arXiv Science⌕ Search
Home/Archive/arXiv

arXiv · 1110.2520

Mixing Board Versus Mouse Interaction In Value Adjustment Tasks

Steven Bergner·Matthew Crider·Arthur E. Kirkpatrick·Torsten Möller
View original source ↗Read source document ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

We present a controlled, quantitative study with 12 participants comparing interaction with a haptically enhanced mixing board against interaction with a mouse in an abstract task that is motivated by several practical parameter space exploration settings. The study participants received 24 sets of one to eight integer values between 0 and 127, which they had to match by making adjustments with physical or graphical sliders. Based on recorded slider motion path data, we developed an analysis algorithm that identifies and measures different types of activity intervals, including error time moving irrelevant sliders and end time in breaks after completing each trial item. Our results showed a significant increase in speed of the mixing board interaction accompanied by reduced perceived cognitive load when compared with the traditional mouse-based GUI interaction. The gains in speed are largely due to the improved times required for the hand to reach for the first slider (acquisition time) and also when moving between different ones, while the actual time spent manipulating relevant sliders is very similar for either input device. These results agree strongly with qualitative predictions from Fitts' Law that the larger targets afforded by the mixer handles contributed to its faster performance. For further investigation, we computed a measure of motion simultaneity based on velocity correlation, which allowed to identify types of items for which increased simultaneous adjustments occur. For continuous parameter space exploration our findings suggest that mixing boards are a good option to provide detailed multi-value control. The strengths of this input method particularly show in settings where screen space is precious and undisrupted visual focus is crucial.

Explore related subjects

cs.HC

Keep this discovery

BibTeXRIS

Steven Bergner, Matthew Crider, Arthur E. Kirkpatrick, Torsten Möller. 2011-10-11. Mixing Board Versus Mouse Interaction In Value Adjustment Tasks. https://arxiv.org/abs/1110.2520

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related papers

arXiv2026

ShellVis: Sandboxed Live Programming for Shell Scripts

Live programming provides visibility to programmers by running and tracing programs as they are edited. However, for programs with potentially harmful side effects, liveness can turn mistakes into disasters. We propose enabling live programming in environments with side effects via sandboxing: confining effects to a simulation of the true environment. We apply sandboxed live programming in the challenging context of shell scripting: a ubiquitous and powerful---yet notoriously opaque and error-prone---tool. ShellVis provides line-by-line feedback on a shell script's run-time behavior, with file operations sandboxed via a safe overlay of the file system. A qualitative user evaluation finds ShellVis to be helpful to participants, replacing tedious existing practices and instilling confidence. Participant responses also reveal areas for future research, particularly bridging the gulf of execution alongside the gulf of evaluation. ShellVis serves as a case study of how sandboxing can bring live-programming techniques into the many real-world programming contexts where side effects are important.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

Visual-Motion-Induced Modulation of Pedestrian Trajectories Using Spatially Distributed Multi-Display Signage in Public Spaces

Multi-display signage (MDS), now ubiquitous in urban environments, has the potential to influence human behavior and experience in public spaces. However, despite its unique capability to present spatially distributed dynamic visual stimuli, its current use is mainly limited to advertising. In this study, we propose a perception-based approach for laterally modulating pedestrian trajectories as a nonverbal means of guiding pedestrians in public spaces. The approach is motivated by vection, the illusion of self-motion, and uses laterally moving monochrome stripes, a standard stimulus in vection research, presented across spatially distributed displays to elicit postural responses that may bias pedestrian trajectories. We evaluated the approach through a controlled laboratory experiment and a real-world field deployment involving actual pedestrian flows in a national museum. The laboratory experiment examined whether the MDS setup induced trajectory shifts in the direction predicted by prior research on the behavioral effects of vection. The field deployment investigated whether comparable effects would emerge in aggregate pedestrian behavior during unconstrained movement under conditions closer to those of urban public spaces. In the laboratory, full-screen motion significantly biased walking trajectories in the direction of visual motion, whereas partial-stripe motion produced no significant directional effect. In the field deployment, opposing full-screen motion conditions produced direction-consistent differences in aggregate pedestrian positions. The field results, observed despite the substantial variability in real-world pedestrian flows, extend the controlled laboratory findings and provide ecologically valid evidence supporting practical MDS-based pedestrian modulation in public settings. The results further suggest that sufficient visual-motion coverage may be important.

cs.HC↗
arXiv2026

How AI Coders Discuss, Disagree, and Reach Consensus: Challenges and Opportunities for LLM-Based Qualitative Coding

The utility of AI in multi-coder qualitative coding has been widely discussed, yet little empirical evidence exists to delineate the contexts in which it performs reliably. We address this gap by quantifying the effectiveness of multi-agent LLM coding across varied qualitative datasets, revealing key contextual and structural factors that mediate coding outcomes. We developed a literature-informed baseline pipeline that enables AI agents to independently code, debate, and reconcile disagreements. Results revealed that coding accuracy depends on factors such as codebook length, qualitative data similarity, and agent disagreement. Notably, intense and unresolved debates between agents led to higher accuracy. Our analysis showed that while LLMs emulate many human discussion behaviors, they lack adaptive responsiveness to context. From these findings, we offer design recommendations for building automated coding systems. Our open-source AI discussion dataset and methodological framework lay the groundwork for advancing the design of AI-mediated automated thematic analysis.

cs.HC↗