成功大學博碩士論文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	羅書宜 Luo, Shuyi
論文名稱：	觸控筆於電腦輸入之績效與創新 Performance and Innovation of Touch Pens for Computer Inputs
指導教授：	吳豐光 Wu, Fong-Gong
學位類別：	博士 Doctor
系所名稱：	規劃與設計學院 - 工業設計學系 Department of Industrial Design
論文出版年：	2005
畢業學年度：	93
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	132
中文關鍵詞：	握柄尺寸、握柄形狀、螢幕作業、觸控筆、第五點支撐筆
外文關鍵詞：	handle shape, screen task, FPGP, handle size, Touch pen
相關次數：	點閱：73 下載：3
分享至:	分享至facebook 分享至twitter

查詢本校圖書館目錄查詢臺灣博碩士論文知識加值系統勘誤回報

　　隨著科技的進步，筆被應用的範圍越來越廣。筆式輸入產品的出現使得人們拿筆如傳統書寫般直接在螢幕上書寫的機會增加。而螢幕書寫所使用的筆，亦是手工具的一種，可視為手部的延伸。手工具的妥善設計，有賴工程技術、解剖、人體計測和生理等方面的考量和知識的運用。本研究以現有平板電腦之感壓晶片觸控筆之現有技術為基礎，從現有市售觸控筆和使用者行為的調查，到以人因工程的角度探討觸控筆之最適宜的長度與直徑尺寸。並根據使用者書寫時上肢活動的姿勢與持筆姿勢觀察的結果，結合手部之握持、手部人體計測和手工具之設計原則等相關理論，創新設計出能增進握持舒適和使用績效之觸控筆。

　　論文的概念發展是由調查階段、創新設計階段和設計評估階段所組成。調查階段包含市售的觸控筆收集與尺寸的測量調查、使用者使用觸控筆在筆試輸入電腦上之使用行為觀察，及根據觀察到的現象進一步以訪談的方式進行了解。在創新設計階段乃先進行設計前之前期測試。以實驗的方式確認市售觸控筆之最佳的長度和直徑的尺寸，該研究的條件是建立觸控筆設計時的控制變項，研究結果將作為觸控筆設計之筆身的尺寸。實驗之長度因子有三個水準：80、110 和140mm；直徑因子有四個水準：5.5、8、11和15mm。16位具筆式輸入產品使用經驗的人參加。實驗結果顯示長度140mm和直徑8mm之組合的觸控筆適於所有螢幕任務選用。接著，觸控筆的創新設計乃根據前期市售觸控筆之最佳的長度和直徑尺寸之研究結果，進而結合手部三腳握持之生物力學理論、手工具設計相關理論、與使用者使用觸控筆之行為觀察的結果進行觸控筆之創新設計。根據上述實驗、觀察與文獻應用，本研究之創新設計的結果提出第五點支撐筆 (Five-Point Grip Pen, FPGP)。

　　最後乃為設計評估階段。首先比較一般觸控筆和新形FPGP在點選、書寫和描繪等作業之績效與上肢姿勢的差異。實驗與觀察的結果顯示：(1) FPGP比一般的觸控筆在三項作業上更具穩定度，即較少的錯誤發生。(2) 在執行速度上，FPGP在點選和書寫作業的執行時間上並沒有比一般觸控筆佳，但在描繪作業上卻有明顯得好。這說明了，強調正確率的作業，建議使用第五點支撐筆；而講求速度的作業，則建議兩者皆可。(3) FPGP的優點為增加執行穩定度、改善不自然的書寫姿勢和可依不同的任務需求與偏好調整第五點支撐體在筆桿上的位置。缺點為使用者在使用上其握筆姿勢的變換受到限制。

　　FPGP 被證實不管在使用績效上或使用姿勢上皆比一般的觸控筆具優勢。但根據上一階段評價與觀察的結果指出，支撐體的尺寸大小、形狀和使用者的手寬大小等都很有可能影響著FPGP的使用性。因此，在設計評價階段進一步驗證FPGP對於不同掌寬群的使用者, 不同支撐體形狀和不同支撐體尺寸之使用績效。以9個不同形狀和尺寸組合的第五點支撐體為實驗樣本。支撐體的形狀有三個水準：球狀體、球加塊狀體和自然體；支撐體的尺寸有三個水準：大、中和小尺寸。掌寬群有四個水準： 25%ile以下、介於25-50%ile之間、介於50-75%ile之間及75%ile以上。實驗結果顯示：(1) 受測者之客觀測量與主觀等級評價的結果一致；(2)使用者的作業績效受著支撐體形狀、尺寸、掌寬和不同的作業形式之影響；(3)不管執行任何作業，支撐體的形狀皆以自然形之支撐體表現最佳；(4)書寫作業以小尺寸的支撐體表現最佳，點選作業以大尺寸的最佳，畫圖作業則大和中尺寸的支撐體適於所有使用者。

　　本研究提出增加支撐點改善手部執行時的不穩定性之創新設計之構想, 該構想與研究結果將可以應用到需要高度準確性和連續性無依靠之徒手控制的作業。例如：繪製壁畫、油漆粉刷、看板符號繪製、醫生手術作業、和其他需瞄準任務。繪製壁畫油漆符號、和其他需瞄準任務。此外，在支撐體尺寸方面的尺寸建議：(1) 點選和描繪作業，建議使用大尺寸的支撐體；(2)書寫作業則建議使用小尺寸的支撐體。

　The applications of pens are expanding with the development of technologies. Pen-based products increased the opportunities for people to use pens to write on screens. A touch pen used for screen writing is a hand tool and able to consider as an extension of the hand. The proper design of hand tools requires the technical, anatomic, anthropometric and physiological considerations.
This dissertation investigated the sizes of the touch pens in the current markets to explore the proper length and diameter of a touch pen and observed the user behaviors on the pen-based computers to find natural postures of upper limb (forearm, hand and fingers) and hand gripping. Then the hand anthropometric measurements and the design principles of hand tools were taken into consideration during the touch-pen design for increasing comfort and performance.

　The concept of this dissertation was developed from investigations, innovated design and evaluations. The investigations were to survey the sizes of touch pens in the current markets, to explore the behavior of touch-pen used on pen-based computer and to interview the user’s opinions after operations. The innovated design was first to examine the size effects on the performance of various touch-pens in the current markets. Three different lengths (80, 110 and 140mm) and four different diameters (5.5, 8, 11 and 15mm) were tested in three screen tasks for determining the ideal dimensions of the pen-based products. The sizes of 140mm x 8mm were suitable for three tasks using. Following, the innovated design of touch pen was created depending on the results of the proper sizes, behavior observations, as well as the theories of hand motion and design principles. The novel touch-pen was called Five-point grip pen (FPGP).

　The final stage was design evaluations. In the first place, to understand whether the FPGP is superior to the normal touch pen on performance and upper limb postures. The performing times and error rates were the dependent variables. The upper limb postures and the grip patterns were surveyed and evaluated. The experimental and observational results showed: (1) The performance of the FPGP is superior (with fewer error rates) than the common touch pen in three screen tasks. (2) Although the touch pens with or without a brace did not differ in terms of time performance, fewer errors occurred in the writing and pointing-and-clicking tasks when a touch pen with a brace was used. This study recommends that tasks required high degree of accuracy, a touch-pen with a brace should be helpful. When drawing on a screen people can use the FPGP to improve hand stability and save time. (3) The advantages of the FPGP include: increased hand stability, improved unnatural postures, and provided adjustability. The disadvantage of the FPGP were the limits of gripping patterns and the pen could not be twirled by users.

　The FPGP was superior to a normal touch pen in performance and hand postures. Thus, the further evaluation stage was considered to verify the performance of various handbreadths, brace shapes, and brace sizes. Nine braces with three shapes (ball, ball-and-brick, and natural) and three brace sizes (large, medium and small). The experimental results indicated that: (1) The subjective ranking results were consistent with the results of performance measures in all three tasks. (2) All measures were affected by brace shape and brace size but differently for each task. (3) The natural shape was the best brace for all tasks. (4) The small brace was best for all users during the writing task; the large size was the best brace during pointing-and-clicking task; the large and medium braces were suitable for all users during drawing task.

　This study proposed FPGPs that were added the brace to a touch pen to increase the stability in screen tasks. The idea and results can be applied to those needed higher accuracy or continuous freehand without supporting control tasks, such as wall-painting, surgery operation, and other required aiming tasks. Moreover, for choosing a brace size, the findings suggested that (1) for performing tasks that required prompt or accurate position-based movements and stable tracing movements the large braces were appropriate, (2) for tasks that required detailed operation in various directions the small braces were preferred.

Abstract I
Acknowledgements VIII
Contents IX
List of Tables XV
List of Figures	XVII
	
Chapter 1. Introduction	1
1 Background and motivations 1
2 Research purposes 3
3 Organization of the dissertation 3
	
Chapter 2. Literature Studies and Concepts Development 7
1 Literature studies 7
1.1 External precision grip of holding a pen 8
1.2 Handwriting 9
1.2.1 Writing instruments 10
1.2.2 Writing materials 11
1.3 Tasks 12
1.4 Hand tool design 13
2 Concepts development 15
2.1 Investigation 15
2.1.1 Measuring products in the markets 15
2.1.2 Behavior observation 17
2.2 Design development 17
2.2.1 Proper sizes of length and diameter of touch pen 17
2.2.2 Design the novel touch pen (Five-Point Grip Pen, FPGP) 19
2.3 Design evaluation	19
2.3.1 Evaluation of the novel touch pen (Five-Point Grip Pen) 21
2.3.2 Performance verification of Five-Point Grip Pens (FPGPs) 21
2.4 Summary 23

Chapter 3. Sizes Measurements and Behavior Observation 25
1 Determining each position of touch pen 26
2 Measurements 27
3 The shapes and characteristic 27
4 Survey of user operating posture and opinion 28
4.1 Subject 28
4.2 Experimental material 28
4.3 Observational factors of the experiment 29
4.5 Observational procedure 29
5 Observation results	29
5.1 Pointing-and-clicking task 31
5.2 Writing task 32
5.3 Drawing task 33
6 Observation and interview results 34
7 Summary 35

Chapter 4. Pilot Test for Design: Determining the Proper Sizes of Length and Diameter for Novel Touch Pen Design 36
1 Method 36
1.1 Subjects 36
1.2 Experimental design 37
1.3 Experimental materials and equipment 37
1.3.1 Pointing-and-clicking task 39
1.3.2 Writing task 39
1.3.3 Drawing task 41
1.4 Experimental procedure 42
2 Results 43
2.1 Pointing-and-clicking task43
2.2 Writing task 48
2.3 Drawing task 51
3 Discussion 56
3.1 Effects of length 56
3.2 Effects of diameter 57
4 Summary 59
	
Chapter 5. Design Innovation: Novel Touch Pen 60
1 Biomechanics of hand grip 60
2 Related design researches 61
3 The idea of novel touch pen 62
4 Distance from the pen body and the FPGP brace 64
5 Determining the shape and the size of the FPGP brace 65
6 Mockup 66
	
Chapter 6. Evaluation of the FPGP 67
1 Subjects 67
2 Experimental design 67
3 Experimental procedure 68
4 Results 68
4.1 Performance Measurements 68
4.1.1 Writing task 68
4.1.2 Pointing-and-clicking 68
4.1.3 Drawing task 69
4.1.4 Overall tasks 70
4.2 Subjective satisfaction evaluation 70
4.3 Observation 71
5 Discussion 72
6 Summary 74
	
Chapter 7. Performance Verification of FPGPs 76
1 Method 78
1.1 Subjects 78
1.2 Experimental design 78
1.3 Design of the experimental braces 79
1.4 Experimental equipments 84
1.5 Experimental procedure 84
2 Results 85
2.1 Writing task 86
2.1.1 Performance times 86
2.1.2 Number of errors 88
2.1.3 Subjective ratings 89
2.2 Point-and-clicking task 89
2.2.1 Performance times 89
2.2.2 Number of errors 90
2.2.3 Subjective ratings 90
2.3 Drawing task 91
2.3.1 Performance time 91
2.3.2 Number of errors 94
2.3.3 Subjective ratings 94
3 The comparison between the FPGP and the normal touch pen 94
4 Discussion 96
4.1 Brace shape for all screen tasks 96
4.2 Brace size and handbreadth effects for all screen tasks 97
4.2.1 Writing task 97
4.2.2 Point-and-clicking task 99
4.2.3 Drawing task 100
4.3 Subjective ratings for all screen tasks 102
5 Summary 103

Chapter 8. Conclusion and Suggestion 105
1 Overview of conclusions 105
2 Practical implication 108
Reference 110
Appendix I. Data for Performance Verification of FPGPs 116
Appendix II. Sheets for Subjective Preference Rating 128
Vita 131

                                    

Baird, K.M., Hoffmann, E.R. and Drury, C.G., 2002. The effects of probe length on Fitts’ law. Applied Ergonomics 33 (1), 9-14.

Bell, M.E., 1969. Evaluating the quality of handwriting. The journal of Educational Research 90(2), 126-129.

Benktzon, M., 1993. Designing for our future selves: the Swedish experience. Applied Ergonomics 24 (1), 19-27.

Blote, A.W., Zielstra, EM. & Zoerewey, MW., 1987. Writing posture and writing movement of children in kindergarten. Journal of Human Movement in Student 13, 323-341.

Briggs, R.O., Dennis, A.R., Beck, B.S. and Nunamaker, JR. Jay F., 1993. Whither the pen-based interface? Journal of Management Information Systems 9 (3), 71-90.

Chi, C.F. and Drury, C.G., 1988. Cross validation of measures of handle/ human fit. Applied Ergonomics 19 (4), 309-314.

Chushman, W.H. and Resenberg, D.J., 1991. Human factors in product design. Elsevier, Amsterdam.

Cochran, D.J. and Riley, M.W., 1986. The effects of handle shape and size on exerted forces. Human Factors 28 (3), 253-265.

Connolly, K.J. and Dalgleish, M., 1989. The emergence of tool using skill in infancy. Developmental Psychology, 25, 894-912.

Cornhill, H. and Case-Smith, J., 1996. Factors that relate to good and poor handwriting. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 50, 732-739.

Drury, C.G., 1971. Movements with lateral constraint, Ergonomics 14 (2), 293-305.
Drury, C.G., 1980. Handle for manual material handling. Applied Ergonomics 11, 35-42.

Drury, C.G., 1985. The role of the hand in manual materials handling. Ergonomics 28 (1), 213-227.

Duchnicky, R.L. and Kolers, P.A., 1983. Readability of text scrolled on visual display terminals as a function of window size. Human Factors 25, 683-692.

Elliott, J.M. and Connolly, K.J., 1984. A classification of manipulative hand movements. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology 26, 283-296.

Fellows, G.L. and Freivalds, A., 1991. Ergonomics evaluation of foam rubber grip for tool handles. Applied Ergonomics 22 (4), 225-230.

Fitts, P.M., 1954. The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement, Journal of Experiment Psychology, 47, 381-391.

Galer, I.A.R., 1987. Applied ergonomics handbook. 2nd ed., Butterworth-Heineman, London.

Graham, S., 1990. The role of production factors in learning disabled students’ composition. Journal of Educational Psychology 82, 781-791.

Grahamn, S., Weintraub, N.A., 1996. A review of handwriting research: progress and prospects form 1980 to 1994. Educational Psychology Review, 8(1), 7-87.

Greer, T., Lockman, J.J., 1998. Using writing instruments: In variances in young children and adults. Child Development 69 (4), 888-902.

Henderson, A. and Pehoski, C., 1995. Hand function in the child: Foundations for remediation. Mosby, St. Louis.

Hoffmann, E.R. and Gan, K.C., 1988. Ballistic movements with transported mass. Ergonomics, 31, 841-856.

Hoffmann, E.R., 1992. Fitts’ Law with transmission delay. Ergonomics, 35 (1), 37-48.

Institute of Occupational Safety and Health, 2000. Anthropometry database of laborers in Taiwan. (http://data1.iosh.gov.tw).

Kadefors, R., Areskoug, A., Dahlman, S., Kilbom, A., Sperling, L., Wikström, L. and Öster, J., 1993. An approach to ergonomics evaluation of hand tools. Applied Ergonomics 24 (3), 203-211.

Kao, B.J. and Liang, C.I., 2002. Effects of paper writhing on the lengths, diameters, and materials of the pens. Proceedings of 2002 Design Researches Conference of Chinese Institute of Design, 453-458.

Kao, H., 1976. An analysis of user performance toward handwriting instruments. Perceptural and Motor Skill 43, 522.

Kao, H., 1977. Ergonomics in penpoint design. Acta Psychological Taiwanica 18, 49-52.

Kao, H., 1979. Differential effects of writing instruments on handwriting performance. Acta Psychologica Taiwanica 21, 9-13.

Konz, S., 1986. Bent hammer handles. Human Factors 28(3), 317-323.

Kroemer, K.H.E., 1986. Coupling the hand with the handle: An improved notation of touch, grip, and grasp. Human Factors 28, 337-339.

Kurtz, L.A., 1994. Helpful handwriting hints. The Council for Exceptional Children 27(1), 58-59.

Langolf, G.D., Chaffin, D.B. and Foulke, H.A., 1976. An investigation of Fitts’ Law using a wide range of movement amplitudes. Journal of Motor Behavior, 8, 113-128.

Lewis, G.L. and Narayan, C.V., 1993. Design and sizing of ergonomic handles for hand tools. Applied Ergonomics 24 (5), 351-356.

Liang, C.I., Lo, Q.J., 2002. A study on relationship with recognition, comfort and stability of touch-pens for PDA. Industrial Design (Taiwan) 30 (2), 131-136.

Lindsay, G.A., McLennan, D., 1983. Lined paper: Its effects on the legibility and creativity of young children’s writing. British Journal of Educational Psychology 53(3), 364-368.

Longstaff, M.G., Heath, R.A., 1997. Space-time invariance in adult handwriting. Acta Psychologica 97, 201-214.

Luo, S. and Wu, F.G., 2004. An ergonomic study: design and evaluation for new touch-pens used for on-screen handwriting tasks. 2004 Pacific Design Conference, 49-56.

Mackenzie, C.L. and Iberall, T., 1994. The grasping hand. Elsevier Science B.V., North-Holland.

Meagher, S., 1985. Human hand requirements for designers of hand tools. In: Interface 85 Proceedings. The Fourth Symposium on Human Factors and Industrial Design in Consumer Products, pp. 3-6. Santa Monica, CA: Consumer Products Technical Group of the Human Factors Society.

Mergl, R., Tigges, P., Schrouter, A., Mouller, H.J. and Hegerl, U., 1999. Digitized analysis of handwriting and drawing movements in healthy subjects: methods, results and perspectives. Jounal of Meuroscience Methods 90, 157-169.

Okunribibo, O.O. and Haslegrave, C.M., 1999. Effect of handle design for cylinder trolleys. Applied Ergonomics 30, 407-419.

Patkin, M., 2001. A checklist for handle design. Ergonomics Australia On-Line, 15 (supplement). (http://ergonomics.uq.edu.au/eaol/handle.pdf)

Parush, S., Lavanon-Erez, N. and Weintraub, N., 1998. Ergonomic factors influencing handwriting performance. Work 11, 295-305.

Peck, M., Askov, E.N. and Fairchild, S., 1980. Another decade of research in handwriting: progress and prospect in the 1970s. Journal of Educational Research 73 (5), 283-298.

Riley, M.W. and Cochran, D.J., 1980. Handles for sharp tools. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Occupational Safety Research and Education, 67-74. Morgan-town, MV:NIOSH.

Roberts, G.I. and Samuels, M.T., 1993. Handwriting remediation: a comparison of computer-based and traditional approaches. Journal of Educational Research 87(2), 118-125.

Rosenberg, D.J., 1980. Human factors analysis for portable product design. Unpublished thesis, Tufts University, Medford, MA.

Rosenbloom, L. and Horton, M.E., 1971. The maturation of fine prehension in young children. Developmental Medicine and Child Neurology, 13, 3-8.

Sanders, M.S. and McCormick, E., 1993. Human Factors in Engineering and Design. Seventh Edition, McGRAW-HILL, INC. Singapore.

Saran, C., 1973. Biomechanical evaluation of T-handles for a pronation supination task. Journal of Occupational Medicine, 15, 712-716.

Sassoon, R., Nimmo-Smith, I. and Wing, A.M., 1986. An analysis of children's penholds. In H.S.R. Kao, G.P. van Galen & R. Hoosain (Eds.), Graphonomics: Contemporary Research in Handwriting. North-Holland, Elsevier Science Publishers B.V.

Schneck, C.M. and Henderson, A., 1990. Descriptive analysis of the developmental progression of grip position for pencil and crayon control in nondysfunctional children. American Journal of Occupational Therapy, 44, 893-900.

Stanton, N. (Editor), 1997. Human Factors in Consumer Products. Taylor & Francis, London.

Tseng, M.H. and Murray, E.A., 1994. Differences of perceptual motor measures in children with good and poor handwriting. Occupational Therapy Research, 14, 19-36.

Wallace, R.R., Schomer, J.H., 1994. Simplifying handwriting instruction for the 21st century. Education 114 (3), 413- 417.

Watters, C., Duffy, J. and Duffy, K., 2003. Using large tables on small display devices. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 58 (1), 21-37.

Woodson, W. E., 1981. Human factors design handbook. McGraw-Hill, New York.

Ziviani, J. and Elkins, J., 1986. Effect of pencil grip on handwriting speed and legibility. Education Review 38, 247-257.

校內：2007-07-25公開
校外：2007-07-25公開

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文