Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Skip to main content
Springer Nature Link
Log in

Does panel type affect haptic experience? An empirical comparison of touch screen panels for smartphones

  • Short Communication
  • Published:
Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

As touch screens have become one of the most prevalent means of navigating mobile devices, various types of touch screen panels, including resistive overlay, capacitive overlay, surface acoustic wave, and infrared beam panels, have been developed to meet users’ increasing need for a more intuitive and interactive touch-based experience. This study examines whether these touch screen panels have distinctive effects on user perception. Data from a between-subjects experiment (N = 80) in which participants were exposed to four panels indicate that the panel type has a significant effect on users’ perceived sense of control, ease of use, satisfaction, and viewing quality.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Subscribe and save

Springer+ Basic
$34.99 /Month
  • Get 10 units per month
  • Download Article/Chapter or eBook
  • 1 Unit = 1 Article or 1 Chapter
  • Cancel anytime
Subscribe now

Buy Now

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2

References

  1. Park Y, Chen JV (2007) Acceptance and adoption of the innovative use of smartphone. Ind Manag Data Syst 107:1349–1365

    Article  Google Scholar 

  2. Charlesworth A (2009) The ascent of smartphone. Eng Technol 4:32–33

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Williamson AR, Young KL, Navarro J, Lenne MG (2011) Music selection using a touch screen interface: effect of auditory and visual feedback on driving and usability. Int J Veh Des 57:391–404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Yeh C (2012) Trend analysis on the automation of the notebook PC production process. Int J Autom Smart Technol 2:173–175

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Duchamp D, Fiener SK, Maguire GQ (1991) Software technology for wireless mobile computing. Netw IEEE 5:12–18

    Article  Google Scholar 

  6. Jansen Y, Karrer T, Borchers J (2010) MudPad: tactile feedback and haptic texture overlay for touch surfaces. In: Kruger A, Schoning J, Wigdor D, Haller M (eds) Proceedings of ACM international conference on interactive tabletops and surfaces (ITS’10). ACM Press, New York, pp 11–14

  7. Colle HA, Hiszem KJ (2004) Standing at a kiosk: effects of key size and spacing on touch screen numeric keypad performance and user preference. Ergonomics 47:1406–1423

    Article  Google Scholar 

  8. Paul RL (1988) Touchscreen usage in plant computer systems: a case study. Comput Ind Eng 15:410–417

    Article  Google Scholar 

  9. Holzinger A (2003) Finger instead of mouse: touch screens as a means of enhancing universal access. Lect Notes Comput Sci 2615:387–397

  10. Nara T, Takasaki M, Maeda T, Higuchi T, Ando S, Tachi S (2001) Surface acoustic wave tactile display. IEEE Comput Graph 21:56–63

    Article  Google Scholar 

  11. Takasaki M, Nara T, Tachi S, Higuchi T (2000) A tactile display using surface acoustic wave. In: Proceedings of the 9th IEEE international workshop on robot and human interactive communication (RO-MAN’00). IEEE Press, New York, pp 364–367

  12. Simpson ZB (2004) Novel infrared touch-screen technology and associated artwork. In: Elliott-Famularo H (ed) Proceedings of ACM SIGGRAPH 2004 emerging technologies (SIGGRAPH’04). ACP Press, New York, pp 1–20

  13. Valkkynen P, Niemela M, Tuomisto T (2006) Evaluating touching and pointing with a mobile terminal for physical browsing. In: Morch A, Morgan K, Bratteteig T, Ghosh G, Svanaes D (eds) Proceedings of the 4th Nordic conference on human-computer interaction (NordiCHI’06). ACM Press, New York, pp 28–37

  14. Kim KJ, Sundar SS (2011) Does panel type matter for LCD monitors? A study examining the effects of S-IPS, S-PVA, and TN panels in video gaming and movie viewing. Lect Notes Comput Sci 6947:281–288

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Kim KJ, Park E, Sundar SS (2012) IPS vs. AMOLED: effects of panel type on smartphone users’ viewing and reading experience. Lect Notes Electr Eng 182:77–84

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Samsung (2014) Samsung Galaxy S. http://www.samsung.com/uk/galaxys/specs.html. Accessed 2 July 2014

  17. GSMArena (2014) Samsung I9000 Galaxy S. http://www.gsmarena.com/samsung_i9000_galaxy_s-3115.php. Accessed 2 July 2014

  18. Koufaris M (2002) Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online consumer behavior. Inf Syst Res 13:205– 223

  19. Davis FD (1989) Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Q 13:319–340

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Park E, Baek S, Ohm J, Chang HJ (2014) Determinants of player acceptance of mobile social network games: an application of extended technology acceptance model. Telemat Inform 31:3–15

  21. Park E, del Pobil AP (2013) Modeling the user acceptance of long-term evolution (LTE) services. Ann Telecommun 68:307–315

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Bhalla MR, Bhalla AV (2010) Comparative study of various touchscreen technologies. Int J Comput Appl 6:12–18

    Google Scholar 

  23. Yang I, Kwon O (2011) A touch controller using differential sensing method for on-cell capacitive touch screen panel systems. IEEE T Consum Electr 57:1027–1032

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Barrett G, Omote R (2010) Projected-capacitive touch technology. Inf Disp 26:16–21

    Google Scholar 

  25. Kim KJ, Sundar SS (2014) Does screen size matter for smartphones? Utilitarian and hedonic effects of screen size on smartphone adoption. Cyberpsychology Behav Soc Netw 17:466–473

  26. Nass C, Mason L (1990) On the study of technology and task: A variable-based approach. In: Fulk J, Steinfeld C (eds) Organizations and communication technology. Sage, Newbury Park, pp 46–67

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgments

This work was supported by the National Research Foundation of Korea Grant funded by the Korean Government (NRF-2014S1A5A2A01011769).

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. College of Liberal Arts and Convergence Science, Korea Advanced Institute of Science and Technology (KAIST), Daejeon, Republic of Korea

    Eunil Park & Jay Y. Ohm

  2. Department of Interaction Science, Sungkyunkwan University, 326 International Hall, Sungkyunkwan-ro 25-2, Jongno-gu, Seoul, 110-745, Republic of Korea

    Ki Joon Kim

Authors
  1. Eunil Park
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Ki Joon Kim
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jay Y. Ohm
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Ki Joon Kim.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Park, E., Kim, K.J. & Ohm, J.Y. Does panel type affect haptic experience? An empirical comparison of touch screen panels for smartphones. J Multimodal User Interfaces 8, 429–433 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12193-014-0167-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12193-014-0167-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation