Using Checksums to Detect Number Entry Error

Authors:
Sarah Wiseman;Anna L. Cox;Duncan P. Brumby;Sandy J.J. Gould;Sarah O'Carroll
Affiliations:
University College London, London, UK;University College London, London, UK;University College London, London, UK;University College London, London, UK;University College London, London, UK
Venue:
Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Year:
2013

Citing 6
Cited 0

FEATURE: Ignorance of interaction programming is killing people

interactions - We must redesign professional design education for the 21st century
The $100,000 Keying Error

Computer
Designing adaptive feedback for improving data entry accuracy

UIST '10 Proceedings of the 23nd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology
Fast or safe?: how performance objectives determine modality output choices while interacting on the move

Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
Number entry interfaces and their effects on error detection

INTERACT'11 Proceedings of the 13th IFIP TC 13 international conference on Human-computer interaction - Volume Part IV
Safer "5-key" number entry user interfaces using differential formal analysis

BCS-HCI '12 Proceedings of the 26th Annual BCS Interaction Specialist Group Conference on People and Computers

Quantified Score

Hi-index	0.01

Visualization

Abstract

Number entry is a common task in many domains. In safety-critical environments such as air traffic control or on hospital wards, incorrect number entry can have serious harmful consequences. Research has investigated how interface designs can help prevent users from making number entry errors. In this paper, we present an experimental evaluation of two possible interface designs aimed at helping users detect number entry errors using the idea of a checksum: an additional (redundant) number that is related to the to-be-entered numbers in such a way that it is sufficient to verify the correctness of the checksum, as opposed to checking each of the entered numbers. The first interface requires users to check their own work with the help of the checksum; the second requires the user to enter the checksum along with the other numbers so that the system can do the checking. In each case, two numbers needed to be entered, while the third number served as a checksum. With the first interface, users caught only 36% of their errors. The second interface resulted in all errors being caught, but the need to enter the checksum increased entry time by 46%. When participants were allowed to choose between the two interfaces, they chose the second interface in only 12% of the cases. Although these results cannot be generalized to other specific contexts, the results illustrate the strengths and weaknesses of each way of using checksums to catch number entry errors. Hence our study can serve as a starting point for efforts to improve each method.