletop with only asterisk feedback. We fitted the keyboard model to the typing data, results suggested that the model parameters (keyboard location and size) changed not only between different users, but also within the same user along with time. Based on the results, we proposed a Markov-Bayesian algorithm for input prediction, which considers the relative location between successive touch points within each hand respectively. Simulation results showed that based on the pooled data from all users, this model improved the top-1 accuracy of the classical statistical decoding algorithm from 86.2 to 92.1 . In a second user study, we further improved TOAST with dynamical model parameter adaptation, and evaluated users' text entry performance with TOAST using realistic text entry tasks. Participants reached a pick-up speed of 41.4 WPM with a character-level error rate of 0.6 . And with less than 10 minutes of practice, they reached 44.6 WPM without sacrificing accuracy. Participants' subjective feedback also indicated that TOAST offered a natural and efficient typing experience. A virtual keyboard takes a large portion of precious screen real estate. We have investigated whether an invisible keyboard is a feasible design option, how to support it, and how well it performs. Our study showed users could correctly recall relative key positions even when keys were invisible, although with greater absolute errors and overlaps between neighboring keys. Our research also showed adapting the spatial model in decoding improved the invisible keyboard performance. This method increased the input speed by 11.5 over simply hiding the keyboard and using the default spatial model. Our 3-day multi-session user study showed typing on an invisible keyboard could reach a practical level of performance after only a few sessions of practice: the input speed increased from 31.3 WPM to 37.9 WPM after 20 - 25 minutes practice on each day in 3 days, approaching that of a regular visible keyboard (41.6 WPM). Overall, our investigation shows an invisible keyboard with adapted spatial model is a practical and promising interface option for the mobile text entry systems. Text entry user interfaces have been a bottleneck of non traditional computing devices. One of the promising methods is the virtual keyboard on touch screens. Various layouts have been manually designed to replace the dominant QWERTY layout. This paper presents two computerized quantitative design techniques to search for the optimal virtual keyboard. The first technique simulated the dynamics of a keyboard with “digraph springs” between keys, which produced a “Hooke’s” keyboard with 41.6 wpm performance. The second technique used a Metropolis random walk algorithm guided by a “Fitts energy” objective function, which produced a “Metropolis” keyboard with 43.1 wpm performance. The paper also models and evaluates the perfo rmance of four existing keyboard layouts. We corrected erroneous estimates in the literature and predicted the performance of QWERTY, CHUBON, FITALY, OPTI to be in the neighborhood of 30, 33, 36 and 38 wpm respectively. Our best design was 40 faster than QWERTY and 10 faster than OPTI, illustrating the advantage of quantitative user interface design techniques based on models of human performance over traditional trial and error designs guided by heuristics.