The relationship of physicality and its underlying mapping

Masitah Ghazali1, Alan Dix, and Kiel Gilleade3

1 Universiti Teknologi Malaysia
2 University of Birmingham, UK
3 Liverpool, UK

Best Paper Award at 4th International Conference on Research and Innovation in Information Systems 2015, 8-10 December 2015, Malacca.

Also published in ARPN Journal of Engineering and Applied Science, December 2015, Vol. 10 No. 2

Download full paper (PDF, 453K)


We understand how physical things work from our experience interacting with them. The cause-effect mapping instills our knowledge of interaction. We extend our knowledge of physical interactions when interacting with computing devices, especially when we do not have prior experience with those devices. But, the mapping of interaction in the digital world is not as straightforward as in the physical world. It is unclear how far the rules of physicality hold in the computing realm when the level and kind of feedback is not necessarily the same with physical effort? How do we cope when the underlying mapping is incoherent in relation to the physical control? In this paper, we report a study on Cruel Design. Its objectives are: i) to investigate the role of physicality in the physical-logical interaction, and ii) to observe the behaviors of users as incoherent mappings occur. Four conditions to illustrate the different design of mappings were presented to users. From the findings, the physical condition plays a more dominant role than having to remember the correct mapping of the logical states, and, inverting an action on the same controller (regardless the type of mapping) is the natural reaction to overshoot.

Keywords: Natural mapping, intuitive interaction, physicality, physical-logical relationship


  1. Abeele, V. Vanden, Schutter, B. De, Gajadhar, B., Johnson, D., & Geurts, L. 2013. More naturalness, less control: The effect of natural mapping on the co-located player experience. Proceedings of Foundations of Digital Games 2013, 174-182.

  2. Ashraf, M. & Ghazali, M. 2013. Analysis of Physicality Aspects in Physical User Interfaces of Embedded Systems. Jurnal Teknologi, 61(1), 49-56. DOI: 10.11113/jt.v61.1621

  3. Ashraf, M. & Ghazali, M. 2011. Augmenting Intuitiveness with Wheelchair Interface using Nintendo Wiimote.  International Journal on New Computer Architectures and Their Applications, 1(4), 1000-1013.

  4. Blackler, A.L. 2008. Intuitive interaction with complex artefacts: empirically-based research. VDM Verlag, Saarbrücken, Germany .

  5. Buxton, W. & Myers, B. 1986. A Study in Two-handed Input. Proceedings of CHI'86, 321-326.

  6. Card, S.K., English, W.K. & Burr, B.J. 1978. Evaluation of Mouse, Rate-Controlled Isometric Joystick, Step Keys, and Text Keys for Text Selection of a CRT. Ergonomics, 21(8), 601-613.

  7. Dix, A., Finlay, J., Abowd, G. & Beale, R. 2004. Human-Computer Interaction. Third Edition. Prentice Hall.

  8. Dix, A., Gilleade, K., Ghazali, M., Holt, J., Sheridan, J. & Lock, S. 2005. Dark Lancaster. ABUSE: the dark side of human-computer interaction Workshop. Proceedings of INTERACT 2005, Rome, Italy.

  9. Dourish, P. 2004. Where the Action is: The Foundations of Embodied Interaction. The MIT Press.

  10. Kabbash, P., Buxton, W. & Sellen, A. 1994. Two-Handed Input in a Compound Task. Proceedings of CHI'94, 417-423.

  11. Leganchuk, A., Zhai, S. & Buxton, W. 1999. Manual and Cognitive Benefits of Two-handed Input: An Experimental Study. Proceedings of ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 5(4), 326-369.

  12. Garfinkel H. 1966. Studies in Ethnomethodology. Polity Press

  13. Ghazali, M. 2007. Discovering Natural Interaction of Physical Qualities to Design Fluid Interaction for Novel Devices. Research Monograph, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia.

  14. Ghazali, M. & Dix, A. 2005. Visceral Interaction. Proceedings of HCI’2005, Edinburgh, 68-72.

  15. McEwan, M., Blackler, A., Johnson, D. & Wyeth, P. 2014. Natural Mapping and Intuitive Interaction in Videogames. Proceedings of CHI PLAY’14, 191-200.

  16. McEwan, M., Johnson, M., Wyeth, P. & Blackler, A. 2012. Videogame control device impact on the play experience. Proceedings of IE’12.

  17. Miyata, Y. & Norman, D. 1986. Multiple Activities.  Norman, D.A. and Draper, S.W. (eds), User Centred System Design, New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction, Lawrence Erlbarum Associates Publishers, London, 265-284.

  18. Norman, D. 2002. The Design of Everyday Things. Basic Books.

  19. Park, R. C., Lee, H., Kim, H. & Lee, W. 2014. The Previewable Switch: A Light Switch with Feedforward. Proceedings of DIS'14, 191-194.

  20. Skalski, P., Tamborini, R., Shelton, A., Buncher, M. & Lindmark, P. 2011. Mapping the road to fun: Natural video game controllers, presence and game enjoyment. New Media & Society 13(2), 224-242.
    Shneiderman, B. 1983. Direct Manipulation: A Step Beyond Programming Languages. IEEE Computer, 16(8), 57-69.

  21. Stientra, J., Overbeeke, K. & Wensveen, S. 2011. There is More in a Single Touch: mapping the continuous to the discrete. Proceedings of CHItaly-2011, 27-32.




Figure 1: Cruel Design's grid design with a trace of blue arrows in the middle
[zoom image]

Figure 2: Condition A physical-logical mappings
[zoom image]

Figure 3: Condition B physical-logical mappings
[zoom image]

Figure 4: Condition C physical-logical mappings
[zoom image]

Figure 5: Condition D physical-logical mappings
[zoom image]

Figure 6: The white cursor must follow the flashing blue arrow (highlighted in the red circle)
[zoom image]

Figure 7: Figure-7. Mean horizontal reaction time (RT) for all conditions
[zoom image]

Figure 8: Mean horizontal reaction time (RT) for learning and actual sessions
[zoom image]

Figure 9: Mean horizontal movement time (MT) for all conditions
[zoom image]

Figure 10: Mean horizontal movements time (MT) between learning and actual sessions
[zoom image]

Figure 11: Condition A training vs. actual performances
[zoom image]

Figure 12: Condition B training vs. actual performances
[zoom image]

Figure 13: Condition C training vs. actual performances
[zoom image]

Figure 14: Condition D training vs. actual performances
[zoom image]

Alan Dix 14/12/2015