We investigate bivariate pointing in light of the recent progress in the modeling of univariate pointing. Unlike previous stud- ies, we focus on the effect of target shape (width and height ratio) on pointing performance, particularly when such a ra- tio is between1 and2. Results showed unequal impact of amplitude and directional constraints, with the former domi- nating the latter. Investigating models based on the notion of weighted\ue001p norm, we found that our empirical \ufb01ndings were best captured by an Euclidean model with one free weight. This model signi\ufb01cantly outperforms the best model to date.

Fitts\u2019 law [4] is often used as a model for pointing actions in user interfaces. It predicts that the timeT to acquire a graphical target depends on its widthW and its distanceD to the cursor (Figure 1.a) according to the relation:

Despite Fitts\u2019 law success as one of the very few quantita- tive models applicable to HCI tasks and the great number of studies related to Fitts\u2019 law existing in the literature (see [8]), some basic questions regarding Fitts\u2019 law have not been satis- factorily addressed. One of them is how Fitts\u2019 law should be formulated when the pointed target is two dimensional (2D).

Fitts\u2019 law is inherently a 1D model. In experimental studies, it is typical to set the width of the pointing targets to a set of controlled values, but leave the target height(H ) practically at in\ufb01nity. The only constraint on the movement is hence one-dimensional and collinear to the motion direction, with well de\ufb01ned task parameters(D, W ).

Practically, meaningful targets are of course 2D. A special class of 2D targets is objects with equal width and height, such as a square or a circle. Such targets have also been used

Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for pro\ufb01t or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the \ufb01rst page. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior speci\ufb01c permission and/or a fee.

in Fitts\u2019 law studies [7], and the usual practice is to take the diameter of the inscribed circle as theW in Fitts\u2019 law. In fact, two of the three tasks (peg in hole and disk transfer) in Fitts\u2019 original study [4] involved circle-shaped targets.

Problem arises when the 2D target is elongated, i.e. with un- equal width and height1. The 1D model applies whenH is in\ufb01nity; it also \u201cworks\u201d whenH= W . The questionable cases are whenH approachesW . Intuitively, whenH is much greater thanW (e.g.H >8 W ), it does not matter (movement time is only determined byW ) because the nat- ural spread of the hit points in the vertical dimension would not exceed such a range. What ifH approaches3W ,2W , or even below2W ? It is conceivable that the additional con- straint in theH dimension would make the task harder to perform whenH decreases toward the value ofW .

Stemmed from the need to model and compare goal-passing tasks with pointing tasks, recent work [2] shed some light on the question of directional-error control. The study took the other extreme case of pointing by controllingH and having

directional. It was found that pointing with directional con- straint, also follows Fitts\u2019 law, with the target heightH used in place ofW . The study also found that, for the sameID, directional pointing takes less time than amplitude pointing.

This is a critical step in the understanding of bivariate point- ing: for the \ufb01rst time, we isolated the effect of target height on acquisition time, independently of target width.

What is unresolved, however, is the interaction between tar- get height and width. We wondered earlier how movement time would change whenH decreases towards the value of

ment time change whenW decreases from in\ufb01nity towards the value ofH ? More formally, is it possible to \ufb01nd a model comparable to the original Fitts\u2019 law that would model the time to acquire a target of \ufb01nite width and height (Figure 2)?

Although posed from different angles, 2D Fitts\u2019 law is not a new topic. In the rest of the paper, we brie\ufb02y review related literature and summarize the different models proposed so far. We then discuss the limitations of each model and pro- pose new models that are more compatible with the current knowledge of pointing actions.

The very \ufb01rst study of two-dimensional pointing seems due to Crossman [3]. Reported by Hoffmann [5], Crossman found that \u201cthe vertical height [...] had a signi\ufb01cant effect on move- ment time\u201d and that \u201cthe restriction in the extra dimension appeared to affect performance in much the same way as the restriction in width, but to a slightly lesser degree\u201d [5]. See- ing that the target height had a similar logarithmic effect on performance, Crossman suggested a model of the form3:

Crossman\u2019s model explicitly separates the dif\ufb01culty of the amplitude and directional actions by de\ufb01ning two additive indexes of dif\ufb01culty. Hoffmann & Sheikh do not fully agree with this approach and argue that \u201conly when the target height is less than the natural vertical scatter of hits on the target is there likely to be any effect of vertical constraint\u201d [5]. In other words, the effect of width and height should interact: if one gets very dif\ufb01cult, it should cancel out the effect of the second. This is not true for the Crossman model.

The best known study of bivariate pointing in the HCI com- munity is by MacKenzie & Buxton [9]. Keeping the well- known form of Fitts\u2019 law, with a ratio of the distance to be covered and the target \u201cextent\u201d, they examined the following \ufb01ve candidates that quantify target extent in 2D (Figure 3):

\u2022The sum of target\u2019s width and height.
\u2022The product of the target\u2019s width and height.
\u2022The target width itself, without taking height into account.

Among these \ufb01ve, theIDmin(W,H ) model gave the best corre- lation with experimental data [9], followed by theW\ue000 model. The rest were rejected by the authors. The study of MacKen- zie & Buxton has been fairly successful as theIDmin model has been used (e.g. [10, 12]) and taught in the past decade. It has an operational simplicity and the advantage of being easily extended to higher dimensions. This model was also separately proposed by Hoffmann & Sheikh [5].

However, all models proposed to date have serious limita- tions of some kind. For example, theIDW\ue001 model that mea- sures target size along movement direction essentially ig- nores directional constraints. Its validity is also questionable when the \u201capproach angle\u201d is not0,45, or90 degrees, which were the only cases tested in MacKenzie & Buxton\u2019s study. But more importantly, such a model does not take account of the limit tasks properly.

LetID(D, W, H) denote the index of dif\ufb01culty of the bivari- ate pointing task with a target of widthW and heightH lying at a distance from the position of the cursor (Figure 4.a). This index must satisfy the following two properties:

satisfactory as they do not properly account for the interac- tion between target width and height. In the case of Cross- man\u2019s model, the width and height are fully independent vari- ables and the target height is predicted to contribute to move- ment time even when it is very large compared to the target

(b) When the widthW tends to in\ufb01nity, the task becomes anDPtask.

(c) When the heightH tends to in\ufb01nity, the task becomes aAPtask (with the differ- ence that the movement am- plitude is measured to the edge of the target instead of its center).

width, which is counter-intuitive. In the case of theIDmin model, the interaction between width and height exists but is very crude: it predicts that the movement time does not de- pend onH as soon as it is greater thanW ; vice versa, it is not affected byW as soon asW >H . This is dif\ufb01cult to be- lieve and actually inconsistent with available empirical data. For example, as shown in Table 3 in [5], for the same height (e.g.10), the movement time did increase asW changed (e.g. from40 to10). Sheikh & Hoffmann [11] also showed that the dif\ufb01culty for acquiring a square is indeed greater than for a rectangle, which is not captured by theIDmin model.

The unsatisfactory state of affairs in 2D pointing motivated us to conduct a new study to provide a more complete under- standing of it. Our study will depart from the prior art in two ways: experimental manipulation and theoretical modeling.

In terms of experimental manipulation, three factors differ- entiate our study from the prior art. First, knowing thatDP tasks also follow Fitts\u2019 law, we viewW-dominant(W <H ) andH-dominant(H < W ) cases symmetrically and study both as mirror situations. Second, unlike previous works that manipulate absoluteH andW values and leave their ratio as a dependent variable, we control theH andW ratio and view it as a basic independent variable. The ratio, which de- termines the shape of a rectangular target and is hence the fundamental factor to the interaction betweenH andW , has been an oversight in the literature. Third, we are interested in the impact of the secondary constraint (the greater ofH and

never studiedH: W ratios between1 and2, and was hence more likely to \ufb01nd only binary all-or-nothing impact. For example, Hoffmann & Sheikh [5] tested the ratios1,2,4,5,

In order to quantify a bivariate task with an univariate index of dif\ufb01culty, we need to de\ufb01ne the appropriate \u201cdistance\u201d in a two dimensional space, with the two dimensions determined byW andH. The general mathematical notion of distance we will use for that purpose is the weighted\ue001p-norm.