Pressure Augmented Mouse

Abstract

The use of a uni-pressure and dual-pressure augmented mouse permits users to simultaneously control cursor positions as well as multiple levels of discrete action modes for common desktop application tasks. One, two or more independent pressure sensors can be mounted onto several locations on the body of the mouse. Various selection techniques are described to control many discrete levels and to simultaneously control different variable functions with pressure sensors on an input device for an electronic device.

Description

FIELD OF THE INVENTION[0001]The present invention relates to an input device for an electronic device, for example a computer, and more particularly relates to a computer input device having one or more pressure sensitive switches arranged to generate a range of pressure values corresponding to different pressures being applied by a user.BACKGROUND[0002]What seems to be a natural addition to the next generation of mice is apparent in Apple's MightyMouse™ [10] in which two pressure buttons are available on each side of the mouse. Although, pressure based input is featured in many digitizers and TabletPCs and has been widely studied [3,11,15,16], little is known about the limitations to pressure based input using a mouse. This lack of knowledge may explain why the pressure buttons available on the MightyMouse™ do not supply continuous pressure values and operate similar to a two-state button. One possible reason is that there is not sufficient knowledge on the limitations and benefits...

AI Technical Summary

Benefits of technology

"The invention provides an input device for an electronic device that includes a housing and electronic circuitry in the housing. The electronic circuitry includes a pressure sensitive switch arranged to detect user inputs and generate control signals. The pressure sensitive switch has a first switch and a second switch that generate different control signals based on the amount of pressure applied. The first switch is a two-state button and the second switch has a pressure range that generates continuous pressure values. The pressure ranges of the second switch correspond to different pressures being applied by the user. The input device can be used with a computer mouse or other electronic devices with a tracking mechanism. The invention also provides a method for using the input device with a computer to confirm entry to different selection items. The technical effects of the invention include improved user experience and more efficient use of space on the input device."

Problems solved by technology

However, such enhancements can provide very limited interaction bandwidths as it can be difficult for a user to benefit from the different buttons due to the ergonomics, the physical space limitations of the mouse and the potential conflict that may arise from placing the buttons in inappropriate locations on the mouse.

However the pop-through mouse only facilitates interaction with three discrete states (soft click, hard click, release) and as a result constitutes a limited form of pressure-based input.

Isometric devices map pressure input to the speed of the cursor and have not been designed for substituting the selection mechanisms of buttons on a mouse.

However, Cechanowicz et al did not investigate the possibility of facilitating all selection-based operations on pressure-augmented mouse such as the mouse click and double-click.

Multi-level input can facilitate navigation, editing or selection tasks but utilizes pressure input in a limited way.

However the authors in [71] do not provide the most appropriate pressure levels to simulate the button clicks and instead suggest that the correct thresholds must be determined empirically.

Unlike mouse buttons, pressure sensors do not provide any aural or tactile feedback upon being pressed or released.

This could adversely affect performance with pressure buttons.

However, unlike the outcome of previous results that suggest using continuous visual feed-back (i.e. showing how the user gradually makes it through the pressure space), pressure clicking relies on rapid actions.

As a result, PButtons cannot harness any additional benefits from continuous visual feedback.

A known limitation of our study is that in comparison to the regular mouse buttons, the pressure buttons covered a very minimal area or footprint (see FIG. 24).

This means that users might make contact with the pressure sensor with the side of their index or ring finger, which could affect the registered system pressure resulting in an error.

As a result users could take longer to potentially trigger a selection with pressure buttons.

The trial ended only when the user completed the selection action, so multiple errors were possible for each trial.

However, all the results are presented on the original untransformed data.

This sometimes resulted in errors as users sometimes applied pressure at an angle using the side of their finger.

As with the previous study, a large number of the errors in the second study resulted from the form factor and foot-print of the pressure sensors.

Surprisingly, our results did not show any benefits to effects of auditory feedback.

This is particularly interesting given that pressure sensing hardware does not provide any accurate form of feedback on its own.

However, given the small reaction times that were observed, PButtons cannot take full advantage of continuous visual feedback to indicate whether the interaction has arrived at the adequate threshold for triggering a pressure click or HardPress.

Images