A Comparative Evaluation of Pointing and Crossing in Moving Target Selection

ObjectiveThis work presents a comprehensive analysis of fundamental performance of crossing-based moving target selection.BackgroundAlthough the crossing interaction with static targets has been theoretically studied, there has yet to be a generalizable, controlled empirical study investigating the fundamental performance of crossing-based selection for moving targets.MethodWe conducted an experiment with stylus input to investigate how users acquire moving targets with crossing compared to pointing as a baseline.ResultsThe most noteworthy finding of our study is that crossing had overall greater advantages over pointing for moving target selection (a 12.37% reduction in task completion time and a 5.88% increase in accuracy rate for <i>orthogonal crossing</i>, and a comparable task time and a 4.71% increase in accuracy rate for <i>collinear crossing</i>). However, the advantages of crossing would be insignificant when targets become larger than approximately 14.69 mm or move slower than 14.69 mm/s.ConclusionCrossing performance varied between <i>collinear crossing and orthogonal crossing</i>. <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi>o</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>g</mml:mi><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mfrac><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mrow><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi>o</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>g</mml:mi><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mfrac><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mfrac><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mrow><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math> in (Hoffmann, 1991) can be used to model time performance of crossing-based moving target selection.ApplicationSuch results provide a theoretical foundation for crossing-based interface design with moving objects.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
Published
2025-10-16
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/00187208251386219
Primary Topic
Interactive and Immersive Displays
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

A Comparative Evaluation of Pointing and Crossing in Moving Target Selection

Huawei Tu, Xiaoyu Zhang, Minh Hoang Nguyen, Jin Huang
Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society
Interactive and Immersive Displays
article

A Comparative Evaluation of Pointing and Crossing in Moving Target Selection

Huawei Tu, Xiaoyu Zhang, Minh Hoang Nguyen, Jin Huang
article en

Abstract

ObjectiveThis work presents a comprehensive analysis of fundamental performance of crossing-based moving target selection.BackgroundAlthough the crossing interaction with static targets has been theoretically studied, there has yet to be a generalizable, controlled empirical study investigating the fundamental performance of crossing-based selection for moving targets.MethodWe conducted an experiment with stylus input to investigate how users acquire moving targets with crossing compared to pointing as a baseline.ResultsThe most noteworthy finding of our study is that crossing had overall greater advantages over pointing for moving target selection (a 12.37% reduction in task completion time and a 5.88% increase in accuracy rate for <i>orthogonal crossing</i>, and a comparable task time and a 4.71% increase in accuracy rate for <i>collinear crossing</i>). However, the advantages of crossing would be insignificant when targets become larger than approximately 14.69 mm or move slower than 14.69 mm/s.ConclusionCrossing performance varied between <i>collinear crossing and orthogonal crossing</i>. <mml:math xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML"><mml:mrow><mml:mi>T</mml:mi><mml:mo>=</mml:mo><mml:mi>a</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mi>b</mml:mi><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi>o</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>g</mml:mi><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mi>A</mml:mi><mml:mo>+</mml:mo><mml:mfrac><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mrow><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mi>c</mml:mi><mml:mi>l</mml:mi><mml:mi>o</mml:mi><mml:msub><mml:mi>g</mml:mi><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:msub><mml:mrow><mml:mo>(</mml:mo><mml:mrow><mml:mfrac><mml:mi>W</mml:mi><mml:mn>2</mml:mn></mml:mfrac><mml:mo>-</mml:mo><mml:mfrac><mml:mi>V</mml:mi><mml:mi>k</mml:mi></mml:mfrac></mml:mrow><mml:mo>)</mml:mo></mml:mrow></mml:mrow></mml:math> in (Hoffmann, 1991) can be used to model time performance of crossing-based moving target selection.ApplicationSuch results provide a theoretical foundation for crossing-based interface design with moving objects.

Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics SocietyVol. 68(2)
La Trobe University (AU), University of Chinese Academy of Sciences (CN)
Openalex Percentile: Top 71%
Interactive and Immersive Displays
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.