(Poika Isokoskia, b,Roope Raisamoa, Benoît Martinb,Grigori Evreinova)
(http://www.sciencedirect.com.focus.lib.kth.se/science/article/pii/S0953543806001391)
from the journal: Interacting with Computers Volume 19, Issue 3, May 2007, Pages 407–427
with an impact factor of: 1.233
This article is about a study for finding the different levels of performance in a variety of trackball and multi-pointer mice.
The qualitative methods used in this paper are for example their experiments that are well though out and performed in such a way that they yield more qualitative data than quantitative.Three out of the 4 experiments consisted of different people, in experiment 3 they used the same people as in experiment 2. The persons who participated had almost to none experience in using trackball-mouses and were given a set of tasks to complete with as high accuracy as possible in such short time as possible.
The study was quite extensive and done in steps at different times to get very accurate results. The paper also has well documented methods with equations as how to replicate and redo the experiments.
The overall results yielded that two handed configuration with trackball in the non dominant hand had the best results. However the difference wasn't that big of a gain to make the effort and try to learn how to properly use a trackball.
The people who were selected for these experiments were all academics who already are very familiar with computers in their daily work, and being academics they are probably used to new types of challenges and adapts quickly. However they were all entry level trackball-users so this study mostly showed how a person that is used to a normal mouse can handle a trackballmouse and possibly become more efficient. If the study had included high ability trackballusers it would probably yielded more concrete data.
About the paper “Comics, Robots, Fashion and Programming: outlining the concept of actDresses” by Fernaeus, Y. & Jacobsson, M.,
This
article was about physical programming and with that I mean for usage
in things that are more everyday and doesn’t necessarily have screen for
example. One example in the article was about a system called
“actDress” that involved changing physical things on for example a
robot, and thus also changing the behavior of said robot. IN the
examples in the text there was this robot dinosaur that when they put a
pyjama on it, it became sleepy. This was done with the help of RFID tags
that is something that is becoming increasingly more popular. For me
this article felt more like a proof of concept article that shows the
future possibilities of “physical programming”, and this might be
something we will see more of in the near future.
What an odd, but interesting, study. Personally I have always had a serious dislike (almost phobia) for trackball mice, which I think are both hopeless in the sense of performance and aesthetically awful. It feels good to now also have a well-documented argument why not to engage my self with one of them menaces again!
SvaraRaderaConcerning the article by Fernaeus & Jacobsson, I agree that it felt more like a proof of concept than anything else even though I would like to see some working prototypes in action. In my opinion, the article sort of presented a few sketchy examples (none which were actually proved or tested in reality) and tried to cover up the lack of physical proof by shrouding it with theory from different fields. However, I agree that we might see more of this “physical programming” phenomenon in the future and it will be interesting to see some real life applications that actually work.
Interesting study that maybe saved a few people from the trackball mice back in 2007! :D I would have liked you to write a little more about how they studied these people in a qualitative way. I’m asking for this because when I’m reading that they are measuring something I directly think of a quantitative study and not a qualitative one.
SvaraRadera