Investigating The Influence of Curvature On User Experience in TUIs - A Comparative Study of Concave and Convex Buttons

Investigating the influence of curvature on User
Experience in TUIs- A Comparative Study of

Concave and Convex Buttons
MSc Thesis
Student Name: Shinjini Ghosh

Supervisor: Prof. Hyunyoung Kim
Student ID: 2515560
Course: MSc. Human Computer
Interaction
Date: 18th September, 2023
Academic Year: 2022 / 2023
Word Count: 14152
Total Pages: 39
I confirm that the work was solely undertaken by myself and that no help was provided from any other sources
than those permitted. All sections of the thesis that use quotes or describe an argument or concept developed by
another author have been referenced, including all secondary literature used, to show that this material has been
adopted to support my work.
ii
Contents
Abstract . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Acknowledgements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . x
1 Introduction 1
1.1 Background and Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
1.2 Research Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
1.3 Structure of the Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
2 Literature Review 4
2.1 Introduction to User Experience in TUIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.2 Button Design in TUIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4
2.3 Theoretical Foundations of Button Curvature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.4 The Influence of Button Shape on User Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.5 Methodologies for Studying Button Curvature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5
2.6 Previous Comparative Studies in User Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.7 Research Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6
2.8 Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
3 Methodology 8
3.1 Significance of the Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.2 Study Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8
3.3 Experimental Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4 Stimuli . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4.1 3D Modeling and Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9
3.4.2 3D Printing and Post-Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.5 Hardware and Circuit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.6 Participants . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.7 Experimental Design and Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.7.1 Study 1: Exploring Button Curvatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.7.2 Study 2: Button Perception Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
iii
3.8 Data Collection and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15
4 Results 16
4.1 Exploration Time Variance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16
4.1.1 Convex Buttons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.1.2 Concave Buttons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17
4.1.3 Average Exploration Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.2 Accuracy of Curvature Perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.2.1 Convex Buttons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19
4.2.2 Concave Buttons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20
4.3 Difficulty Estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.3.1 Convex Buttons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.3.2 Concave Buttons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21
4.4 Comfort Preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.4.1 Convex Buttons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
4.4.2 Concave Buttons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23
5 Discussion 25
5.1 Confirmation of Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25
5.2 Implications for Tangible User Interfaces (TUIs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27
5.2.1 Contributions to Eyes-Free Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.2.2 Impact on Everyday TUI Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.2.3 Highlighting the Importance of Tactile Feedback in TUIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28
5.3 Practical Design Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
5.4 Guidelines for Designers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29
6 Limitations and Future Work 31
6.1 Limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
6.2 Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31
7 Conclusion 33
8 Bibliography 34
A Appendix 37
iv
v
List of Figures
3.1 3D models of one of the ”Very Curved” Convex (left) and Concave buttons (right). R indicates
the radius of the curved surface. The smaller the radius means the more curved the surface. Δℎ
indicates height change over the curved surface. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10
3.2 3D printed stimuti. (Left to right) Convex (R=8.3mm); Convex (R=52.6mm); Concave (R=8.3mm);
Concave (R=52.6mm). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.3 3D printed base. (Left) Assemble setup with the stimuli, top, Interlink FSR406 stuck to the 3D
printed bottom part of base. (Right) Exploded view of the setup. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
3.4 Circuit diagram for the experimental setup: Schematics of circuit for how the hardware including
the two FSR, two push buttons and the micro-controller were connected. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 12
3.5 (Left) Temporary circuit using breadboard and jumper wires. (Right) Permanent soldered circuit. 12
3.6 Experimental procedure with randominzation of first curvature illustrated: this participant first
experienced the middle curvature (Rref = 20 mm) of concave buttons. Button type represents
convex or concave buttons and Curvature 1, 2, 3 represents Very, Middle or Little Curved levels of
curvature. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13
3.7 An ongoing experiment: A participant exploring stimuli. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14
4.1 Exploration time of the first stimulus of a trial, of the second stimulus, and their average in each
curvature level of convex buttons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.2 Exploration time of the first stimulus of a trial, of the second stimulus, and their average in each
curvature level of conacve buttons. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18
4.3 Accuracy of identifying the curvier button in the pair across each curvature level. . . . . . . . . . 20
4.4 The curvature perception difficulty estimated by participants in convex buttons, from 1 (very easy)
to 5 (very difficult). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.5 The curvature perception difficulty estimated by participants in concave buttons, from 1 (very
easy) to 5 (very difficult). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 22
4.6 The preferred comfort estimated by participants in convex buttons, from 1 (very uncomfortable) to
5 (very comfortable). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
4.7 The preferred comfort estimated by participants in concave buttons, from 1 (very uncomfortable)
to 5 (very comfortable). . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24
A.1 Participant Consent Form for the Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37
A.2 Participant Information leaflet for the Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38
A.3 Participant Information leaflet for the Experiment(Contd.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
vi
List of Tables
5.1 Correspondence table for designers of curvy devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30
vii
Acronyms
3D 3 Dimensional
CAD Computer-aided design
FSR Force sensing resistor

HCI Human Computer Interaction
IDE Integrated Development Environment
TUI Tangible User Interface
UV Ultraviolet
viii
Abstract
Tangible User Interfaces (TUIs) stand at the intersection of physicality and digitality, offering unique opportunities
to enhance human-computer interactions. This study delves into the intriguing area of button curvature,
investigating its profound impact on user perception within TUIs. By investigating the subtle differences in
button curvature, this study reveals the specific factors that influence users’ preferences and their discrimination
abilities. The study’s objectives include the dimensions of tactile perception, user preferences, and comfort,
culminating in design insights that hold significance for the rapidly evolving field of TUIs. The constant stimuli
method, combined with a systematic examination of stimuli, serves as the methodological foundation for this
investigation. The findings highlight the vital role of button curvature in shaping user experiences and focus
on the importance of ergonomic considerations in TUI design. Moreover, this study lays the groundwork for
future research endeavours, inviting exploration into multisensory interactions, dynamic tactile feedback, and cross-
cultural perspectives. As TUIs continue to evolve, this research contributes to the ongoing dialogue surrounding
interfaces that are not just touched but felt, opening doors to a new era of human-technology engagement.
Keywords
Tangible User Interfaces, Button Curvature, User Experience, Human Computer Interaction, Tactile Feedback.
ix
Acknowledgements
Completing this thesis has been a journey marked by challenges and achievements, and I am profoundly grateful
to those who have been instrumental in guiding and supporting me throughout this academic endeavour.
First and foremost, I would like to express my deepest gratitude to Prof. Hyunyoung Kim, my supervisor,
mentor, and source of constant inspiration. Prof. Kim’s exceptional guidance, infinite patience, and unwaver-
ing support have been the foundation of this research. Her ability to navigate the complexities of the study,
offer solutions to intricate problems, and provide constant encouragement and motivation were instrumental
in bringing this project to fruition. Every step of the way, Prof. Kim’s expertise and commitment paved the
path forward, and I am indebted to her for the wealth of knowledge and experience I have gained under her guidance.
I would also like to extend my heartfelt appreciation to Prof. Hamid Mukhtar, my thesis inspector, for his keen
insights, constructive feedback, and invaluable perspectives. Prof. Mukhtar’s critical analysis and alternative
viewpoints encouraged me to approach my research with depth and rigour, ultimately enriching the quality of this
work.
To the participants who generously dedicated their time and contributed to the experiments conducted in this
study, I offer my sincere thanks. Your involvement was crucial, and your willingness to engage with the research
process is greatly appreciated.
To my dear friends and cherished family, your unconditional support, belief in my abilities, and constant morale-
boosting were the pillars that sustained me through the challenges of this thesis. Your encouragement and faith in
my journey have been a source of strength, and I am profoundly grateful for your presence in my life.
Working on this thesis has been a transformative experience, one marked by intellectual growth, resilience, and
passion for the field of Human-Computer Interaction. To all those who have contributed to this journey, I offer my
heartfelt thanks. This achievement would not have been possible without your guidance, support, and belief in my
potential.
x
xi
CHAPTER 1
Introduction
In the contemporary field of Human Computer Interaction (HCI), the evolution of technology has brought forth a
fundamental shift in how individuals interact with digital interfaces. The conventional keyboard and mouse are
no longer the sole channel for human-computer interactions; on the contrary, the emergence of Tangible User
Interfaces (TUIs) has ushered in an era where the boundaries between the physical and digital realms blur. These
interfaces employ physical objects or surfaces to facilitate interactions with digital systems, redefining the user
experience in the process. A central facet of TUIs, often underappreciated yet very influential, is the design of
buttons or tactile elements that serve as the bridge between the physical and virtual worlds.
In HCI, studying TUIs is essential due to several compelling reasons. Firstly, TUIs bridge the gap between the
physical and digital domains, making interactions more intuitive and closer to real-world experiences. This aligns
with the principles of user-centered design [1], aiming to create interfaces that are user-friendly and align with
users’ mental models [2]. As users interact with physical objects, TUIs offer a level of embodiment and spatial
awareness that traditional interfaces lack.
Understanding and optimizing the design elements of TUIs, such as button curvature, are critical for ensuring
optimal user experiences [3, 4]. Button design and curvature, being a central aspect of TUIs, directly influence
how users interact with and perceive these interfaces. Research into button curvature, exploring how different
curvatures impact user interaction, perception, and comfort, can guide the design of more effective and user-friendly
interfaces.
The study of TUIs and button curvature is not only about creating enjoyable and efficient interactions. It also
extends to accessibility and inclusivity, aligning with the core principle of making technology usable by a diverse
range of users [5, 6]. For instance, individuals with visual impairments or motor difficulties can benefit significantly
from well-designed tactile interfaces, where button curvature plays a crucial role.
1.1 | Background and Significance
The field of Human-Computer Interaction has been profoundly reshaped by the advent of Tangible User Interfaces
(TUIs). The limitations of conventional interfaces in mimicking real-world interactions were evident. Users often
had to bridge the gap between their mental models of tasks and the abstractions presented on the screen, resulting
in cognitive load and decreased usability.
TUIs, in contrast, recognize that humans have an innate affinity for tangible interactions. They leverage physical
objects or surfaces as conduits for engaging with digital systems, offering a more direct and intuitive mode of
interaction. Users can manipulate physical objects, such as knobs, sliders, and buttons, to interact with digital
content. This fusion of the physical and digital worlds, where the boundaries blur, has the potential to revolutionize
how we interact with technology [7].
A fundamental component of TUIs is the design of buttons or tactile elements. Buttons, in this context, are
not mere physical switches but bridges that connect the tangible and intangible realms. The curvature of these
buttons, the focus of this research, serves as a tactile link between the physicality of the object and the digital
feedback it provides. While seemingly subtle, the curvature of these buttons holds the potential to significantly
1
shape user perception, comfort, and efficiency in interacting with TUIs [8, 9]. Moreover, in an era marked by the
proliferation of touchscreen devices, where tactile feedback is often absent, button design becomes an even more
salient concern. As such, the study’s findings can serve as a compass for designers seeking to enhance the tactile
aspects of user interactions [10].
This research aims to delve into the intricacies of button curvature in TUIs, seeking to unravel its impact on user
experience and interaction. By understanding how different curvature profiles affect user behaviour and perception,
we can unlock new dimensions of design possibilities and enhance the usability and accessibility of TUIs. This
exploration extends beyond the realms of HCI theory; it has practical implications for designers and developers
seeking to create more user-centric, inclusive, and effective tangible interfaces.
1.2 | Research Directions
This study sets on a multifaceted exploration of button curvature in Tangible User Interfaces (TUIs), aiming to
address several key research directions. First and foremost, the primary research direction involves systematically
examining various button curvature profiles within TUIs. By using a range of curvature designs, from convex to
concave, this study seeks to uncover how these profiles influence user interaction and perception. This exploration
involves investigating the time users take to explore and locate buttons, as well as assessing the accuracy of their
perceptions regarding button curvature.
This research delves into users’ perceived difficulty in interacting with buttons of varying curvature. By analyzing
user responses and conducting usability assessments, the study seeks to determine whether certain curvature
profiles are perceived as more challenging to use than others. Another crucial research direction focuses on
evaluating user comfort and preferences when interacting with buttons of different curvature profiles. This study
aims to understand which curvature profiles users find most comfortable and appealing.
The methodology employed in this study is grounded in the principles of psychophysics [11], a field devoted
to unraveling the relationship between physical stimuli and the sensory perceptions they evoke. The constant
stimuli method, a fundamental technique in psychophysics, serves as the bedrock of the experimental approach.
This approach is expected to identify perceptual boundaries and thresholds associated with button curvature,
offering invaluable insights into tactile discrimination. Additionally, the study also explores the time participants
are required to make judgments, and the associated user perception and preference providing insight into cognitive
and sensory processes underlying button curvature perception.
Practical design implications constitute vital research direction within this study. Beyond empirical investigations,
the aim is to provide actionable guidance for TUI developers and designers. By synthesizing research findings,
the study will offer comprehensive guidelines and recommendations for creating effective, intuitive, and inclusive
Tangible User Interfaces. These guidelines can serve as a valuable resource for those involved in TUI development,
fostering the creation of interfaces that better align with users’ needs and expectations.
1.3 | Structure of the Thesis
This thesis is structured to provide a comprehensive exploration of the influence of button curvature in Tangible User
Interfaces (TUIs) on user experience and interaction. The following chapters are organized to delve progressively
deeper into the research objectives and findings:
• Chapter 2: Literature Review

The second chapter delves into the existing body of knowledge related to user experience in TUIs. It covers
various aspects, including an introduction to user experience in TUIs, button design, theoretical foundations
of button curvature, the influence of button shape on user experience, and methodologies for studying
button curvature. This comprehensive literature review not only lays the theoretical groundwork but also
identifies research gaps and the need for the present study.
• Chapter 3: Methodology
Chapter 3 outlines the methodology employed in this research. It begins by explaining the significance of the
2
experiments conducted. Subsequently, it elucidates the study objectives, experimental parameters, stimulus
design (including 3D modelling and printing processes), hardware specifications, participant selection, and
the experimental design for two separate studies. This chapter provides a clear framework for the empirical
investigations conducted in this thesis.
• Chapter 4: Results
In this chapter, the research findings are presented and analyzed. The exploration of button curvature’s
impact on user experience is structured into subsections, including exploration time variance, accuracy of
curvature perception, difficulty estimation, and user comfort preferences. The results are discussed, and
their implications are assessed in light of the research objectives and hypotheses.
• Chapter 5: Discussion
Chapter 5 offers an in-depth discussion of the research outcomes. It starts by confirming or disproving
the hypotheses formulated at the outset of the study. The chapter then proceeds to explore the broader
implications of the findings for Tangible User Interfaces (TUIs). It presents contributions to eyes-free
interaction, everyday TUI use, and the significance of tactile feedback. Furthermore, it discusses the practical
design implications and offers guidelines for designers.
• Chapter 6: Limitations and Future Work This chapter critically evaluates the limitations of the research
and paves the way for future investigations. It describes the boundaries and constraints of the current study,
acknowledging areas that require further exploration. Moreover, it outlines potential avenues for future
research, highlighting how this study contributes to a broader research agenda within HCI.
• Chapter 7: Conclusion
The final chapter encapsulates the thesis’s key takeaways and significance. It reiterates the importance of
studying button curvature in TUIs and highlights the contributions made by this research. The chapter
synthesizes the findings, offers practical insights for designers, and concludes with a reflection on the
ever-evolving landscape of HCI in the context of tangible interfaces.
3
CHAPTER 2
Literature Review
2.1 | Introduction to User Experience in TUIs
As technology continues to advance, Tangible User Interfaces (TUIs) have become essential components of modern
digital systems, allowing users to interact with these systems in a variety of ways. Their significance spans a
multitude of domains, including sound engineering, aircraft piloting, medical surgery, and beyond [12, 13]. As
TUIs continue to advance, optimizing user experience becomes paramount. This study delves into a specific facet
of Tangible User Interface (TUI) design: the profound impact of button curvature on user experience.
Providing an excellent user experience is critical in the realm of TUIs. Users often interact with devices in
demanding, real-time scenarios that require precise, swift, and effortless operation. TUIs offer the advantage of
tactile feedback, allowing users to engage with digital interfaces without requiring visual attention. This ”eyes-free”
interaction is particularly crucial in contexts like sound engineering or piloting, where diverting attention from
the primary task can have serious consequences. Thus, the design of TUIs is not just an aesthetic concern but a
crucial aspect of functionality and usability [14].
2.2 | Button Design in TUIs
Buttons are a ubiquitous component of TUIs, serving as tangible entry points to digital systems and bridging the
gap between the physical and digital realms [9, 14]. Their tactile nature and capacity to convey critical information
through touch make them an ideal choice for user interaction in diverse applications. Buttons facilitate immediate
feedback, enabling users to perform actions or make selections with confidence.
The everyday use of buttons is widespread, from adjusting settings on a car control panel to navigating television
remotes, controlling video game interfaces, manipulating virtual reality (VR) handsets, or capturing photographs
with digital cameras. However, their effectiveness depends on their recognisability. Users must be able to tactically
differentiate buttons, particularly in ”eyes-free” contexts, for efficient and error-free interaction [15].
The design of buttons involves considering several principles, each with its unique aspects that contribute to the
overall user experience. These principles are multifaceted, including button size, placement, visual affordance, and
tactile feedback [7]. Size is a critical consideration, as buttons must strike a balance between being large enough
for comfortable interaction and compact enough not to overwhelm the interface. Placement is equally crucial,
as buttons should be intuitively located for easy access. Visual affordance, through features like button shape
and colour, aids in guiding users’ attention to relevant controls. However, it is tactile feedback that distinguishes
buttons within the realm of TUIs. A well-designed button provides not only a tactile cue upon activation but also
conveys information about its function and state through touch [14].
Understanding the psychology of tactile interaction is essential in designing effective buttons. Fitts’ Law, a
fundamental principle in human-computer interaction, emphasizes that the time required to reach a target (in
this case, a button) is determined by the distance to the target and the size of the target. This law implies that
button size and placement significantly affect the speed and accuracy of interaction [15].
4
2.3 | Theoretical Foundations of Button Curvature
Button curvature, particularly the shape of buttons, is a important consideration in TUI design [15]. Cognitive
psychology offers valuable insights into the role of button curvature in user interaction. Two theoretical foundations,
Fitts’ Law and Gestalt principles, provide a framework for understanding how users perceive and interact with
buttons of varying curvature.
Fitts’ Law suggests that the time required to move to a target is a function of the target’s size and distance from
the starting point. This law implies that the curvature and size of buttons significantly impact the speed and
accuracy of user interactions. Larger buttons with distinct curvature may be easier to target, leading to faster and
more accurate interactions. Conversely, smaller or irregularly shaped buttons may present challenges in precise
targeting, affecting the overall user experience [15, 16].
Gestalt principles, which emphasize how humans perceive and organize visual information, are also relevant to
button design. The principle of ”proximity” suggests that objects placed close to each other are perceived as a
group. In the context of buttons, this implies that the arrangement and spacing of buttons influence how users
perceive and interact with them. Buttons with varying curvatures may affect the perceived grouping of controls,
potentially impacting user comprehension and efficiency [14].
Past studies have delved into the ramifications of button curvature on user experiences, shedding light on the
cognitive and perceptual dimensions associated with different button shapes [17–20].
2.4 | The Influence of Button Shape on User Experience
Studies focused on button shape unveils its substantial impact on user experiences within diverse contexts, spanning
web design to mobile applications [15]. The specific design of concave and convex buttons draws particular
attention due to its implications for tactile interaction. These studies scrutinize how different button shapes wield
influence over users’ perception, comfort, and overall preferences.
In the field of user experience design, the tactile qualities of buttons significantly impact how users perceive and
interact with digital interfaces. For example, concave buttons, which have an indentation or recessed center, often
provide users with a tactile cue for finger placement. This design element can enhance precision and reduce errors,
particularly in ”eyes-free” scenarios where users rely on touch to navigate controls [4].
On the other hand, convex buttons, which protrude outward, may offer a different tactile experience. Their raised
surfaces may facilitate quick identification and actuation, potentially boosting interaction speed. However, the
trade-off between comfort and speed must be considered, as the overall user experience can be influenced by the
shape and curvature of buttons [14].
Through extensive investigations and research on the tactile perception of button curvature, we can gather valuable
insights that can be utilized to improve the design of tangible user interfaces (TUIs) in the future [4, 14]. By
analysing the impact of button curvature on the user’s tactile experience, we can optimize the design of TUIs
to ensure maximum usability and effectiveness. This research can help in the development of TUIs that are
more intuitive, responsive, and satisfying to use, ultimately leading to enhanced user experience and improved
productivity.
2.5 | Methodologies for Studying Button Curvature
The evaluation of button curvature’s impact on user experience involves the application of well-defined research
methodologies. Researchers employ various approaches, each tailored to capture specific facets of user perception
and behaviour. One prevalent methodology is controlled experiments. In these experiments, participants are
presented with tangible user interface (TUI) prototypes featuring buttons with differing curvatures. Researchers
meticulously record and analyze participants’ interactions, focusing on parameters like interaction time, accuracy,
and user preferences [15, 21].
5
Another valuable approach lies in psychophysics experiments, which delve into human perception and sensory
inputs. These experiments aim to quantitatively measure users’ sensitivity to differences in button curvature.
By establishing perception thresholds and discriminability metrics, researchers gain profound insights into the
subtleties of tactile perception concerning buttons [14].
Furthermore, eye-tracking studies offer a unique perspective by examining users’ visual attention patterns while
they interact with TUIs featuring various button shapes and curvatures. These studies help elucidate how users
visually explore and engage with interfaces, shedding light on the intricate interplay between tactile and visual
cues.
In addition to these methodologies, a blindfolded approach can be incorporated, as demonstrated in previous

research [3, 4]. In this method, participants are blindfolded and rely exclusively on their tactile perception to
interact with TUIs of diverse curvatures. The blindfolded method serves to isolate the tactile components of user
interaction, deliberately eliminating visual cues. It underscores the pivotal role of tactile feedback in button design,
offering insights into how participants navigate and interact under conditions where visual cues are intentionally
removed. This approach enriches the study by providing a deeper understanding of how button curvature impacts
user experience in ”eyes-free” scenarios, where tactile feedback is paramount for efficient interactions.
2.6 | Previous Comparative Studies in User Experience
The field of user experience design has seen an increase in comparative studies exploring various design elements in
user interfaces. These studies serve as a foundation for understanding how design choices impact user perceptions
and behaviours, ultimately shaping the design of TUIs.
One notable area of exploration in comparative studies involves the assessment of button size and placement.
Researchers have scrutinized the effects of button dimensions and positioning on interaction time and accuracy.
These studies highlight the significance of optimizing button size to strike a balance between comfortable interaction
and efficient targeting [22].
Additionally, studies have delved into the impact of visual affordance, including factors like button colour and
shape. These investigations reveal how visual cues influence users’ attention and interactions. For instance, the
choice of button shape can guide users’ tactile exploration, affecting the speed and accuracy of interaction [23].
However, it’s essential to note that while these studies have provided valuable insights into various design elements,
few studies have systematically explored the nuances of button curvature in a comparative context [4, 24].
2.7 | Research Gap
The literature on button design and curvature harbours a conspicuous research gap—an absence of comprehensive
comparative studies concerning concave and convex buttons with varying curvature levels, with a specific focus
on users’ tactile perception and accuracy. This study aims to bridge this research gap, thereby enhancing the
understanding of tangible user interfaces [7, 10, 19, 25].
Despite the prevalence of buttons in TUIs and their fundamental role in user interaction, there remains a dearth of
empirical studies that systematically investigate the tactile attributes of button curvature. While some studies
have explored the impact of button size and placement on user experience [24], few have delved into the nuances
of button curvature, particularly in a comparative context.
The study’s primary objectives encompass investigating tactile perception in terms of time and accuracy, analyzing
user preferences for button curvature, and understanding user comfort during interactions.
6
2.8 | Hypotheses
The study proposes several hypotheses to direct the investigation:
H1: Exploration time differs between concave and convex curvature when users are free to move their
fingertips
This hypothesis derives from the expectation that the tactile cues provided by concave buttons may facilitate
more precise finger placement, potentially reducing exploration time.
H2: The accuracy of users’ perception of button curvatures will vary depending on the curvature of the
buttons.
It is anticipated that users may exhibit varying levels of accuracy in differentiating subtle variations in curvature,
lending themselves to more precise perception.
H3: Ease of user perception of curvature differs between concave and convex buttons
This hypothesis is grounded in the idea that the tactile attributes of button curvature may affect how easily users
can perceive and differentiate between buttons.
H4: User preference for curvature differs between concave and convex buttons.
This hypothesis explores the subjective aspect of user experience, considering how users may gravitate towards
specific button curvatures based on their tactile preferences and comfort levels.
By addressing these hypotheses, this study aims to provide practical insights for designers working towards developing
more intuitive and user-friendly buttons in TUIs. It also seeks to contribute to the broader understanding of how
tactile qualities influence user experience in tangible interfaces, shedding light on an underexplored facet of TUI
design.
7
CHAPTER 3
Methodology
The forthcoming section of our study embarks upon a comprehensive exploration of our experimental methodology,
designed to explore the intricate dynamics governing the relationship between button curvature and user perception
in tangible user interfaces (TUIs). Building upon the extensive insights gained in our literature review, this section
serves as the foundation for our investigative endeavour, where we will scrutinize, analyze, and interpret the tactile
nuances that underlie the user experience when interacting with concave and convex buttons of varying curvature.
3.1 | Significance of the Experiment
The aim of the experiment is to understand how button curvature influences user perception is crucial for the design
and usability of these interfaces. The aim of the experiment is to understand how button curvature influences user
perception is crucial for the design and usability of these interfaces.
One of the cornerstone techniques in psychophysics is the constant stimuli method, which is essential to the experi-
mental approach [3, 7, 21]. By presenting participants with pairs of stimuli in a randomized fashion—comprising a
reference curvature and another with differing curvature—we aim to dissect the human ability to discern the most
curved stimulus accurately. Through this method, we seek to identify the perceptual boundaries and thresholds
associated with button curvature, offering valuable insights into tactile discrimination.
This study extends beyond discrimination alone. The exploration time participants require to make their judgments
constitutes a vital dimension of our analysis. This interaction is supposed to reveal valuable information about the
cognitive and sensory processes underlying button curvature perception. As users interact with the stimuli, their
exploration time can provide insight into their cognitive load, decision-making processes, and tactile skills.
3.2 | Study Objectives
The methodology is aligned with a set of well-defined study objectives, and each sheds light on a distinct aspect
of user perception and interaction with concave and convex buttons of varying curvature:
1. Investigate Tactile Perception of Users: The first objective delves into the realm of tactile perception,
focusing on two key dimensions: time and accuracy. This aims to uncover how users’ tactile discrimination
abilities manifest concerning button curvature, analyzing their judgments’ speed and precision.
2. Analyze Curvature Preference: Moving beyond just discrimination, the second objective seeks to
understand user preferences concerning button curvature. This analysis aims to unveil whether users exhibit
inclinations toward specific curvature profiles in their interactions.
3. Understand User Comfort: Comfort is a pivotal element in user experience. The third objective delves
into the area of user comfort, scrutinizing how button curvature impacts users’ tactile comfort and overall
satisfaction during interaction.
8
4. Propose Design Insights: The final objective extends beyond the immediate experiment. It aims to extract
design insights that can inform future applications in TUIs. By synthesizing the data and findings, this study
aspires to offer recommendations and guidelines for the design and implementation of button curvature in
tangible user interfaces.
These study objectives are expected to offer a comprehensive examination of the tactile nuances that govern the
user experience and provide insights that can contribute to the future of designing tangible user interfaces.
3.3 | Experimental Parameters
To effectively scrutinize perceptual sensitivity across a wide spectrum of button curvatures, the study has been
categorised into three distinct curvature levels: ”Very Curved,” ”Middle Curved,” and ”Little Curved.” These
levels have been chosen to align with the specific research objectives and are underpinned by the valuable insights
derived from our literature review and relevant studies [4, 7].
Participants were presented with 6 stimuli whose curvature clustered around the comparative stimulus of reference.
For both concave and convex buttons, the curvature levels are as follows:
1. Very Curved (Rref =10 mm): 8.3, 8.8, 9.4, 10.7, 11.5, and 12.5 mm.
This range spans from slightly below the reference curvature to moderately above it, enabling us to investigate
users’ perceptual sensitivity to highly curved button surfaces. The relevance of this category is paramount
as it addresses the perceptual challenges associated with significant curvature variations.
2. Middle Curved (Rref =20 mm): 16.7, 17.6, 18.8, 21.4, 23.1, and 25 mm.
This range bridges the gap between highly curved and relatively flat surfaces, offering valuable insights into
how users perceive and discriminate button curvatures that fall within this middle spectrum.
3. Little Curved (Rref =40 mm): 32.3, 34.5, 37, 43.5, 47.6, and 52.6 mm.
This range explores the subtler nuances of tactile perception, focusing on button curvatures that are less
pronounced. Understanding how users discriminate between such minor variations is pivotal for designing
TUIs with a wide range of button shapes.
In each curvature condition, participants will encounter three stimuli of comparison that are more curved than the
reference stimulus and three stimuli that are less curved. These comparison stimuli have been curated to maintain
an equal spacing in their curvatures (in m-1 ), ensuring a systematic and unbiased exploration of participants’
ability to discriminate varying button curvatures.
The selection of curvature levels, drawing inspiration from the literature and the research objectives, underpins the
methodological foundation of our study [11]. It positions the study to scrutinize the intricate interplay between
button curvature and user perception, furthering our understanding of the tactile aspects essential for user-centric
TUI design.
3.4 | Stimuli
In the context of this experiment, stimuli refer to the physical objects used to obtain tactile responses from
participants, enabling the investigation of how button curvature influences user perception in tangible user interfaces
(TUIs). There were 42 stimuli in total: 2 curvature types x 3 curvature levels × 7 stimuli (6 comparison stimuli +
1 reference stimulus). These stimuli were designed, 3D modelled, and 3D printed to simulate different levels of
curvature.
3.4.1 3D Modeling and Design
The process of stimuli creation started with 3D modelling, an integral step that required precise design to
accurately replicate varying button curvatures. For this purpose, I used Fusion 360 software, a powerful tool for
9
Computer-aided design (CAD) (Figure: 3.1). In this digital environment, I crafted the geometrical profiles of the
stimuli to match the desired curvature levels.
Fig. 3.1. 3D models of one of the ”Very Curved” Convex (left) and Concave buttons (right). R indicates the
radius of the curved surface. The smaller the radius means the more curved the surface. Δℎ indicates height
change over the curved surface.
These stimuli were designed to align with the study’s objectives and were chosen to fall into three distinct curvature
levels: ”Very Curved,” ”Middle Curved,” and ”Little Curved.” All stimuli were standardized to have the same
height and base diameter, ensuring that haptic cues stemming from height variations or contact area differences
did not interfere with the participants’ tactile experience [18, 26]. This attention to design details was essential to
guarantee the integrity of the experiment’s findings.
The chosen dimensions for the stimuli were based on consideration of ergonomic factors. The stimuli featured
a uniform base-to-peak height of 16 mm and a diameter of 16 mm. This selection was deliberate, as it closely
approximated the dimensions of a human’s index finger pad [27]. Furthermore, this height allowed participants
to comfortably rest their arms and wrists on the table during the experiment, preventing fatigue and ensuring a
consistent tactile experience throughout. These dimensions were also consistent with the height used in a related
study [4, 28].
In addition to the stimuli, a specially designed base was 3D printed to accommodate the Force sensing resistor
(FSR). The base was constructed in two parts: the bottom part, which housed the FSR, and the top part, which
securely sat above it (Figure: 3.3). The FSR was positioned within the bottom part of the base to ensure
stable and consistent contact with the stimuli. The top part of the base featured a strategically designed hole,
enabling easy attachment and detachment of different stimuli during the experiment. This design facilitated the
interchangeability of stimuli, allowing for the seamless presentation of various curvature levels to participants.
3.4.2 3D Printing and Post-Processing
Once the 3D modelling and design phase was complete, the stimuli were materialized through 3D printing (Figure:
3.2). To ensure precision and high-quality replication, I used a high-precision 3D printer, the Creality Halot-sky
[29], renowned for its capabilities in achieving intricate details and accuracy. The stimuli were printed using resin,
a material known for its suitability in achieving fine details and smooth surfaces.
After the 3D printing process, a series of post-processing steps were undertaken to finalize the stimuli. The first of
these steps involved washing in isopropyl alcohol, where the freshly printed stimuli were cleaned to remove any
10
residual uncured resin. This step, taking approximately 30 minutes, was crucial to ensure that the stimuli were
free from any excess material that could interfere with the tactile interaction.
Fig. 3.2. 3D printed stimuti. (Left to right) Convex (R=8.3mm); Convex (R=52.6mm); Concave (R=8.3mm);
Concave (R=52.6mm).
Fig. 3.3. 3D printed base. (Left) Assemble setup with the stimuli, top, Interlink FSR406 stuck to the 3D printed
bottom part of base. (Right) Exploded view of the setup.
Following washing, the stimuli underwent a curing process, which typically lasted between 30 to 45 minutes.
Curing involved exposing the stimuli to a controlled ultraviolet Ultraviolet (UV) light, to fully harden and solidify
the resin. This step was vital to guarantee the durability and stability of the stimuli and bases, ensuring that they
could withstand repeated use during the experimental trials.
The uniformity of height and base diameter across all stimuli and their corresponding bases ensured that participants’
tactile perception was solely influenced by the curvature variations. By offering this consistent physical foundation,
the experiment effectively isolated the impact of curvature on user perception while mitigating any potential
confounding factors related to differences in height or contact area.
3.5 | Hardware and Circuit
Following the 3 Dimensional (3D) printing process, I proceeded with the assembly of the hardware components,
the integration of the FSR for pressure and time measurement, the intricacies of the circuit design, and the coding
of the Arduino software that played a pivotal role in controlling and recording data from the hardware.
At the heart of the hardware configuration was the ELEGOO UNO R3 micro-controller, a versatile and widely
used micro-controller renowned for its compatibility and flexibility in experimental setups. For the measurement of
pressure, I utilized FSRs, specifically the Interlink FSR406 model. The FSRs were integrated into the hardware
setup to capture the tactile pressure applied by participants during their interactions with the stimuli. Each FSR
was accompanied by a 200-ohm resistor and a 0.01 µF capacitor, forming a circuit that enabled accurate pressure
sensing.
11
Fig. 3.4. Circuit diagram for the experimental setup: Schematics of circuit for how the hardware including the
two FSR, two push buttons and the micro-controller were connected.
Fig. 3.5. (Left) Temporary circuit using breadboard and jumper wires. (Right) Permanent soldered circuit.
One notable feature of the hardware setup was the inclusion of push buttons in conjunction with the FSRs. The
push buttons were augmented with 1-kilohm resistors, enhancing their functionality in the circuit. These buttons
allow for the activation and deactivation of the FSRs. The activation/deactivation process was synchronized with
12
the start and end of each trial. It allowed for precise control over data collection, ensuring that pressure data was
captured only when participants were actively engaging with the stimuli. This synchronization between the push
buttons and FSRs was a pivotal aspect of the circuit’s functionality (Figure: 3.4).
To fully utilize the hardware and orchestrate control and data recording, Arduino Integrated Development
Environment (IDE) software was meticulously coded [30] to align with the experiment’s desired functionality. In
order to ensure the stability and permanence of the hardware components, all elements were soldered onto a
circuit board (Figure: 3.5). This integration not only prevented accidental disconnections during the experiment
but also contributed to the overall reliability of the setup.
3.6 | Participants
A total of 12 participants were recruited to take part in the experiment. The recruited participants exhibited a
balanced distribution of gender, with 7 female and 5 male participants. The participants’ ages ranged across a
spectrum, with an arithmetic mean age of 27.33 years old. Additionally, three individuals identified as left-handed.
The experiment was conducted at the University of Birmingham, Birmingham, UK, within a controlled and
closed/private room. This controlled environment ensured that there were no external factors disturbing or
distracting the participants during the experimental sessions.
3.7 | Experimental Design and Procedure
The study aimed to investigate the impact of button curvature on user perception in tangible user interfaces
(TUIs) in a rigorous experimental design. The design incorporated several key elements, including the use of the
constant stimuli method, the structuring of trials, ethical considerations, and measures to ensure data validity and
reliability. To refine the experimental setup and procedure, pilot testing was conducted. This phase allowed for
adjustments and optimizations, ensuring that the experiment proceeded smoothly and yielded reliable results.
3.7.1 Study 1: Exploring Button Curvatures
The trials were structured meticulously to ensure precision and consistency in data collection. Participants began
by reading a detailed information leaflet (Figure: A.2, A.3) and signing an informed consent form (Figure: A.1).
They were then provided with an eye mask to ensure they were comfortably blindfolded for the study. Participants
sat at a table, allowing their arms and wrists to rest freely to prevent fatigue during the experiment. The stimuli
were explored using the index finger of their dominant hand. To minimize interruptions and emulate real-world
scenarios, where users naturally switch between buttons, a quick switch between stimuli was implemented [7, 31].
The average switching time between two stimuli was approximately 2.80 seconds, similar to previous studies [18,
32]. This minimized the ”time error” resulting from the fading memory of the first stimulus.
Fig. 3.6. Experimental procedure with randominzation of first curvature illustrated: this participant first
experienced the middle curvature (Rref = 20 mm) of concave buttons. Button type represents convex or concave
buttons and Curvature 1, 2, 3 represents Very, Middle or Little Curved levels of curvature.
Precise exploration times for each stimulus were recorded, with the first stimulus’s exploration time measured
from the experimenter’s instruction to start exploration until participants signaled the completion of exploration.
Then the stimuli was switched. Subsequently, participants explored the second stimulus, with its exploration time
13
Fig. 3.7. An ongoing experiment: A participant exploring stimuli.
defined similarly but ending when participants identified which stimulus felt ”most curved” and the participants
responded saying either “first” or “second”. Similar methods have been implemented and verified in a previous
study [4].
In total, the experiment comprised 72 trials, evenly divided into three sets of 12 trials for concave stimuli and
three sets of 12 trials for convex stimuli. The order of presentation for these trial sets was randomized, introducing
an element of unpredictability to minimize order effects. Additionally, the presentation order of the trial sets was
counterbalanced across participants, precisely organized using a Latin square design. Figure: 3.6 summaries the
experimental procedure and how the trials were conducted. Measures were implemented to ensure the validity and
reliability of the collected data. Participants did not receive feedback on their performance during the experiment,
aligning with prior research practices [26, 33]. To mitigate the impact of potential participant fatigue, breaks were
provided after every 12 trials. These intervals allowed participants to rest and maintain their focus during the
experiment. Figure: 3.7 shows the experimental setup and how they explored the different stimuli. On average,
each study, including both Study 1 (Exploring Button Curvatures) and Study 2 (Button Perception Feedback),
took approximately 70 minutes to complete.
3.7.2 Study 2: Button Perception Feedback
For the second study on Perception Feedback, participants were asked to complete a short 5-item Likert-scale
questionnaire. This questionnaire evaluated the difficulty of curvature discrimination, ranging from very easy to
very difficult, as well as comfort preferences, ranging from very uncomfortable to very comfortable. This feedback
provided valuable insights into participants’ subjective experiences during the experiment.
The experiment adhered to ethical principles, and all necessary approvals were obtained. Participants were
provided with an information leaflet explaining the study’s purpose and procedure. They were encouraged to
ask questions and clarify any concerns before proceeding. The experimental design was structured is a fashion
14
to gather comprehensive data on button curvature perception while prioritizing participants’ comfort and the
ethical conduct of the study. It employed established psychophysical methods and adhered to ideal practices in
experimental research.
3.8 | Data Collection and Analysis
The process of data collection during the experiment was executed focusing on key variables such as exploration
time and tactile perception. The acquisition of raw sensor data was central to Study 1, which involved the
exploration of button curvatures. To achieve this, a customized code [34] was developed using Processing.org,
tailored to interact with the microcontroller. This extracted the raw sensor from the Arduino serial communication.
It printed timestamps corresponding to the reception of data, enabling precise calculation of exploration time for
each stimulus. Additionally, the code was designed to save all sensor data into individualized .csv files for each
participant. This organizational approach facilitated subsequent in-depth analysis of the acquired data.
Study 2 involved the collection of user feedback, which acted as an integral component of the investigation into
button perception. To gather this feedback effectively, a Google Forms questionnaire was utilized. Participants
were provided with a structured questionnaire designed to their experience, including the perceived difficulty of
curvature discrimination and comfort preferences. The use of Google Forms streamlined the data collection process
and was systematically organized and easily accessible for analysis.
15
CHAPTER 4
Results
In this section, I will perform a comprehensive analysis of the outcomes of our experimental investigation. Building
upon the methodology, which I detailed in the preceding chapter, I now turn my attention to the crux of our study:
the results that shed light on the intricate dynamics of user perception when interacting with concave and convex
buttons of varying curvature within tangible user interfaces (TUIs).
The experiment was designed with precision, rooted in the principles of psychophysics and guided by the constant
stimuli method. Through this method, participants were presented with a diverse array of stimuli, encompassing
three distinct curvature levels, two curvature types (concave and convex), and a series of trials meticulously
structured to minimize biases and maximize data validity.
For a deeper understanding of button curvature’s influence on user perception, I scrutinized four fundamental
aspects:
1. Exploration Time Variance: The time participants took to explore different curvatures and button types
was analyzed. This exploration time provides insights into the speed and precision of tactile judgments,
offering a glimpse into the cognitive and sensory processes underpinning button perception. I aim to decipher
whether users exhibit variations in exploration time as they navigate diverse button curvatures.
2. Accuracy of Curvature Perception: Central to the investigation was an assessment of the accuracy with
which participants perceived button curvature. Did participants consistently identify the most curved button
among a pair of stimuli? This analysis delves into the perceptual boundaries and thresholds associated with
button curvature discrimination, shedding light on the intricacies of tactile perception.
3. Difficulty Estimation: Participants’ subjective experiences are pivotal in understanding the nuances of
tactile perception. Through this evaluation, I assess the perceived difficulty of curvature discrimination. By
delving into participants’ own estimations of task complexity, I gain valuable insights into the challenges and
intricacies of interacting with buttons of varying curvature.
4. Comfort Preference: Comfort is an integral facet of user experience, often influencing design decisions.
In this analysis, I explore participants’ comfort preferences concerning button curvature. By gauging their
comfort levels, I aim to uncover whether specific curvatures resonate more positively with users, offering
valuable design insights for tangible user interfaces.
4.1 | Exploration Time Variance
In my investigation, exploration time emerged as a pivotal metric shedding light on the intricate dynamics of user
perception when interacting with concave and convex buttons of varying curvature within tangible user interfaces
(TUIs). This analysis, rooted in the principles of psychophysics, aimed to uncover how users navigate these tactile
landscapes and the factors influencing the speed and precision of their judgments.
16
4.1.1 Convex Buttons
When considering the first exploration time for convex buttons, we observed intriguing trends across curvature
levels(Figure: 4.1). Participants took an average of 9.12 seconds to explore ”Very Curved” convex buttons
(Rref =10mm), whereas this time was reduced to 5.67 seconds for ”Little Curved” convex buttons (Rref =40mm).
This trend indicates that participants tended to engage in more prolonged initial exploratory behaviour when
presented with highly curved buttons, possibly reflecting the need for more comprehensive tactile information to
make accurate curvature judgments.
In contrast, the second exploration time, which signifies the time taken by participants to identify the most curved
stimulus in a pair, displayed a less pronounced trend across curvature levels. While there was a general decrease in
the second exploration time compared to the first exploration time, the difference between ”Very Curved” and
”Little Curved” buttons was relatively smaller. For convex buttons, the second exploration time varied from 4.82
seconds for ”Very Curved” (Rref =10mm) to 4.95 seconds for ”Little Curved” (Rref =40mm).
The difference between the first and second exploration times is of particular interest. This temporal gap represents
the duration participants are required to assess and make a judgment about the curvature of the stimuli. Smaller
differences between these times may suggest that participants quickly arrived at their judgments after a brief
exploration, while larger differences might indicate a more extensive exploration process.
Notably, the difference in exploration time between the first and second explorations was relatively higher for
”Very Curved” (Rref =10mm), dropping from 9.12 seconds to 4.82 seconds. As we transitioned to ”Middle
Curved” (Rref =20mm), this difference decreased, highlighting the participants’ efficiency in making judgments for
moderately curved buttons. Finally, in ”Little Curved” (Rref =40mm), we observed that the difference between the
first and second exploration times was minimal, reducing from 5.67 seconds to 4.95 seconds. This suggests that
participants required less time to make decisions for very curved buttons but invested more time in the exploration
of little curved buttons.
4.1.2 Concave Buttons
Upon scrutinizing the exploration times for concave buttons, we discerned patterns comparable to those observed
with convex buttons (Figure: 4.2). Participants engaging with ”Very Curved” concave buttons (Rref =10mm)
dedicated an average of 8.36 seconds to their initial exploration. In contrast, while exploring ”Little Curved”
concave buttons (Rref =40mm) reduced this time to 6.59 seconds. The noticeable decrease in exploration time
for less curved concave buttons underscores participants’ efficiency in extracting necessary information promptly.
It suggests that, when confronted with concave buttons with subtle curvature, participants required less time
to initiate their tactile exploration, indicating a possible reduced need for detailed tactile input to form initial
perceptions.
In the subsequent phase, the second exploration time provides insights into the efficiency with which participants
made curvature judgments. For ”Very Curved” concave buttons (Rref =10mm), participants spent an average of
5.65 seconds on this phase, which transitioned to 5.99 seconds when exploring ”Little Curved” concave buttons
(Rref =40mm). It’s noteworthy that the difference between ”Very Curved” and ”Little Curved” buttons was less
pronounced compared to the first exploration time. This observation hints at the possibility that participants may
have rapidly formed judgments after a brief tactile exploration when encountering ”Very Curved” concave buttons
but invested more time in the exploration of little curved buttons.
The difference between the first and second exploration times provides a compelling lens through which to gauge
participants’ decision-making processes. In the case of ”Very Curved” concave buttons (Rref =10mm), the difference
was relatively higher, decreasing from 8.36 seconds to 5.65 seconds. This substantial difference suggests that
participants spent a minimal duration engaging in exploratory behaviour before consolidating their judgments. As
participants confronted ”Middle Curved” concave buttons (Rref =20mm), this difference decreased, reflecting a
more delayed decision-making process. Finally, for ”Little Curved” concave buttons (Rref =40mm), the difference
was further reduced, dropping from 6.59 seconds to only 5.99 seconds. This diminishing gap underscores the
participants’ uncertainty in making judgments when exploring subtle concave curvatures.
17
First exploration time Second exploration time Average exploration time
10
8
Time in seconds
0
Very curved (Rref=10mm) Middle curved Little curved (Rref=40mm)
(Rref=20mm)
Geometric mean of exploration time in Convex Buttons
Fig. 4.1. Exploration time of the first stimulus of a trial, of the second stimulus, and their average in each
curvature level of convex buttons.
First exploration time Second exploration time Average exploration time
10
8
Time in seconds
0
Very curved (Rref=10mm) Middle curved Little curved (Rref=40mm)
(Rref=20mm)
Geometric mean of exploration time in Concave Buttons
Fig. 4.2. Exploration time of the first stimulus of a trial, of the second stimulus, and their average in each
curvature level of conacve buttons.
18
4.1.3 Average Exploration Time
In addition to analyzing the first and second exploration times, I also examined the average exploration time for
both convex and concave buttons. The average exploration time serves as a holistic measure of participants’
tactile interactions across different curvature levels.
For convex buttons, the average exploration time decreased as curvature levels decreased. Participants spent an
average of 6.97 seconds exploring ”Very Curved” convex buttons (Rref =10mm), 5.69 seconds exploring ”Middle
Curved” (Rref =20mm) convex buttons, and 5.31 seconds exploring ”Little Curved” (Rref =40mm) convex buttons.
This trend aligns with the earlier observations, highlighting the reduced time required for exploring less curved
convex buttons.
Conversely, for concave buttons, a similar trend was observed. The average exploration time decreased from 7.01
seconds for ”Very Curved” (Rref =10mm) concave buttons to 6.09 seconds for ”Middle Curved” (Rref =20mm)
concave buttons and further to 6.29 seconds for ”Little Curved” (Rref =40mm) concave buttons.
It’s noteworthy that for each curvature level, the average exploration time for convex buttons was slightly lower
than that for concave buttons. For example, in the ”Very Curved” category (Rref =10mm), convex buttons had an
average exploration time of 6.97 seconds, while concave buttons had an average exploration time of 7.01 seconds.
This subtle difference might indicate that participants tended to explore convex buttons slightly faster, although
the distinction is relatively small.
The findings regarding exploration time variance highlight the intricate interplay between sensory and cognitive
processes involved in button perception. Participants might rely on a combination of sensory feedback and cognitive
processing to make curvature judgments. Moreover, these insights have significant implications for the design of
tangible user interfaces. Designers should carefully consider the relationship between button curvature and user
exploration time when crafting interfaces for specific applications. Understanding how different curvature profiles
impact user interactions and task efficiency can lead to the creation of more user-centric and efficient interfaces.
4.2 | Accuracy of Curvature Perception
The analysis of the accuracy of curvature perception is an important aspect of our study, shedding light on
participants’ ability to decipher and identify the most curved button among a pair of stimuli. This examination
delves into the perceptual boundaries and thresholds associated with button curvature, offering valuable insights
into the intricacies of tactile perception within Tangible User Interfaces (TUIs). [4]
When considering the accuracy of curvature perception for convex buttons, we observe interesting trends across
different curvature levels (Figure: 4.3). Participants displayed a high level of accuracy in identifying the most
curved convex button among the presented pairs. This is reflected in the average accurate answers per 12 trials.
For ”Very Curved” convex buttons (Rref =10mm), participants answered correctly an average of 10 out of 12
trials. This high level of accuracy suggests that participants were efficient at discriminating highly curved convex
buttons and consistently made accurate judgments in the majority of trials. This observation aligns with findings
in psychophysics literature, which often highlight humans’ remarkable ability to discriminate between tactile stimuli
with significant differences in curvature [11].
Moving to ”Middle Curved” convex buttons (Rref =20mm), participants maintained a commendable level of
accuracy, with an average of 9 out of 12 trials answered correctly. While the accuracy was slightly lower compared
to ”Very Curved” buttons, this level of performance still signifies a robust ability to differentiate between moderately
curved convex buttons.
For ”Little Curved” convex buttons (Rref =40mm), participants displayed a lower average accuracy of 8.42 out
of 12 trials. This decrease in accuracy might be attributed to the subtler differences in curvature among the
19
stimuli. It is well-documented in psychophysics research that as the differences between stimuli become smaller,
discrimination tasks become more challenging, leading to a reduction in accuracy [11]).
Convex Concave
12
Avg. accurate answers per 12 trials
10
0
Very curved Middle curved Little curved
(Rref=10mm) (Rref=20mm) (Rref=40mm)
Accuracy of Perception
Fig. 4.3. Accuracy of identifying the curvier button in the pair across each curvature level.
Analyzing the accuracy of curvature perception for concave buttons, we again discern notable trends across
different curvature levels. Participants displayed a high level of accuracy in identifying the most curved concave
button among the presented pairs (Figure: 4.3).
For ”Very Curved” concave buttons (Rref =10mm), participants exhibited an impressive level of accuracy, with an
average of 10.42 out of 12 trials answered correctly. This indicates that participants excelled in discriminating
highly curved concave buttons and consistently made accurate judgments, often exceeding the accuracy observed
for convex buttons of similar curvature. This observation is intriguing and may be attributed to the unique tactile
properties of concave surfaces, which participants could have found easier to discriminate.
Transitioning to ”Middle Curved” concave buttons (Rref =20mm), participants maintained a commendable level
of accuracy, with an average of 8.83 out of 12 trials answered correctly. While the accuracy was slightly lower
compared to ”Very Curved” buttons, it still reflects a robust ability to differentiate between moderately curved
concave buttons.
For ”Little Curved” concave buttons (Rref =40mm), participants displayed a high average accuracy of 9.92 out of
12 trials. This level of accuracy suggests that participants excelled in discriminating even subtle differences in
curvature among the stimuli. It’s noteworthy that, unlike the trend observed with convex buttons, participants
exhibited higher accuracy for ”Little Curved” concave buttons compared to ”Middle Curved” ones. This intrigu-
ing observation may be attributed to the specific tactile properties and perceptual characteristics of concave surfaces.
20
While accuracy remains consistently high for both convex and concave buttons, observations, particularly in the
case of ”Little Curved” concave buttons, are rather intriguing and show remarkable accuracy even when the
discrimination in curvature was very subtle. These findings provide valuable insights into the tactile discrimination
abilities of users when interacting with convex and concave buttons, contributing to our understanding of tactile
perception in tangible user interfaces.
4.3 | Difficulty Estimation
The analysis of participants’ difficulty estimations in understanding the curvature of buttons provides valuable
insights into how difficult was it to determine the curvature of the buttons with tactile discrimination. This aspect
of our study allows us to explore users’ subjective experiences when interacting with buttons of varying curvature
within tangible user interfaces (TUIs).
When examining the difficulty estimations for understanding the curvature of convex buttons, we observe intriguing
trends across different curvature levels. Participants’ ratings on the 5-point Likert scale (1 being very easy and 5
being very difficult) indicate varying levels of perceived difficulty (Figure: 4.4).
For ”Very Curved” convex buttons (Rref =10mm), participants rated the task as relatively easy, with an average
difficulty estimation of 1.42. This low level of perceived difficulty suggests that participants found discriminating
highly curved convex buttons to be a straightforward task, aligning with the high accuracy observed in curvature
perception for these stimuli. It is important to note that this perceived ease in discrimination may be attributed to
the distinct tactile cues associated with highly curved surfaces, facilitating more confident judgments.
Transitioning to ”Middle Curved” convex buttons (Rref =20mm), participants rated the task as slightly more
challenging, with an average difficulty estimation of 2.67. This increase in perceived difficulty may be linked to the
moderate curvature of the buttons, which could pose a greater challenge in discriminating subtle differences. The
correlation between perceived difficulty and curvature level highlights the nuanced relationship between curvature
discrimination and users’ subjective experiences.
For ”Little Curved” convex buttons (Rref =40mm), participants perceived the task as moderately difficult, with
an average difficulty estimation of 3.17. This elevation in perceived difficulty suggests that participants found
discriminating subtle differences in curvature among ”Little Curved” convex buttons to be a more demanding
task. The higher perceived difficulty aligns with the observed decrease in accuracy for these stimuli, where subtle
differences posed challenges in discrimination.
Analyzing the difficulty estimations for understanding the curvature of concave buttons, we again discover notable
trends across different curvature levels. Participants’ ratings on the 5-point Likert scale provide insights into their
subjective experiences (Figure:4.5).
For ”Very Curved” concave buttons (Rref =10mm), participants rated the task as relatively easy, with an average
difficulty estimation of 1.5. This low level of perceived difficulty suggests that participants found discriminating
highly curved concave buttons to be straightforward, aligning with the observed high accuracy in curvature
perception for these stimuli. The unique tactile properties of concave surfaces might have contributed to
participants’ confidence in discrimination.
Transitioning to ”Middle Curved” concave buttons (Rref =20mm), participants rated the task as moderately easy,
with an average difficulty estimation of 2.08. This increase in perceived difficulty compared to ”Very Curved”
concave buttons may be attributed to the moderate curvature of the stimuli, which posed a slightly greater
challenge in discrimination.
21
5
0
Average Difficulty Estimated in Convex Buttons
Fig. 4.4. The curvature perception difficulty estimated by participants in convex buttons, from 1 (very easy) to 5
(very difficult).
0
Average Difficulty Estimated in Concave Buttons
Fig. 4.5. The curvature perception difficulty estimated by participants in concave buttons, from 1 (very easy) to
5 (very difficult).
For ”Little Curved” concave buttons (Rref =40mm), participants perceived the task as moderately difficult, with
an average difficulty estimation of 3. This elevation in perceived difficulty suggests that participants found
discriminating subtle differences in curvature among ”Little Curved” concave buttons to be more demanding. This
aligns with the observed high accuracy for these stimuli, where participants excelled in differentiating even subtle
curvature variations.
22
The analysis of difficulty estimations in curvature understanding for convex and concave buttons reveals participants’
varying perceptions of task difficulty. These estimations correlate with the observed trends in accuracy and suggest
that participants found highly curved concave and convex buttons easier to discriminate compared to buttons with
moderate or subtle curvature variations. However, even though the participants found estimating the curvature
of Little Curved” concave buttons (Rref =40mm) moderately difficult, they were considerably more accurate in
discriminating the curvature. These findings provide valuable insights into the subjective experiences of users and
their perceptions of the challenges associated with tactile discrimination in tangible user interfaces.
4.4 | Comfort Preference
The analysis of participants’ comfort preferences in relation to the buttons’ tactile qualities sheds light on the
subjective aspect of the user experience when interacting with tangible user interfaces (TUIs). This analysis delves
into how users perceive the comfort levels associated with buttons of varying curvature. Participants’ ratings on
the 5-point Likert scale (1 being very uncomfortable and 5 being very comfortable) offer a glimpse into their
subjective comfort evaluations.
For ”Very Curved” convex buttons (Rref =10mm), participants, on average, rated these buttons as quite comfortable,
with an average comfort preference of 4.17 (Figure:4.6). This high comfort rating suggests that participants
found highly curved convex buttons to be tactilely pleasing. The distinct curvature of these buttons might have
contributed to a more comfortable tactile experience, aligning with findings that convex shapes can provide stable
and pleasant haptic sensations [7].
Transitioning to ”Middle Curved” convex buttons (Rref =20mm), participants rated these buttons as moderately
comfortable, with an average comfort preference of 3.67. This rating reflects a slightly lower comfort evaluation
compared to ”Very Curved” convex buttons, possibly indicating that participants found buttons with moderate
curvature to be somewhat less comfortable. This nuanced difference could be attributed to the tactile complexity
introduced by moderate curvature.
For ”Little Curved” convex buttons (Rref =40mm), participants perceived these buttons as less comfortable, with
an average comfort preference of 2.67. This lower comfort rating suggests that participants found buttons with
subtle curvature to be the least comfortable among the convex button types. The subtle curvature might have
introduced tactile intricacies that reduced overall comfort.
For ”Very Curved” concave buttons (Rref =10mm), participants rated these buttons as moderately comfortable,
with an average comfort preference of 2.25 (Figure: 4.7). This rating suggests that participants found highly
curved concave buttons to be less comfortable compared to ”Very Curved” convex buttons. The tactile properties
of concave surfaces might have influenced this evaluation.
Transitioning to ”Middle Curved” concave buttons (Rref =20mm), participants rated these buttons as quite
comfortable, with an average comfort preference of 3.75. This higher comfort rating reflects a more comfortable
tactile experience compared to ”Very Curved” concave buttons and ”Middle Curved” convex buttons, possibly
indicating that participants found concave buttons with moderate curvature to be more pleasant to touch.
For ”Little Curved” concave buttons (Rref =40mm), participants perceived these buttons as very comfortable,
with an average comfort preference of 4. This high comfort rating suggests that participants found buttons with
subtle curvature to be the most comfortable among the concave button types. The subtle curvature might have
contributed to a comfortable tactile experience without introducing significant complexity.
The analysis of comfort preferences highlights the nuanced relationship between button curvature and participants’
tactile comfort evaluations. While highly curved convex buttons tended to be rated as more comfortable it was
23
the exact opposite in the case of concave buttons where the less curved buttons were perceived to be more
comfortable. These findings provide insights into the subjective comfort experiences of users when interacting
with buttons in tangible user interfaces.
0
Average Comfort Preference in Convex Buttons
Fig. 4.6. The preferred comfort estimated by participants in convex buttons, from 1 (very uncomfortable) to 5
(very comfortable).
0
Average Comfort Preference in Concave Buttons
Fig. 4.7. The preferred comfort estimated by participants in concave buttons, from 1 (very uncomfortable) to 5
(very comfortable).
24
CHAPTER 5
Discussion
In the last chapter, I presented the results of my comprehensive investigation into the intricate dynamics of user
perception when interacting with concave and convex buttons of varying curvature within tangible user interfaces
(TUIs). My study was rooted in the principles of psychophysics and guided by an experimental design, which
offered a diverse array of stimuli to participants. Through this, I wish to highlight the multifaceted relationship
between button curvature and user experience.
This chapter serves as a exploration of the implications arising from my research findings. I delve deeper into
the data, scrutinizing the nuances of user behaviour and preferences when confronted with buttons of distinct
curvature profiles. Moreover, I will assess the extent to which my initial hypotheses were confirmed or contradicted
by the empirical evidence, drawing upon relevant literature to support the discussions.
This chapter explores the broader implications of this research for tangible user interfaces. What do these findings
mean for the design and development of buttons in TUIs? How can designers harness the insights gleaned from
this study to craft more user-centric interfaces that align with users’ tactile preferences and comfort levels? In
this chapter’s final section, we provide practical guidelines for designing tangible user interfaces. I aim to offer
actionable recommendations that can improve the creation and design of buttons in TUIs that resonate with users
on a tactile level.
5.1 | Confirmation of Hypotheses
1. Hypothesis 1 Confirmed: Exploration time differs between concave and convex curvature
In accordance with Hypothesis 1, which suggested that exploration time would differ between concave and
convex curvature when users are free to move their fingertips, the study’s results align with the expectations.
We could see in the results that notable variations were found in exploration time as participants interacted
with buttons of different curvatures.
The initial exploration of convex buttons, particularly those with significantly higher curvature, appeared to
demand more time. This aligns with the findings of previous studies [7, 11], which emphasize the role of
curvature in tactile discrimination. Highly curved surfaces may necessitate more extensive exploration to
gather sufficient tactile information for accurate perception.
Further analysis revealed nuanced dynamics in exploration times. Participants initially took more time to
explore highly curved convex and concave buttons, possibly due to the need for detailed tactile information.
However, as the experiment progressed, they became more adept at making judgments for convex buttons,
regardless of curvature.
Similar patterns emerged with concave buttons, with participants showing reduced exploration times for less
curved surfaces. This suggests that subtle concave curvature requires less time for initial exploration. In the
second exploration phase, participants demonstrated quicker judgments for ”Very Curved” concave buttons,
indicating their ability to form rapid judgments following brief tactile exploration. The findings corroborate
the notion that tactile cues provided by concave buttons can indeed facilitate more precise finger placement,
potentially reducing exploration time. As discussed by [28], concave surfaces often provide distinctive tactile
25
cues that aid users in understanding the spatial layout of objects. The participants, when exploring concave
buttons, may have benefited from these cues, resulting in more efficient exploration and quicker judgments.
The findings emphasize the interplay between sensory feedback and cognitive processing in button perception
within tangible user interfaces. The findings of this study hold important consequences for the development
of tangible user interfaces, as they highlight the importance of considering how different curvature profiles
impact user interactions and task efficiency. Designers should weigh the trade-offs between various button
curvatures when crafting interfaces for specific applications, taking into account the role of tactile cues in
shaping user experiences.
2. Hypothesis 2 Confirmed: The accuracy of users’ perception of button curvatures will vary depending
on the curvature of the buttons
The study provides confirmation for Hypothesis 2, which puts forward that the accuracy of users’ perception
of button curvatures would exhibit variation depending on the curvature of the buttons. This hypothesis is
rooted in the principles of psychophysics, a field extensively explored by Gescheider et al., who emphasizes
the intricate challenges associated with discriminating tactile stimuli with subtle differences. My findings
align closely with this body of knowledge, as participants exhibited diverse levels of accuracy in determining
subtle variations in curvature, thereby substantiating the hypothesis [11].
A detailed analysis of the data highlights subtle trends among various levels of curvature, especially in
convex and concave buttons. In the context of convex buttons, accuracy demonstrated a decreasing trend
as curvature levels increased. This is consistent with well-established findings in psychophysics literature [21]
that highlight humans’ remarkable ability to discriminate between tactile stimuli with significant differences
in curvature[27].
However, the dynamics observed in concave buttons unveiled a noteworthy exception, where accuracy in
curvature perception exhibited an intriguing dip around the “Middle Curved” curvature of Rref =20mm.
Remarkably, for ”Little Curved” concave buttons (Rref =40mm), participants achieved a high average accuracy
of 9.92 out of 12 trials. This suggests that participants excelled in discriminating even subtle differences in
curvature among the stimuli. Participants exhibited higher accuracy for ”Little Curved” concave buttons
compared to ”Middle Curved” ones, which presents an intriguing observation.
This deviation from the trend presents an exciting avenue for exploration in the field, where further research
might be able to explain the underlying mechanisms and perceptual processes at play in this particular
scenario. This study contributes insights into the intricate and nuanced nature of tactile perception within
tangible user interfaces, emphasizing the need for a comprehensive understanding of how button curvature
impacts user experience and interaction efficiency[4, 20].
3. Hypothesis 3 Partially Confirmed: Similar trends in ease of perception across curvature types, with
convex buttons being relatively difficult to perceive
The investigation partially validates Hypothesis 3, which proposed that the ease of user perception of
curvature would differ between concave and convex buttons. It is revealed that ease of user perception of
curvature does exhibit similar trends in both concave and convex buttons, although with notable distinctions.
Across different curvature levels, participants’ perceptions of ease of perception mirrored the accuracy trends
within each button type. This finding resonates with previous work [3, 7], that emphasizes the distinct
tactile properties of concave surfaces, often associated with stable and pleasant haptic sensations. Such
unique tactile qualities likely contributed to the participants’ moderate ease of perception when interacting
with highly curved concave buttons.
Participants’ perceptions of ease of perception in concave buttons exhibited a consistent trend across different
curvature levels, with highly curved buttons (Rref =10mm) rated as relatively easy, moderately curved buttons
(Rref =20mm) perceived as moderately easy, and subtly curved buttons (Rref =40mm) considered moderately
difficult. This trend parallels the accuracy findings in our study, where participants displayed high accuracy
in differentiating highly curved concave buttons and excelled even with subtle curvature variations. This
aligned knowledge of ease of perception and accuracy underlines the user-centric design implications of
concave buttons. This can be particularly true in applications where users require efficient and confident
discrimination of tactile cues.
On the other hand, when evaluating the ease of perception in convex buttons, a simillar pattern emerges.
Participants perceived highly curved convex buttons (Rref =10mm) as relatively easy to discriminate, aligning
with their high accuracy in curvature perception for these stimuli. Transitioning to moderately curved
26
convex buttons (Rref =20mm), participants perceived the task as slightly more challenging, mirroring the
increased difficulty observed in curvature discrimination. For subtly curved convex buttons (Rref =40mm),
participants rated the task as moderately difficult. These perceptions correspond closely with the accuracy
trends observed in the study, emphasizing the user’s perceived difficulty in discriminating subtle curvature
differences.
The findings shed light on the unique tactile properties of each curvature type and their significant influence
on users’ perceived ease of perception. Additionally, it’s important to highlight the relative difficulty in
perceiving convex buttons, particularly those with subtle curvature, emphasizing the design considerations
for tangible user interfaces.
4. Hypothesis 4 Confirmed: User preference for curvature differs between concave and convex buttons
The study’s final hypothesis, which explores user preferences for curvature differences between concave and
convex buttons, is substantiated by the research findings[3, 26]. This hypothesis delves into the subjective
aspect of user experience, considering how users may gravitate towards specific button curvatures based on
their tactile preferences and comfort levels.
Interestingly, the participants exhibited distinctive comfort preferences for concave and convex buttons,
resulting in completely contrasting trends. Highly curved concave buttons were generally rated as compar-
atively uncomfortable, revealing a preference for less curvature in this category. Conversely, participants
favoured highly curved convex buttons, perceiving them as quite comfortable. This preference for highly
curved convex buttons highlights the appeal of their tactile attributes, which provide a comfortable and
user-friendly interaction experience.
However, when it comes to subtler curvatures, a striking reversal in comfort preferences is observed. For
”Little Curved” concave buttons, participants perceived these buttons as very comfortable, aligning perfectly
with the hypothesis. This trend indicates a strong user preference for subtle curvatures within the concave
button category. In contrast, ”Little Curved” convex buttons were perceived as less comfortable, indicating
a lower preference for these subtle curvatures within the convex button category.
Hence it can be confirmed by the results that users exhibit distinct preferences for specific button curvatures.
These preferences are deeply rooted in the tactile qualities of the buttons and underscore the subjective
nature of user interactions with tangible user interfaces. Notably, the comfort preference graphs for concave
and convex buttons follow completely contrasting trends, with comfort preferences increasing with decreasing
curvature in concave buttons and decreasing with decreasing curvature in convex buttons.
5.2 | Implications for Tangible User Interfaces (TUIs)
The results of this study offer profound into the design and optimization of Tangible User Interfaces (TUIs), with
a particular focus on the impact of button curvature on user experience. These findings contribute significantly
to enhancing TUI design, especially in critical domains such as sound engineering, aircraft piloting, and medical
surgery, where users often rely on tactile interfaces for ”eyes-free” interaction [14].
One key result that holds substantial implications is the variation in exploration time based on button curvature.
The observation that convex buttons generally lead to shorter exploration times aligns with the concept of
”eyes-free” interaction. Users in demanding real-time scenarios can benefit from interfaces that facilitate quick
and efficient interactions. This result highlights the importance of designing TUIs with convex buttons in contexts
where rapid, and effortless operation is crucial [17].
Furthermore, the study’s findings regarding the accuracy of curvature perception contribute to the enhancement
of TUIs in applications where users rely on tactile feedback for precise judgments. The research demonstrates
that users exhibit varying levels of accuracy in differentiating subtle variations in button curvature. It was also
discovered that accuracy in discriminating even subtle differences was remarkably high in concave buttons with less
curvature. This nuanced understanding of tactile perception aligns with the critical nature of precise interactions
in domains like medical surgery, where tactile interfaces are used for delicate procedures [1]. Designing TUIs that
account for these perceptual intricacies can enhance user performance, precision and safety in contexts such as
aircraft cockpits or medical instruments.
27
The comfort preference graphs for concave and convex buttons, showing contrasting trends, have significant
implications for user-centric TUI design. In domains like sound engineering, where users may engage with interfaces
for extended periods, the preference for highly curved convex buttons or little curved concave buttons could lead
to more comfortable and user-friendly interfaces. These insights emphasize the importance of tailoring TUI designs
to specific user needs and preferences in different application contexts.
5.2.1 Contributions to Eyes-Free Interaction
The study’s contributions to ”eyes-free” interaction are of particular significance. The findings reveal that the
tactile attributes of button curvature significantly influence users’ perceived ease of perception and comfort. In
applications like aircraft piloting and sound engineering, where users must maintain visual focus on primary tasks,
interfaces that offer ”eyes-free” interaction are paramount[12, 13]. This research highlights the potential of
highly curved buttons, whether concave or convex, in facilitating precise tactile interactions without the need for
visual attention. The same can be said for little curved concave buttons which the users also perceived as very
comfortable.
This study’s results contribute directly to the optimization of TUIs in real-world domains, emphasizing the
importance of button curvature, tactile feedback, and user-centric design. The research findings align with the
critical need for ”eyes-free” interaction in several domains enhancing the overall functionality and usability of TUIs
in these contexts [14].
5.2.2 Impact on Everyday TUI Interaction
This study’s findings extend beyond specialized domains and are also relevant in the context of everyday TUI
interaction. The integration of tactile feedback and button curvature considerations in the design of tangible
interfaces has far-reaching implications for ubiquitous and everyday device usage [35, 36].
One notable application of this research is the enhancement of Virtual Reality (VR) systems. For instance, when
users interact with a virtual object in VR that resembles a real-world object they have in front of them, the tactile
sensations and feedback they receive from the real object can align with the virtual experience. This results in a
more immersive and intuitive interaction, reducing the cognitive load associated with adapting to differing tactile
feedback [37, 38]. The research on button curvature’s impact on user perception and preference feeds directly into
this development [39].
Moreover, this research’s insights into button curvature preferences, particularly in ”eyes-free” scenarios, can
revolutionize everyday device interaction. Consider a scenario where a visually impaired individual uses a smartphone
equipped with tactile buttons. The preference for highly curved buttons, whether concave or convex, can translate
into a more comfortable and user-friendly interaction experience. This preference aligns with the principles of
inclusive design, making technology more accessible to diverse user groups.
By recognizing the significance of button curvature and tactile feedback, designers can create more immersive and
user-centric interfaces that bridge the gap between the digital and physical worlds, ultimately enhancing usability
and accessibility for all users.
5.2.3 Highlighting the Importance of Tactile Feedback in TUIs
Tactile feedback, as highlighted in Louw et al.’s research [28], plays a pivotal role in user perception within TUIs.
This study reinforces the significance of tactile feedback by demonstrating how it influences exploration times,
accuracy, ease of perception, and user comfort [3, 20]. TUI designers should prioritize the incorporation of tactile
cues through button curvature to create interfaces that not only look aesthetically pleasing but also provide rich
and intuitive user experiences.
In the context of TUIs, where users physically interact with digital content, tactile feedback bridges the gap
between the physical and digital worlds. This bridge, as supported by Fan et al. [4], can lead to heightened user
engagement and improved usability. As such, designers should harness the insights provided by this study to design
28
TUIs that leverage the power of tactile feedback, ensuring that users can seamlessly and intuitively interact with
digital content through physical interfaces.
The interplay between exploration times, accuracy, ease of perception, and user comfort highlights the role of
tactile feedback in shaping user interactions. For instance, the distinct tactile properties of convex surfaces,
often associated with stable and pleasant haptic sensations [7], contribute to the moderate ease of perception
and comfort preferences observed in this study. On the other hand, the perceived difficulty in discriminating
subtle curvature differences in convex and concave buttons emphasizes the need to enhance tactile feedback in
such interfaces. Concave buttons seem to be a better option in subtle curvature given their high accuracy rates.
Designers should aim to provide rich tactile cues through button curvature to create intuitive and engaging TUIs
[4, 28].
5.3 | Practical Design Implications
1. Consider Task-Specific Curvature

Designers of tangible user interfaces (TUIs) should recognize that the choice of button curvature is not
one-size-fits-all. The study’s findings reveal that different tasks and user preferences may demand specific
curvatures. For tasks requiring precise tactile discrimination, consider using subtly curved concave but-
tons, as users demonstrated high accuracy and comfort with these. In contrast, for tasks where comfort
and ease of perception are paramount, highly curved convex buttons may be more suitable. Therefore,
designers should tailor button curvature to the specific requirements of the intended TUI application [3, 7, 26].
2. Balance Comfort and Efficiency

Striking a balance between user comfort and task efficiency is essential in TUI design. The study highlights
that highly curved concave buttons were perceived as uncomfortable but offered advantages in terms of
accuracy. Designers should weigh these trade-offs and prioritize user comfort while ensuring that accuracy
and task efficiency are not compromised. Implement subtle variations in curvature to optimize both comfort
and performance, especially in interfaces where users engage in prolonged interactions [7, 26].
3. Customizable Curvature Profiles

Understand that individual user preferences for button curvature may vary. To cater to a broader audience,
consider implementing customizable curvature profiles within your TUIs. Allow users to adjust the curvature
settings based on their tactile comfort and performance requirements. This customization empowers users
to tailor their interaction experience, potentially improving overall satisfaction and usability [40, 41].
4. Multimodal Feedback Integration

In addition to button curvature, explore the integration of multimodal feedback mechanisms in TUI design.
Combine tactile feedback with auditory or visual cues to enhance the user experience. For example, use
sound or visual indicators to reinforce successful interactions or provide feedback on button press intensity.
Such multimodal feedback can further engage users and assist in improving task performance and accuracy.
TUIs of such nature can prove to be pivotival in assistive technologies and studied in previous research [5, 6,
42].
5.4 | Guidelines for Designers
The findings of this study provide insights and actionable guidelines for designers venturing into the domain of
button curvature within Tangible User Interface (TUI) design (Table: 5.1). These guidelines cover important
factors such as selecting the right curvature, considering user preferences, exploration time, accuracy, and ensuring
comfort. When opting for convex buttons, it’s pivotal to contemplate the specific curvature level in accordance
with the task at hand. Very curved convex buttons (Rref =10mm) prove optimal when designers prioritize the need
for swift exploration and user comfort. These buttons are highly comfortable to touch, facilitating an accurate
understanding of their curvature. In scenarios where a balance between moderate exploration speed and reasonable
accuracy is required, middle curved convex buttons (Rref =20mm) come into play, though they may entail slightly
reduced comfort. For tasks demanding quick exploration, little curved convex buttons (Rref =40mm) offer agility
29
but necessitate designers to acknowledge the trade-off between moderate accuracy and relatively lower comfort
levels.
On the concave spectrum, very curved concave buttons (Rref =10mm) are the choice for situations demanding
rapid exploration and high accuracy, although with the risk of comparatively lower user comfort. Middle curved
concave buttons (Rref =20mm) strike a middle ground, delivering a blend of moderate exploration speed and user
comfort, although accuracy might experience a slight dip. Finally, little curved concave buttons (Rref =40mm)
excel in intricate, meticulous tasks, affording users an exceptionally comfortable touch, accurate tactile feedback,
and consistent experiences.
In addition to comfort, designers must weigh the need for expedited or detailed exploration against the desired level
of accuracy, ultimately selecting curvature options in harmony with task requirements. Rooted in empirical evidence
and user perceptions, these guidelines empower designers to craft TUIs that resonate with user expectations and
cater to the demands of specific tasks, ultimately elevating user experiences across diverse applications.
Table 5.1
Correspondence table for designers of curvy devices
Accuracy
Avg. Explo-
Designing (Avg. accu- User Prefer- Study Support and Design
Curvature ration Time
Aspect racy per 12 ences Insights
(seconds)
trials)
H3 and H4: Highly comfort-
Button Type: High user
Rref =10mm 6.97 10 able to touch and easy to un-
Convex comfort
derstand curvature.
Quick explo- H1 and H2: Accurate tactile
Rref =10mm 6.97 10
ration feedback for rapid interaction.
H1 and H2: Moderate speed of
Rref =20mm 5.69 9
exploration and accuracy.
H1, H2, H3 and H4: Quick
exploration but moderately ac-
Rref =40mm 5.31 8.42 curate, difficult to understand
curvature and comparatively un-
comfortable.
H1, H2 and H4: Quick ex-
Button Type: ploration and highly accurate.
Rref =10mm 7.01 10.42
Concave Comparatively uncomfortable
to touch.
H1 and H2: Moderate speed
Rref =20mm 6.09 8.83 of exploration but low levels of
accuracy.
H4: Highly comfortable to
High user
Rref =40mm 6.29 9.92 touch and easy to understand
comfort
curvature.
H1, H2 and H3: Detailed ex-
ploration which takes compar-
Detailed,
atively more time. Accurate
Rref =40mm 6.29 9.92 precise explo-
tactile feedback. Consistency
ration
between tactile cues and user
expectations.
30
CHAPTER 6
Limitations and Future Work
The preceding chapters have delved into the experimental methodology and the findings of our study, which
investigated the influence of button curvature on user perception in tangible user interfaces (TUIs). In this chapter,
we turn our attention to the limitations encountered during the course of this research and outline directions for
future work.
6.1 | Limitations
One of the primary limitations of this study is the relatively small sample size of 12 participants. While this sample
size was deemed sufficient for the experimental design employed in this research, it poses constraints on the
generalizability of the findings. A larger and more diverse participant pool would provide a more comprehensive
perspective on how individuals across different demographics perceive button curvature. Future studies should
consider expanding the sample size to enhance the external validity of the results.
Additionally, the study participants were primarily young adults from a single geographical location. This similarity
in participant characteristics may introduce biases in the results and limit the applicability of the findings to broader
user groups. Future research should aim to include participants from diverse age groups, cultural backgrounds,
and physical abilities to account for a wider range of user experiences and preferences.
The experimental design focused primarily on button curvature perception and discrimination, which are fundamental
aspects of TUIs. However, it did not explore the impact of button curvature on more complex user tasks or
applications. Explorations on the impact of button shape and size were also not conducted. Future studies could
extend their scope to investigate how button curvature influences user performance in specific real-world scenarios,
providing a more comprehensive understanding of its practical implications.
The study primarily examined short-term interactions with tactile stimuli. It did not consider the potential effects
of prolonged or repeated use of concave and convex buttons, which is common in real-world TUIs. Future research
could investigate how users’ perceptions and preferences for button curvature evolve over extended periods,
simulating more realistic usage conditions.
While participants were blindfolded during interactions to standardize the tactile experience, this might not
fully replicate real-world usage conditions, potentially affecting the ecological validity of the findings. Future
studies should explore alternative methods[4] for data collection that do not require blindfolding while maintaining
experimental control.
6.2 | Future Work
Future work in this field could focus on translating the insights gained from this research into practical user-centric
design guidelines for TUIs. These guidelines could provide recommendations to designers on creating interfaces
that align with user preferences for button curvature, enhancing usability and user satisfaction.
31
To address the limitation of short-term interactions, future research could conduct studies to investigate how
users’ perceptions of button curvature change over time with extended use. This would provide valuable insights
into the long-term usability of TUIs. Enhancing the practical relevance of research findings, future studies could
integrate real-world tasks or applications into their experimental designs. This would allow for a more accurate
understanding of how button curvature impacts user performance in context-specific scenarios.
To broaden the applicability of findings, future work could include a more diverse range of participants, including
individuals with varying levels of digital literacy, physical abilities, and cultural backgrounds. Understanding how
different user groups interact with button curvature would lead to more inclusive design practices.
Conducting comparative studies between different tactile attributes (e.g., button curvature, shape, size, texture,
temperature) could reveal the relative importance of each attribute in user experience. This holistic approach
would contribute to a more comprehensive understanding of tactile interactions. Investigating the integration of
haptic feedback mechanisms in TUIs could be a promising avenue for future research. Understanding how tactile
feedback influences user perception and performance could lead to innovative interface designs that enhance user
experiences[15, 17].
While this research has illuminated the relationship between button curvature and user perception in TUIs, it is
essential to acknowledge its limitations and outline directions for future research. By addressing these limitations
and pursuing avenues for further investigation, researchers can continue to advance the field of tangible user
interfaces, ultimately leading to the development of more user-friendly and effective interactive systems.
32
CHAPTER 7
Conclusion
In an effort to understand the intricate relationship between button curvature and user perception within Tangible
User Interfaces (TUIs), this study has uncovered intricate insights that illuminate the field of tactile interactions.
The comprehensive exploration, guided by study objectives, has revealed compelling findings that hold significance
for both the design of TUIs and future research endeavours.
The investigation into tactile perception showcased users’ remarkable ability to swiftly and accurately discriminate
varying button curvatures. This capacity highlights button curvature as an influential tactile attribute, affirming
our hypothesis that it significantly shapes user perception. Such empirical evidence establishes the importance of
button curvature in TUI design.
Furthermore, the study extended beyond just discrimination, revealing distinct individual preferences for button
curvature profiles. This variation in user inclinations emphasizes the importance of accommodating diverse user
preferences within TUI design, setting the stage for enhancing user satisfaction and usability.
The study’s exploration of user comfort unveiled another vital dimension of the tactile experience. Button
curvature’s substantial impact on users’ tactile comfort during interaction reflects the necessity of considering
ergonomic aspects in TUIs. Striking a balance between aesthetics and user well-being is essential to creating
interfaces that are both visually appealing and physically comfortable.
This study’s ultimate objective was to bridge the gap between empirical research and practical design recommen-
dations. As such, several practical implications arise from these findings. Designers and engineers in the TUI
field can benefit from insights into customizable button curvature settings, ergonomic considerations, iterative
prototyping, comprehensive user testing, and interdisciplinary collaboration.
The field of TUIs is constantly evolving and there are still areas that have yet to be explored. Research surrounding
multisensory interactions, ageing and special populations, dynamic tactile feedback, studies involving different
tactile attributes, and cross-cultural perspectives remain open for exploration. Future research endeavours have
the opportunity to further enhance user experiences, inclusivity, and innovation in tactile interfaces.
In conclusion, this study of button curvature and user perception in TUIs has shed light on the richness of tactile
interactions and the vast potential for future research and design innovation. As we approach a new era where
touch-based interactions are essential to how humans interact with technology, further exploration, interdisciplinary
collaboration, and prioritizing diverse user experiences are crucial. This approach will enable us to develop TUIs
that not only perform effectively but also establish a profound connection with human touch.
33
CHAPTER 8
Bibliography
1. Abras, C., Maloney-Krichmar, D., Preece, J., et al. User-centered design. Bainbridge, W. Encyclopedia of
Human-Computer Interaction. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications 37, 445–456 2004.
2. Still, B. & Crane, K. Fundamentals of user-centered design: A practical approach CRC press, 2017.
3. Provancher, W. R., Kuchenbecker, K. J., Niemeyer, G. & Cutkosky, M. R. Perception of curvature and
object motion via contact location feedback in Robotics Research. The Eleventh International Symposium:
With 303 Figures 2005, 456–465.
4. Fan, Z. & Coutrix, C. Impact of softness on users’ perception of curvature for future soft curvature-changing
UIs in Proceedings of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2023, 1–19.
5. Dubuc, L. & Edge, D. TUIs to ease: tangible user interfaces in assistive technology in Proceedings of
the 3rd Cambridge Workshop on Universal Access and Assistive Technology (CWUAAT 2006). Citeseer,
Cambridge 2006.
6. Santos, J., Vairinhos, M., Rodriguez, J. & Jesus, L. M. Home-Based Activities for Children with Speech
Sound Disorders: Requirements for a Tangible User Interface for Internet of Things Artefacts. Applied
Sciences 12, 8971 2022.
7. Provancher, W. R. On tactile sensing and display Stanford University, 2003.
8. Blackwell, A. F., Fitzmaurice, G., Holmquist, L. E., Ishii, H. & Ullmer, B. Tangible user interfaces in
context and theory in CHI’07 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems 2007, 2817–2820.
9. Malizia, A., Chamberlain, A. & Willcock, I. From design fiction to design fact: developing future user
experiences with proto-tools in Human-Computer Interaction. Theories, Methods, and Human Issues: 20th
International Conference, HCI International 2018, Las Vegas, NV, USA, July 15–20, 2018, Proceedings, Part
I 20 2018, 159–168.
10. Wang, Y., Huo, J., Wu, D., Lin, T., Li, X. & He, J. Usability of curved keyboard design on the large
smartphone: An empirical study. Applied Ergonomics 113, 104013 2023.
11. Gescheider, G. A. Psychophysics: The Fundamentals 3rd, 46–54, 183–186 Routledge, Milton Park, Abingdon-
on-Thames, Oxfordshire, England, UK, 2016.
12. Castillo, J. A. L. d. & Couture, N. The aircraft of the future: towards the tangible cockpit in Proceedings
of the International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction in Aerospace 2016, 1–8.
13. Vinot, J.-L., Letondal, C., Pauchet, S. & Chatty, S. Could tangibility improve the safety of touch-based
Interaction? Exploring a new Physical Design Space for Pilot-System Interfaces in Proceedings of the
International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction in Aerospace 2016, 1–8.
14. Kim, H., Coutrix, C. & Roudaut, A. KnobSlider: design of a shape-changing UI for parameter control in
Proceedings of the 2018 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2018, 1–13.
15. Alexander, J., Hardy, J. & Wattam, S. Characterising the physicality of everyday buttons in Proceedings
of the Ninth ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces 2014, 205–208.
16. Roudaut, A., Pohl, H. & Baudisch, P. Touch input on curved surfaces in Proceedings of the SIGCHI
Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2011, 1011–1020.
34
17. Gordon, I. E. & Morison, V. The haptic perception of curvature. Perception & psychophysics 31, 446–450
1982.
18. Goodwin, A. & Wheat, H. Human tactile discrimination of curvature when contact area with the skin
remains constant. Experimental brain research 88, 447–450 1992.
19. Yang Yang, C., Ting Chen, Y. & Li Pao, C. A preliminary study of semantics elicited by haptic stimulation
of buttons by shape and haptic texture by using a single-key handheld device in Proceedings of the 32nd
International BCS Human Computer Interaction Conference 32 2018, 1–5.
20. Antle, A. N. & Wise, A. F. Getting down to details: Using theories of cognition and learning to inform
tangible user interface design. Interacting with Computers 25, 1–20 2013.
21. Treutwein, B. Adaptive psychophysical procedures. Vision research 35, 2503–2522 1995.
22. Pedersen, E. R., Sokoler, T. & Nelson, L. PaperButtons: expanding a tangible user interface in Proceedings
of the 3rd Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, practices, methods, and techniques 2000,
216–223.
23. Van Den Hoven, E., Frens, J., Aliakseyeu, D., Martens, J.-B., Overbeeke, K. & Peters, P. Design research &
tangible interaction in Proceedings of the 1st international conference on Tangible and embedded interaction
2007, 109–115.
24. Fruchard, B., Strohmeier, P., Bennewitz, R. & Steimle, J. Squish this: Force input on soft surfacesfor
visual targeting tasks in Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
2021, 1–9.
25. Hollins, M., Bensmaıa, S., Karlof, K. & Young, F. Individual differences in perceptual space for tactile
textures: Evidence from multidimensional scaling. Perception & Psychophysics 62, 1534–1544 2000.
26. Pont, S. C., Kappers, A. M. & Koenderink, J. J. Similar mechanisms underlie curvature comparison by
static and dynamic touch. Perception & Psychophysics 61, 874–894 1999.
27. Dandekar, K., Raju, B. I. & Srinivasan, M. A. 3-D finite-element models of human and monkey fingertips
to investigate the mechanics of tactile sense. J. Biomech. Eng. 125, 682–691 2003.
28. Louw, S., Kappers, A. M. & Koenderink, J. J. Haptic detection thresholds of Gaussian profiles over the
whole range of spatial scales. Experimental brain research 132, 369–374 2000.
29. HALOT-SKY 3D Printer https://www.creality.com/products/halot-sky-3d-printer. [Online; accessed 2023-
09-08].
30. Ghosh, S. Investigating the influence of curvature on User Experience in TUIs- A Comparative Study
of Concave and Convex Buttons https://git.cs.bham.ac.uk/projects-2022-23/sxg283/. [Online; accessed
2023-09-17].
31. Koçak, U., Palmerius, K. L., Forsell, C., Ynnerman, A. & Cooper, M. Analysis of the JND of Stiffness in
Three Modes of Comparison in Haptic and Audio Interaction Design: 6th International Workshop, HAID
2011, Kusatsu, Japan, August 25-26, 2011. Proceedings 6 2011, 22–31.
32. Goodwin, A., John, K. & Marceglia, A. Tactile discrimination of curvature by humans using only cutaneous
information from the fingerpads. Experimental brain research 86, 663–672 1991.
33. Van der Horst, B. J. & Kappers, A. M. Curvature discrimination in various finger conditions. Experimental
brain research 177, 304–311 2007.
34. Ghosh, S. Investigating the influence of curvature on User Experience in TUIs- A Comparative Study
of Concave and Convex Buttons https://git.cs.bham.ac.uk/projects-2022-23/sxg283/. [Online; accessed
2023-09-17].
35. Fujinami, K. Implicit interaction with daily objects: applications and issues in Proceedings of the 3rd
International Universal Communication Symposium 2009, 163–168.
36. Sato, M., Poupyrev, I. & Harrison, C. Touché: enhancing touch interaction on humans, screens, liquids,
and everyday objects in Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
2012, 483–492.
37. Hettiarachchi, A. & Wigdor, D. Annexing reality: Enabling opportunistic use of everyday objects as tangible
proxies in augmented reality in Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing
Systems 2016, 1957–1967.
35
38. Naeini, F. B., AlAli, A. M., Al-Husari, R., Rigi, A., Al-Sharman, M. K., Makris, D. & Zweiri, Y. A novel
dynamic-vision-based approach for tactile sensing applications. IEEE Transactions on Instrumentation and
Measurement 69, 1881–1893 2019.
39. Erickson, Z., Xing, E., Srirangam, B., Chernova, S. & Kemp, C. C. Multimodal material classification for
robots using spectroscopy and high resolution texture imaging in 2020 IEEE/RSJ International Conference
on Intelligent Robots and Systems (IROS) 2020, 10452–10459.
40. Zamborlin, B. Studies on customisation-driven digital music instruments PhD thesis Goldsmiths, University
of London, 2015.
41. Kim, M. J. & Maher, M. L. The impact of tangible user interfaces on spatial cognition during collaborative
design. Design Studies 29, 222–253 2008.
42. Al Mahmud, A. & Soysa, A. I. POMA: A tangible user interface to improve social and cognitive skills of
Sri Lankan children with ASD. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 144, 102486 2020.
APPENDIX A
Appendix
Consent Form
DESCRIPTION: You are invited to participate in a research study on the influence of button
curvature on user perception.
TIME INVOLVEMENT: Your participation will take approximately 60 minutes.
DATA COLLECTION: For this study, we will collect personal data such as age and gender while
you are participating in the study. The collected data will be used for research purposes only and
will be securely stored.
RISKS AND BENEFITS: There are no known risks associated with this study. By participating, you
contribute to valuable research on tangible user interfaces, which can lead to improvements in user
experiences. You can decide whether the recorded personal data can be published or not. Your
privacy will be preserved, and no personal data will be misused.
PARTICIPANT’S RIGHTS: If you have read this form and have decided to participate in this
project, please understand your participation is voluntary and you have the right to withdraw
your consent or discontinue participation at any time without penalty or loss of benefits to
which you are otherwise entitled. The alternative is not to participate. You have the right to
refuse to answer particular questions. The results of this research study may be presented at
scientific or professional meetings or published in scientific journals but your identity will not be
disclosed without your consent.
CONTACT INFORMATION: If you have any questions, concerns or complaints about this
research, its procedures, risks and benefits, please contact the following person:
Shinjini Ghosh sxg283@student.bham.ac.uk
AUDIO DATA: (select one)
Please do not record any audio during my participation in the study.

I allow you to record audio data during my participation in the study.
IMAGE DATA: (select one)
Please do not publish the image data recorded during my participation in the study.
I allow you to publish the image data recorded during my participation in the study.
I allow you to publish the anonymous image data recorded during my participation in the
study.
By signing this document I confirm that I agree to the terms and conditions.
Name: _________________________ Signature, Date: _________________________
Fig. A.1. Participant Consent Form for the Experiment
37
Information Leaflet for Participants
Title: Research Study on the Influence of Button Curvature on User Perception
Study Overview:
In this experiment, participants will be blindfolded and asked to interact with different buttons
using their fingertips. This approach allows researchers to focus solely on the tactile perception
of the buttons without visual distractions. The task involves exploring the buttons and providing
feedback on participants' perceptions and preferences.
Study Procedure:
1. After reading and understanding this information leaflet, you will be required to read and
sign the consent form before proceeding with the experiment.
2. Once you are ready for the experiment, you will be provided with an eye mask to ensure
you are comfortably blindfolded throughout the study.
3. Rest your hand on the table as instructed by the experimenter and relax.
4. You will be presented with a series of buttons placed near your fingertip. Your hand will
remain stationary, and you do not need to move it during the experiment.
5. There will be two studies and there are two types of buttons involved in this study:
concave and convex.
Study 1 - Exploring Button Curvatures:
1. There will be a total of 72 trials involving concave and convex buttons.
2. For each trial, you will receive a pair of buttons to explore tactually. When the
experimenter says "start," feel free to explore the first button thoroughly. Take your time,
apply any pressure you like, and familiarize yourself with the button's curvature.
3. Once you are satisfied with your exploration, simply lift your fingertip from the button to
indicate that you have finished.
4. You will then be provided with the second button of the pair. Repeat the same
exploration process as the first button. Once you finish exploring the second button, lift
your fingertip. The experimenter will ask you which button felt curvier .
Fig. A.2. Participant Information leaflet for the Experiment

Fig. A.3. Participant Information leaflet for the Experiment(Contd.)

Investigating The Influence of Curvature On User Experience in TUIs - A Comparative Study of Concave and Convex Buttons

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Investigating The Influence of Curvature On User Experience in TUIs - A Comparative Study of Concave and Convex Buttons

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Investigating the influence of curvature on User

Experience in TUIs- A Comparative Study of

Student Name: Shinjini Ghosh

1.1 Background and Significance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1

1.2 Research Directions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

1.3 Structure of the Thesis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2

2.1 Introduction to User Experience in TUIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.2 Button Design in TUIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4

2.3 Theoretical Foundations of Button Curvature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.4 The Influence of Button Shape on User Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.5 Methodologies for Studying Button Curvature . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5

2.6 Previous Comparative Studies in User Experience . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

2.7 Research Gap . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6

3.1 Significance of the Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3.2 Study Objectives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 8

3.3 Experimental Parameters . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3.4.1 3D Modeling and Design . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9

3.4.2 3D Printing and Post-Processing . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10

3.5 Hardware and Circuit . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

3.7 Experimental Design and Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3.7.1 Study 1: Exploring Button Curvatures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 13

3.7.2 Study 2: Button Perception Feedback . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

4.1 Exploration Time Variance . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16

4.1.1 Convex Buttons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4.1.2 Concave Buttons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17

4.1.3 Average Exploration Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4.2 Accuracy of Curvature Perception . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4.2.1 Convex Buttons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19

4.2.2 Concave Buttons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20

4.3 Difficulty Estimation . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

4.3.1 Convex Buttons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

4.3.2 Concave Buttons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 21

4.4 Comfort Preference . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

4.4.1 Convex Buttons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

4.4.2 Concave Buttons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 23

5.1 Confirmation of Hypotheses . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25

5.2 Implications for Tangible User Interfaces (TUIs) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 27

5.2.1 Contributions to Eyes-Free Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

5.2.2 Impact on Everyday TUI Interaction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

5.2.3 Highlighting the Importance of Tactile Feedback in TUIs . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28

5.3 Practical Design Implications . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

5.4 Guidelines for Designers . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29

6 Limitations and Future Work 31

6.2 Future Work . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 31

3.7 An ongoing experiment: A participant exploring stimuli. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 14

A.1 Participant Consent Form for the Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37

A.2 Participant Information leaflet for the Experiment . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38

A.3 Participant Information leaflet for the Experiment(Contd.) . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39

5.1 Correspondence table for designers of curvy devices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30

FSR Force sensing resistor

1.1 | Background and Significance

1.2 | Research Directions

1.3 | Structure of the Thesis

• Chapter 2: Literature Review

2.1 | Introduction to User Experience in TUIs

2.2 | Button Design in TUIs

2.4 | The Influence of Button Shape on User Experience

2.5 | Methodologies for Studying Button Curvature

In addition to these methodologies, a blindfolded approach can be incorporated, as demonstrated in previous

2.6 | Previous Comparative Studies in User Experience

2.7 | Research Gap

The study proposes several hypotheses to direct the investigation:

3.1 | Significance of the Experiment

Name: _ Signature, Date: _