![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
![]() |
Introduction
|
![]() |
What it is for
|
![]() |
How it works
|
![]() |
Keypad layouts
|
![]() |
Where to use
|
![]() |
Comparison
|
![]() |
Ergonomics
|
![]() |
Test Drive
|
![]() |
Photos
|
![]() |
Contacts
|
![]() |
UniTap Forum
|
![]() |
More Info...
|
![]() |
|
|
UniTap - ErgonomicsThis section reports the results of the ergonomic and usability tests of the prototype device that was built by RL Software Technologies Inc. in order to evaluate the UniTap technology. One of the primary purposes of these tests was to make comparison between UniTap and the most relevant technologies, namely Fastap (tm), T9 (tm) and multi-tap, all of which use buttons (or sensors) activated by a fingertip. At the time of testing (November 2003) only the latter two interfaces were available in commercial mobile phones, while UniTap and Fastap were tested in prototype devices. During tests all participants were divided into several categories depending on their previous experience (initial, novel, and expert) and were asked to enter different types of sentences, namely, traditional, non-dictionary, abbreviated and numeric. Several characteristics, including words per minute, key strokes per character and NASA Task Load Index, were measured. Below you will find aggregate learning curve and NASA Task Load Index for different interfaces. The complete report can be downloaded by clicking on the link below.
Information in the report is partially based on the figures available at the Mobile Text Entry report by Amal Sirisena made under supervision of Andy Cockburn at the Department of Computer Science, University of Canterbury, Christchurch, New Zealand, November 8, 2002. |
||
![]() |
||
![]() |
![]() |
![]() |
|
|
|
(c) 2002-2008 RL Software Technologies |