Continuous pen pressure can be used to operate multi-state widgets such as menus in pen based user interfaces. The number of levels into which the pen pressure space is divided determines the number of states in the multi-state widgets. To increase the optimal number of divisions of the pen pressure space and achieve greater pen pressure usability, we propose a new discretization method which divides the pen pressure space according to a personal pen pressure use profile. We present here four variations of the method: discretization according to personal/aggregation pen pressure use profile with/without visual feedback of uniform level widths and the traditional even discretization method. Two experiments were conducted respectively to investigate pen pressure use profile and to comparatively evaluate the performance of these methods. Results indicate that the subjects performed fastest and with the fewest errors when the pen pressure space was divided according to personal profile with visual feedback of uniform level widths (PU) and performed worst when the pen pressure space was divided evenly. With PU method, the optimal number of divisions of the pen pressure space was 8. Visual feedback of uniform level widths enhanced performance of uneven discretization. The findings of this study have implications for human-oriented pen pressure use in pen pressure based user interface designs.

Adjustment of a certain parameter in the course of performing a trajectory task such as drawing or gesturing is a common manipulation in pen-based interaction. Since pen tip information is confined to x-y coordinate data, such concurrent parameter adjustment is not easily accomplished in devices using only a pen tip. This paper comparatively investigates the performance of inherent pen input modalities (Pressure, Tilt, Azimuth, and Rolling) and Key Pressing with the non-preferred hand used for precision parameter manipulation during pen sliding actions. We elaborate our experimental design framework here and conduct experimentation to evaluate the effect of the five techniques. Results show that Pressure enabled the fastest performance along with the lowest error rate, while Azimuth exhibited the worst performance. Tilt showed slightly faster performance and achieved a lower error rate than Rolling. However, Rolling achieved the most significant learning effect on Selection Time and was favored over Tilt in subjective evaluations. Our experimental results afford a general understanding of the performance of inherent pen input modalities in the course of a trajectory task in HCI (human computer interaction).

Three experiments were conducted in this study to investigate the human ability to control pen pressure and pen tilt input, by coupling this control with cursor position, angle and scale. Comparisons between pen pressure input and pen tilt input have been made in the three experiments. Experimental results show that decreasing pressure input resulted in very poor performance and was not a good input technique for any of the three experiments. In "Experiment 1-Coupling to Cursor Position", the tilt input technique performed relatively better than the increasing pressure input technique in terms of time, even though the tilt technique had a slightly higher error rate. In "Experiment 2-Coupling to Cursor Angle", the tilt input performed a little better than the increasing pressure input in terms of time, but the gap between them is not so apparent as Experiment 1. In "Experiment 3-Coupling to Cursor Scale", tilt input performed a little better than increasing pressure input in terms of adjustment time. Based on the results of our experiments, we have inferred several design implications and guidelines.