國立臺灣師範大學博碩士論文全文系統

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

回結果列表

研究生：	林雲龍 Yun-Lung Lin
論文名稱：	動態多元化螢幕協助鍵盤設計 D3 On-screen Keyboard: Designing for Dynamic Diversity
指導教授：	葉耀明 Yeh, Yao-Ming
學位類別：	博士 Doctor
系所名稱：	資訊教育研究所 Graduate Institute of Information and Computer Education
論文出版年：	2009
畢業學年度：	97
語文別：	英文
論文頁數：	135
中文關鍵詞：	動態多元化設計、通用設計、輔助科技、視覺提示、編碼輸入
英文關鍵詞：	designing for dynamic diversity, universal design, assistive technology, visual prompting, coded selection method
論文種類：	學術論文
相關次數：	點閱：120 下載：10
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

文字輸入是電腦近用不可或缺的技能，傳統系統設計較少考量到個案的多樣性，致使身心障礙者無法正常使用該系統，而通用設計(universal design)的理念，增加系統的彈性，冀能讓所設計的產品，廣泛的被所有的人使用，然目前的輔助科技系統，雖有融入通用設計的概念，但僅強調初始介入的可用性，針對身心障礙者的輔助系統設計，本論文提出動態多樣性設計的概念，在系統設計應考量到使用者生理的動態變化需求，例如有些個案因為老化或功能衰退，系統應能因應其變化而調整，不必再讓個案放棄即有的系統，再探索與適應另一套新的系統，然而有些使用者可能因為練習而精熟該系統或是因為復健而得到比較好的控制能力，系統應能提供診斷工具與適性調整的功能，以增進其使用效率。
本研究旨在以使用者動態適性調整的理念，設計一套中英文螢幕鍵盤，我們提出了許多策略來增進系統的效能與彈性，並以正常人先進行系統之可用性分析，利用單一受試重複測量的實驗方式，進行動態多元化螢幕鍵盤與作業系統提供的螢幕鍵盤之效能比較，以學習曲線來分析數字編碼輸入模式的效率，利用電腦模擬與受試者的重複測量實驗設計，探討掃瞄輸入模式與點選輸入模式的效率，以作為系統修正與介入實驗之參考。
本研究更進一步針對重度肢體障礙者，進行相關應用之實徵研究，採用適性評估與單一受試之交替處理實驗設計，針對腦性麻痺、成骨不全症及肌肉萎縮症等三種不同類型之個案，進行介入實驗，研究結果顯示動態多元化螢幕鍵盤的可用性與效率，針對本研究，我們提出未來系統設計、教學研究與應用之相關建議。

Text entry is a prerequisite skill in human-computer interaction. For person with motor disabilities, previous studies indicated that the search for proper and effective access solution still remains a formidable challenge. Motivated by the philosophy of designing for dynamic diversity, the purpose of this study was to develop an innovative on-screen keyboard that attended to the needs of dynamic client diversity and to explore the effectiveness of the text entry system in helping persons with severe motor disabilities.
Users could use D3 on-screen keyboard with suitable input devices, selection methods, layout arrangements, and layout sizes when his/her ability of motor control changed. Four persons with severe motor disabilities, who had a history of experiencing difficulties in text entry task, participated in this study. A single subject alternative treatment design was used. The independent variables were two text entry methods, including the specific selection methods of D3 on-screen keyboard and the participants’ familiarity text entry methods. The dependent variable was the performance of text entry task that included accuracy and speed. The result demonstrated the effect of D3 on-screen keyboard on learning text entry for all participants. All the participants could enter English characters with high accuracy at the first trial. The results of the character per minute (CPM) indicated that their performance exceeded that of the familiarity text entry methods within a few trials. Quantitative data showed that visual cueing was a useful technique to help the participants learn coded selection method with increased performance. The limitations of this study include the small sample size and the participants were evaluated in English characters only. Recommendations for future work are to replicate of this study on subjects diagnosed with other types of disabilities, to investigate the performance of using the proposed text entry system with other specific devices and training strategies, to develop a text entry training program and explore the effect of text entry more functionally.

LIST OF TABLES    III
LIST OF FIGURES    VI
CHAPTER 1 Introduction    1
1.1 Background    1
1.2 Statement of Purposes    4
1.3 Definitions of Terms    5
1.4 Dissertation Organization    8
CHAPTER 2 Literature Review    10
2.1 The Difficulties of Text Entry for Persons with Motor Disabilities    10
2.2 Review of On-screen Keyboards    13
2.3 Related Research of On-screen Keyboard Design    21
2.4 Designing for Dynamic Diversity    31
CHAPTER 3 The D3 On-screen Keyboard Design    42
3.1 System Architecture    42
3.2 Selection Methods    44
3.2.1 Coded Selection Method    45
3.2.2 Scanning Selection Method    47
3.2.3 Point-and-Click Selection Method    49
3.3 Designs of Layouts    50
3.3.1 Layout Arrangement    50
3.3.2 Keyboarding Methods    51
3.4 Enhancement of Control    53
3.4.1 The Layout Adaptation Testing Program    53
3.4.2 Internet Macro Layout    55
3.4.3 Visual Prompt Layout    56
3.4.4 Keyboard-emulated Mouse    57
CHAPTER 4 Usability Evaluation    60
4.1 Usability Evaluation of Coding Selection Method    60
4.2 Usability Evaluation of Scanning Selection Method    66
4.3 Usability Evaluation of Point-and-click Selection Method    69
CHAPTER 5 Applications    73
5.1 The Framework of Experiment Design    73
5.2 Participants    76
5.3 Apparatus and Procedure    77
5.4 Settings    81
5.5 Application on One Person with Osteogenesis Imperfecta    81
5.6 Application on Two Persons with Cerebral Palsy     86
5.7 Application on One Person with Muscular Dystrophy    95
5.8 Summary    99
CHAPTER 6 Conclusions and Future Works    102
6.1 Conclusions    103
6.2 Implications    107
6.3 Limitations of the Study    110
6.4 Suggestions for Future Research    111
REFERENCES    114
APPENDIX A. QUESTIONNAIRE    120
APPENDIX B. INFORMED CONSENT FORM    124
APPENDIX C. THE SCALE OF COMPUTER ACCESS ASSESSMENT    126
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2-1 Comparison the features of four on-screen keyboards    20
Table 4-1 The typing speed for both scanning selection methods    68
Table 5-1 The characteristics of the participants    77
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2-1 Wivik on-screen keyboard with complete QWERTY layout    15
Figure 2-2 Wivik on-screen keyboard with frequency-of-use layout    15
Figure 2-3 The Grid on-screen keyboard with images layout    16
Figure 2-4 The Grid on-screen keyboard with frequency-of-use layout    16
Figure 2-5 The layouts of Click-N-Type on-screen keyboard    17
Figure 2-6 Four layouts of SofType on-screen keyboard    18
Figure 2-7 Dvorak two-handed keyboard    23
Figure 2-8 Dvorak left-handed keyboard    24
Figure 2-9 Dvorak right-handed keyboard    24
Figure 2-10 The layout arrangement of FITALY on-screen keyboard    25
Figure 2-11 The layout arrangement of Chubon on-screen keyboard    25
Figure 2-12 The layout arrangement of OPTI text entry system.    26
Figure 2-13 The FOCL on-screen keyboard    27
Figure 2-14 The Half-QWERTY keyboard    29
Figure 2-15 The layout of JustType keyboard    29
Figure 2-16 The Stick keyboard    30
Figure 2-17 The relationship of three design philosophy    36
Figure 2-18 The multi-dimension of three design philosophy    39
Figure 3-1 System architecture of D3 on-screen keyboard    43
Figure 3-2 The numeric coded selection design    46
Figure 3-3 The sequence of group scanning    47
Figure 3-4 Waiting periods of each cell    48
Figure 3-5 The frequency-of-use layout    48
Figure 3-6 The double click layout with alphabetic layout    50
Figure 3-7 The various layouts of D3 on-screen keyboard    51
Figure 3-8 The layout of adaptation program and layout select algorithm    54
Figure 3-9 The layout of Internet Macro    56
Figure 3-10 The visual prompt layout    57
Figure 3-11 The layout of standard numeric keypad and the keyboard-emulated
mouse of D3 on-screen keyboard    58
Figure 3-12 Four components meet the idea of designing for dynamic diversity     59
Figure 4-1 The participant using coded selection method with a pencil    62
Figure 4-2 The performance of the coded selection method and the direct selection
 methods    63
Figure 4-3 The prediction shows crossover points for both text entry techniques    64
Figure 4-4 The context of evaluation both scanning selection methods    67
Figure 4-5 Comparison the performance of point-and-click selection methods on
both on-screen keyboards    71
Figure 5-1 The framework of experiment design    74
Figure 5-2 The keyboarding performance evaluation program    78
Figure 5-3 Amy used the point-and-click selection method with her left hand    83
Figure 5-4 Amy’s learning curves on two text entry systems    84
Figure 5-5 The accuracy of two text entry systems for Amy    85
Figure 5-6 The comprehensive evaluation for Bob    87
Figure 5-7 The prototype of customized alternative input device for Bob    88
Figure 5-8 The condition of new device intervention for Bob    89
Figure 5-9 The typing speed of the two text entry systems during the three phases
for Bob    90
Figure 5-10 The accuracy of the two text entry systems during the three phases
          for Bob    91
Figure 5-11 Carl used his right middle finger with a keyguard to interact with
computer    92
Figure 5-12 The typing speed of the two text entry systems during the three phases
for Carl    93
Figure 5-13 The accuracy of the two text entry systems during the three phases
          for Carl    94
Figure 5-14 Dora used a numeric keypad as an adaptive device    96
Figure 5-15 The typing speed of the two text entry systems during the three phases
for Dora    98
Figure 5-16 The accuracy of the two text entry systems during the three phases
          for Dora    99
Figure 6-1 The cycle of intervention    108
                                

Alberto, P. A., & Troutman, A. C. (1999). Applied behavior analysis for teachers (5th ed.). New York: Macmillan Publishing Co.
Anson, D. K. (1997). Alternative Computer Access: A Guide to Selection. Philadelphia: F.A. Davis Company.
Anson, D. K., Moist, P., Przywara, M., Wells, H., Saylor, H., & Maxime, H. (2006). The Effects of Word Completion and Word Prediction on Typing Rates Using On-Screen Keyboards, Assistive Technology, 18(2), 146-154.
August, S., & Weiss, P. L., (1992). A human factors approach to adapted access device prescription and customization. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 29(4), 64-77.
Bauer, A., & Kroeger, S. (2004). Inclusive classrooms: Video cases on CD-ROM activity and learning guide. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Bellman, T., & MacKenzie, I. S. (1998). A probabilistic character layout strategy for mobile text entry. Proceedings of Graphics Interface '98, pp. 168-176. Toronto: Canadian Information Processing Society.
Bergman, E., & Johnson, E. (1995). Towards Accessible Human-Computer Interaction. In Nielsen, J., (Ed.), Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, New Jersey, Ablex Publishing Corporation, vol. 5.
Beukelman, D. R., & Mirenda, P. (2005). Augmentative and alternative communication: management of severe communication disorders in children and adults. (3rd Ed.) Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Bravo, P. E., LeGare, M., Cook, A. M., & Hussey, S. M. (1993) A study of the application of Fitts' Law to selected cerebral palsied adults. Perceptual and Motor Skill, 77, 1107-1117.
Brooks, M. W. (2000), Introducing the Dvorak Keyboard, Retrieved November 20, 2007, from http://www.mwbrooks.com/dvorak/.
Cassingham R. C. (1986). The Dvorak Keyboard, Arcata, California: Freelance Communications, 21-26.
Chen, M. C. (2000). The study of teaching individuals with mental retardation to learn Da-Yi input method. Bulletin of Special Education, 19, 195-214.
Chen, M. C., Meng, L. F., Hsieh, T. F., Chu, C. N., & Li, T. Y. (2004). Computerized assessment tool for mouse operating proficiency. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, 3118, 849-856.
Cook, A. M., & Polgar, J. M. (2008). Cook and Hussey’s Assistive technologies: Principles and practice.(3rd Ed.). Baltimore: Mosby.
Cooper, W. E. (1983). Cognitive aspects of skilled typewriting. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Dorsa, E. (2002). An Introduction to Universal Design: A Hand Tool Project, Technology Teacher, 61(8), 27-29.
Fitts, P. M. (1954). The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 47, 381-391.
Fitts, P. M., & Peterson, J. R. (1964). Information capacity of discrete motor responses, Journal of Experimental Psychology, 67, 103-112.
Glennen, S., & DeCoste, D. (1997). Handbook of augmentative and alternative communication. San Diego, CA: Singular.
Greenfield, P. (1984). A theory of the teacher in the learning activities of everyday life. In B. Rogoff &J. Lave (Eds.), Everyday cognition: Its development in social context 117–138. Cambridge, MA:Harvard University Press.
Green, N., Kruger, J., Faldu, C., & Amant, R. S. (2004). A reduced QWERTY keyboard for mobile text entry, Proceedings of SIGCHI2004 Extended Abstracts, ACM Press, New York, pp. 1429–1432.
Gregor, P., Newell, A. F., Zajicek, M., (2001). Designing for dynamic diversity: making accessible interfaces for older people. Proceedings of the 2001 EC/NSF workshop on Universal accessibility of ubiquitous computing, 151-156.
Harris, D., & Vanderheiden, G. C. (1980). Augmentative Communication Techniques. In RL Schiefelbush (Ed.), Nonspeech language and communication: Analysis and intervention, (259-301). Baltimore: University Park Press.
Horstmann, H. M., & Levine, S. P. (1990). Modeling of user performance with computer access and augmentative communication systems for handicapped people. Augment and Alternative Communication 6, 231-241.
Hurlburt, M., & Ottenbacher, K. J. (1992). An examination of direct selection typing rate and accuracy for persons with high spinal cord injury using QWERTY and default on-screen keyboards. Journal of Rehabilitation Research and Development 29(4), 54-63.
Johnson, P., Schuster, J., & Bell, J. (1996). Comparison of simultaneous prompting with and without error correction in teaching science vocabulary words to high school students with mild disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6, 437-458.
Karat, C., Halverson, C., Horn, D. & Karat, J. (1999). Patterns of Entry and Correction in Large Vocabulary Continuous Speech Recognition Systems, in Williams, M. G., Altom, M. W., Ehrlich K. & Newman W.(eds.), Proceedings of CHI’99: Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM Press, 568–575.
Kirschenbaum, A., Friedman, Z., & Melnik, A. (1986). Performance of disabled persons on a chordic keyboard, Human Factors, 28(2), 187-194.
Levine, S. P., Gauger, J. R., Bowers, L. D., & Khan, K. J. (1986). A comparison of mouthstick and Morse code text inputs. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 1(2), 51-55.
Li, T. Y., & Chen, M. C. (2005). The effectiveness of picture fading techniques on a multimedia learning system for teaching Chinese word recognition to pupils with multiple disabilities. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research 28(3), 267-271.
Lopes, J. B., (2001). Designing user interfaces for severely handicapped persons. Proceedings of the 2001 EC/NSF workshop on Universal accessibility of ubiquitous computing, 100-106.
MacKenzie, I. S. (2002). KSPC (keystrokes per character) as a characteristic of text. entry techniques. Proceedings of the 4th International Symposium on Human, 195-210.
MacKenzie, I. S., & Zhang, S. X. (1999). The design and evaluation of a high-performance soft keyboard. Proceedings of the CHI 99 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, ACM Press, 25-31.
MacKenzie, I. S., Zhang, S. X., & Soukore, R. R. W. (1999). Text entry using soft keyboards. Behaviour and Information Technology, 18, 235-244.
Matias, E., MacKenzie, I. S., & Buxton W. (1999). Half-QWERTY: A one-handed keyboard facilitating skill transfer from QWERTY. Proceedings of the INTERCHI '93 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. 88-94, New York, ACM.
Mace, R. L., Hardie, G. J., & Place, J. P. (1991). Accesible environments: Toward universal design. In Preiser, W., Visher, J., & White, E. (Eds.), Design interventions: Toward a more human architecture. New York, NY: Van Nostrand Reinhold.
McDonald, J. B., Schwejda, P., Marriner, N. A., Wilson, W. R., & Ross, A. M. (1982). Advantages of Morse code as a computer input for school aged children with physical disabilities. In Computers and the Handicapped. Ottawa: National Research Council of Canada.
Nesbat, S. B., & Gregor, P. (2003). A system for fast, full-text entry for small electronic devices. Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces, 4-11.
Newell, A. F. (1999). Extra-ordinary human-machine interaction - what can be learned from people with disabilities? Cognition Technology and Work 1(2), 78-85.
Newell, A. F. & Gregor, P., (2002). Design for older and disabled people – where do we go from here? Access in the Information Society, 2002, 3-7.
Newell, A. F., Arnott, J., Cairns, A., Ricketts, I. & Gregop, P. (1995). Intelligent systems for speech and
language impaired people: a portfolio of research. In A. D. N. EDWARDS, Ed. Extra-Ordinary
Human Computer Interaction: Interfaces for Users with Disabilities, Chapter 5, 83-101.
Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability Engineering. San Diego, California: Academic Press.
Pea, R. D. (2004). The social and technological dimensions of scaffolding and related theoretical concepts for learning, education, and human activity. Journal of the Learning Sciences, 13(3), 423–451.
Richardson, R. M., Telson, R.U., Koch, C.G., & Chrysler, S.T. (1987). Evaluations of conventional, serial, and chord keyboard options for mail encoding. Proceedings of the 31st Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society, 911-915.
Stephanidis, C. (2001). User Interfaces for All - Concepts, Methods, and Tools. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
Steriadis, C. E., & Constantinou, P. (2003). Designing human-computer interfaces for quadriplegic people. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 10, 87-118.
Struck, M. (1999). Focus on one handed keyboarding options. OT Practice, 4 , 55-56.
Szeto, A. Y., Allen, E. J., & Littrell, M. C. (1993). Comparison of speed and accuracy for selected electronic communication devices and input methods. Alternative and Augmentative Communication, 9, 229-242.
Tam, C., Reid, D., Naumann, S., & O’Keefe, B. (2002) Effects of word prediction and location of word prediction list on text entry with children with spina bifida and hydrocephalus. Augmentative Alternative Communication, 18,147-161.
Tawney, J. W., & Gast, D. L. (1984). Single subject research in special education. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
Trewin, S. & Pain, H. (1999). Keyboard and mouse errors due to motor disabilities. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 50 (2), 109-144.
Richardson, R. M., Telson, R. U., Koch, C. G., & Chrysler, S. T. (1987). Evaluations of conventional, serial, and chord keyboard options for mail encoding. Proceedings of the 31st Annual meeting of the Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society. 911-915.
Wallace, J., Flippo, K., Barcus, J. M., & Behrmann, M. M., (1995). Legislative foundation of assistive technology policy in the United States. In K. F. Flippo, K J. Inge, & J. M. Barcus (Eds.), Assistive technology: A resource for school, work, and community (pp. 3-21). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
Wu, T. F., Meng, L. F., Wang H. P., Wu, W. T., & Li, T. Y. (2002). Computer access assessment for persons with physical disability: A guide to assistive technology interventions. Lecture Notes in Computer Sciences, 2398, 204-211.
Yamada, H. A. (1980). A historical study of typewriters and typing methods: from the position of planning Japanese parallels, Journal of Information Processing, 2, 175-202.
Yang, C. H. (1998). A newly developed Chinese phonetic Morse code for the people with physical impairments, Journal of Biomedical Engineering-Applications, Basis, and Communications,10(5), 262-269.
Zato, J. G., Wangner, T., Barrasa, J., & Rodriguez, E. (2005). Alternative web access toolkit for impairEd users. International Journal of Rehabilitation Research, 28(1), 63-67.
Zhai, S., Hunter, M., & Smith, B. A. (2002). Performance Optimization of Virtual Keyboards, Human-Computer Interaction. 17, 229-269.

簡易檢索 / 詳目顯示

相關論文