Usability of different types of commercial selfie sticks

Abstract

This paper reviews and categorizes the most common types of selfie sticks available in the market and discusses their design and usability. Through a theoretical analysis, it demonstrates how most commercial selfie sticks ignore important human factors, including ergonomics. It, then, presents results of an online survey, where selfie stick users (N=105), predominantly from the Republic of Korea, rated the usability of their selfie sticks. Results of the survey provided an insight into users' selfie stick usage behavior and suggested that most commercial selfie sticks are unergonomic, causing the users short-term fatigues that could "in theory" turn into chronic over the time with extensive use. Finally, based on the survey results, the paper makes recommendations for future design.

Full text

Usability of Different Types of Commercial Selfie Sticks
Ahmed Sabbir Arif
University of California, Merced
Merced, CA, USA
a.s.arif@gmail.com
Sunjun Kim
School of Computing, KAIST
Daejeon, Republic of Korea
kuaa.net@gmail.com
Geehyuk Lee
School of Computing, KAIST
Daejeon, Republic of Korea
geehyuk@gmail.com
ABSTRACT
This paper reviews and categorizes the most common types
of selfie sticks available in the market and discusses their design
and usability. Through a theoretical analysis, it demonstrates
how most commercial selfie sticks ignore important human
factors, including ergonomics. It, then, presents results of an
online survey, where selfie stick users (N=105), predominantly
from the Republic of Korea, rated the usability of their selfie
sticks. Results of the survey provided an insight into users’
selfie stick usage behavior and suggested that most commercial
selfie sticks are unergonomic, causing the users short-term
fatigues that could “in theory” turn into chronic over the time
with extensive use. Finally, based on the survey results, the
paper makes recommendations for future design.
Author Keywords
Selfie stick; evaluation; design; ergonomics; usability; self-
photography; camera; smartphone; mobile device.
ACM Classification Keywords
H.1.2. Models and Principles: User/Machine Systems; B.4.m.
Input/output and Data Communications: Miscellaneous.
INTRODUCTION
Selfie sticks are becoming increasingly popular among young
smartphone users [20]. A recent survey involving 18-34 years
old mobile users in the U.S. revealed that about 95% of them
have taken at least one selfie, and about 27% of them have
used a selfie stick [5]. Industries, including major smartphone
manufactures like OPPO [21], are attempting to capitalize on
this by designing new and improved selfie sticks.
However, using a selfie stick could be physically demanding.
Not only it requires carrying a smartphone or camera attached
monopod around but also adjusting the angle and balancing
the selfie stick with one hand for the intended view is often
difficult. Therefore, it is essential that new selfie sticks are
designed with due consideration of human factors. Yet to our
knowledge, no prior work has explored the usability of the
commonly used selfie sticks. This paper attempts to address
this by categorizing, and evaluating the usability of different
types of commercial selfie sticks.
We used a simplistic approach for our investigation. First, we
identified the most common types of selfie sticks through an
informal survey of the most popular online shopping websites,
specifically Alibaba, Amazon, and eBay. Then, we categorized
the selfie sticks based on their features, and discussed their
design and usability. Finally, we conducted an online survey
where selfie stick users, predominantly from the Republic of
Korea, rated and commented on the usability of their selfie
sticks.
RELATED WORK
Several recent studies have investigated if taking selfies and
using selfie sticks makes users more prone to accidents. In a
survey, Flaherty and Choi [9] identified numerous traumatic
injuries associated with these activities. They concluded that
“the lack of situational awareness and temporary distraction
inherent in selfie-taking” exposes users to potential hazards,
including falls from steps, pedestrian injuries, and road traffic
accidents. Similarly, Howes [13] investigated how spectator
selfies increase the number of incidents, injuries, and near-
misses in outdoor sports, such as marathons and road cycling.
Svelander and Wiberg [19] argued that the practice of selfies
is not a purely individual act or an expression of narcissism,
but a sociomaterial practice that should be studied by keeping
“one keen eye on how technologies and social media plat-
forms are developing, and another one on the characteristics
surrounding this practice”. Some have also investigated the
influence of selfie and selfie sticks on human behavior and
personality [4,8,17,18], society [15], social network [12], and
journalism [16].
A different set of research has proposed alternative usage of
selfie sticks. For example, Criscito and Stein [7] suggested
using selfie sticks to assist patients with the examination of
the back of their body to improve visualization during skin
self-examination. Geronazzo et al. [10], in contrast, used selfie
sticks in a virtual reality system to capture individual acoustic
features to personalize head-related transfer functions. Hasan
and Noman [11], on the other hand, used selfie sticks together
with motion sensors in a smart-home security system to take
automatic snapshots upon the detection of a motion.
Some have also proposed alternatives to common selfie sticks
and novel selfie stick interactions. Liou et al. [14] developed
a hand gear to enable taking self-portraits with different finger
motions and gestures. Several commercial products, such as
AirSelfie [1] and Elfie [3], integrate four powerful propellers
Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work fo
r
p
ersonal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are
not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies
b
ear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights fo
r
components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored.
Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to
p
ost on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission
and/or a fee. Request permissions from Permissions@acm.org.
MobileHCI '17, September 04-07, 2017, Vienna, Austria
© 2017 Association for Computing Machinery.
ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-5075-4/17/09…$15.00
http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/3098279.3098549

with a video camera to enable taking aerial selfies/videos. In
a relevant project, Chen et al. [6] proposed a direct pointing
approach to control selfie drones from a user-centric mode.
Although most selfie sticks are designed for smartphones and
digital cameras, some have also designed for tablets [2] and
laptops, the latter as a joke
1
.
TYPES OF SELFIE STICKS
We conducted an informal survey of three widely-used
online shopping websites, particularly Alibaba, Amazon, and
eBay, to identify the most common types of commercial selfie
sticks. We used a simplistic approach for the survey. First,
we collected all items listed as “selfie stick” on each website.
We, then, divided all items into “inexpensive”, “affordable”,
and “expensive” price ranges, based on the cheapest and the
priciest items on the list, to make sure that selfie sticks from
different price ranges are covered. Finally, we picked the ten
most sold items from each price range for our investigation.
Table 1 presents the results of the survey.
SELFIE STICK MECHANICS
Practically, a hand holding a selfie stick could be abstracted
as a second-class lever, Figure 1 (a). In this lever, the effort
arm is usually shorter than the load arm, hence the effort is
almost always greater than the load. This could be a source
of fatigue, particularly when the user is adjusting the angle
of a selfie stick. This could be addressed by either using a
shorter arm or adding an extra mass to the handle, such as the
1
MacBook Selfie Stick. Retrieved February 26, 2017 from
http://macbookselfiestick.com
pommel of a sword, to move the center of the mass towards
the hand.
If we extend our view to the elbow, the whole system could
be abstracted as a third-class lever, Figure 1 (b). In this lever,
a longer arm and a heavier mass could induce fatigue on the
biceps. As a result, using a heavy handle for better handling,
as we suggested earlier, could further increase arm fatigue.
In some scenarios, such as when the smartphone (or camera)
is in a portrait position, Figure 1 (c), the load shifts from the
center and induces torque (τ). In such scenarios, selfie
sticks with a narrow or a slippery handle would require more
forceful grips to control the friction to prevent any unwanted
rotations. This could cause fatigue in the hand and the lower-
arm muscles. Using a wider handle made/covered with anti-
skid materials could resolve this.
In summary, the following ergonomic factors could affect the
usability of a selfie stick: the overall weight of the selfie stick
(including the smartphone or camera), the center of the mass,
and the shape and material of the handle. The overall weight
affects the upper-arm muscles since they are used to support
the complete selfie stick. While the center of the mass, and
the shape and material of the handle affect the forearm and
Category Shutter Control
Advance
Camera
Control
Body
Material
Handle/Grip Phone
Holder
Diameter
cm Mirror
Length
Joints
Weight
g
Max.
Load
g
Available
Accessories
Width
cm
Material
Clamp
Lock
Folded
cm
Extended
cm
Type A:
Timer
Camera
Timer No
Stainless steel or
aluminum alloy
2-5
Foam, plastic, or
matte rubber-based
anti-skid grip
Adjustable silicon grip
Thumb screw
2-3 No 13-23 50-110
5-7
45-181 500-1000
GoPro accessories
and custom
camera apps
Type B:
Wired
3.5mm headphone
audio/auxiliary jack Rarely 2-5 2-4 Rarely 13-25 50-110 45-136 500-1000 None
Type C:
Bluetooth
Bluetooth 3.0 or
above Mostly 3-5 2-4 Rarely 18-50 76-125 130-300 500-1000 Tripod and remote
control
Table 1. The most common types of selfie stick based on the data from three shopping websites: Alibaba, Amazon, and eBay. Note
that the numerical values are rounded for better presentation.
Figure 1. Selfie stick mechanics (a) as a second-class lever,
(b) as a third-class lever, and (c) with a portrait orientation
grip (i.e., when the smartphone is in a portrait position).
Figure 2. Anatomy of the three common types of selfie stick
and the advanced features.

hand muscles since they are used to adjust the angle of the
selfie stick.
SELFIE STICK INTERACTIONS
The survey revealed that there are three common types of
selfie sticks available in the market, described below.
Type A: Timer-Based Selfie Sticks
This is one of the earliest type of selfie stick that is simply a
stick with a smartphone holder attached (Figure 2). This type
of selfie sticks does not provide the support for controlling
th e smar tph one via the stic k. Henc e, user s usua lly use a third -
party camera application or the phone’s default camera timer
and voice command to take pictures.
Type B: Wired Selfie Sticks
This type of selfie sticks use the 3.5 mm headphone jack for
connectivity. Most modern smartphones are equipped with a
4-pin headphone jack that adds an extra pin to the traditional
3-pin jack for microphone and control signal. In most of these
smartphones, shorting the ground and the microphone pins
activates the camera shutter. Wired selfie sticks utilize this
to enable taking pictures using a tactile button in the handle
(Figure 2). Although this type of selfie sticks typically do not
support interactions beyond the shutter control, (presumably)
the fact that they use a low-cost and affordable technology
(i.e., do not require “pairing” or a separate power supply)
makes them one of the most popular type of selfie sticks in
the market.
Type C: Bluetooth Selfie Sticks
This type of selfie sticks establishes an explicit Bluetooth
communication channel between the stick and the smartphone
(Figure 2). Unlike wired selfie sticks, Bluetooth selfie sticks
could virtually enable an unlimited number of commands.
Hence, most of these selfie sticks enable advanced features,
including zooming, photo or video selector, and front or back
camera selector. Some models also include extra controllers
to control third-party applications to further extend the selfie
stick interactions. However, these type of selfie sticks require
a separate power supply and must be paired with the phone
before use.
Advanced Features
Apart from the features described above, several selfie sticks
provide the support for the following advanced features.
Tripod
Some selfie sticks come with a tripod attachments to enable
using the selfie stick as a tripod.
Automation
Some selfie sticks use motorized rod expansion or contract and
angle adjustment features to enable remote operations. Some
also utilize gimbal stabilizers to compensate for hand tremors
during video recordings.
A SURVEY
We conducted an online survey to investigate the usability of
commercial selfie sticks. The survey used a semi-structured
questionnaire. It used a predetermined set of answers for the
demographics, selfie stick usage, and fatigue related inquiries,
but enabled participants to include their own responses. It
used open-ended questions for all other inquires, including
the most liked and disliked aspects of the selfie sticks.
Requests to participate in the survey were distributed via
various emailing lists, online forums, and social community
websites. Selfie stick users then could self-select themselves
for the survey.
Participants
Among 113 applicants, 105 that responded that they have used
a selfie stick at least once participated in the survey. They
were predominantly from the Republic of Korea (96%). Their
age ranged from 15 to 42 years (average 24.9 years, SD =
4.4). About 37% (N = 39) of them were female and 63% (N =
66) were male.
Group Selfie Stick Category Percent
N
1 Type A: Timer 16.2 17
4
Type A: Timer, Type B: Wired 20 21
Type A: Timer, Type B: Wired, Type C: Bluetooth 17.1 18
Type A: Timer, Type C: Bluetooth 8.6 9
2 Type B: Wired 21 22
4 Type B: Wired, Type C: Bluetooth 5.7 6
3 Type C: Bluetooth 11.4 12
Total 100 105
Table 2. Different types of selfie sticks (Table 1) owned by the
participants. “N” represents the total number of responses.
Selfie Stick Usage
About 63.8% of the participants owned Type B selfie sticks,
while 61.9% and 42.8% owned Type A and Type C selfie
sticks, respectively. Notice that the values do not add up to a
100% since 42.8% (N = 54) of the participants owned more
than one selfie sticks. Table 2 displays the different types of
selfie sticks owned by the participants.
Majority of the participants (37.7%) owned their selfie sticks
for less than six months, while about 27.4%, 19.8%, and 15.1%
of them owned their selfie sticks for over six months but less
than year, over a year but less than two years, and over two
years, correspondingly.
Data revealed that only one participant (male, 24 years) always
kept his selfie stick with him. The remining 99% took their
selfie sticks with them only when they were planning on using
it. Likewise, most of the participants (66.7%) responded that
they carried their selfie sticks in hand only when they had the
intention of using it in quick succession, such as at a social
event (e.g., a wedding ceremony) or when travelling abroad.
About 30.5% of the participants responded that they put their
selfie sticks away when they were not using it (e.g., kept it in
a handbag). The remaining 2.8% never carried their selfie
sticks in hand.
Importance
About half of participants (55.2%) did not consider selfie
sticks to be an important gadget for their day to day activities,
while about 20% found it important. The remaining 24.8%
were neutral about it. For statistical analysis, we divided the

participants into four groups: the owners of Type A, B, and C
selfie sticks, and the owners of multiple types of selfie sticks
(Table 2). A Kruskal-Wallis test identified a significant effect
of group on importance (2 = 14.856, p = .002, df = 3). A
Tukey’s HSD test revealed that Type A selfie stick owners
found the devices significantly (p < .05) less importance than
Type B (p = .046) and multiple types of selfie stick owners
(p = .001). However, a Mann-Whitney U test failed to identify
a significant effect of gender on importance (U = 1043, p =
.092).
Willingness to Upgrade
Most of the participants (45.7%) did not want to upgrade to
a better or smarter selfie stick, while about 33.3% of them
wanted to. The remaining 21% were undecided about this. A
Kruskal-Wallis test identified a significant effect of importance
on willingness to upgrade (2 = 13.246, p = .001, df = 2). A
Tukey’s HSD test suggested that users that found selfie sticks
important are more likely to upgrade to a better or smarter
selfie sticks (p = 0.001).
Usage Frequency
Results revealed that none of the participants used their selfie
sticks daily. About 2.9% of them used their selfie sticks at least
once a week, 9.5% used several times a month, 10.5% used
at least once a month, 75.2% used their selfie sticks rarely,
e.g., once in two months, and the remaining 1.9% used their
selfie sticks very rarely, e.g., several times a year. A Kruskal-
Wallis test found a significant effect of usage frequency on
importance (2 = 12.439, p = .014, df = 4). However, Tukey’s
HSD test did not identify a significant difference between the
five frequency groups. A Mann-Whitney U test also failed to
identify a significant effect of gender on usage frequency (U
= 1427.5, p = .218).
Most Liked Aspects
Below are the most liked aspects of commercial selfie sticks.
1. Ability to take pictures and videos with wider backgrounds
and landscapes (68.6%),
2. Ability to take self-portraits without the assistance of the
others (27.6%),
3. Ability to take group pictures with ease (26.7 %), and
4. Ability to enhance the composition and aesthetics (21%).
Most participants appreciated that selfie sticks allow them to
take better pictures. Many appreciated that the devices enable
taking pictures with a wider background and landscape; and
without the assistance of the others. For example, one male
participant (21 years) wrote, “[I like that it allows me to] take
wider shots with the landscape and my friends”. A female
participant (24 years) wrote, “[Selfie sticks allow me to] take
selfies even when there’s no one around”. Many also praised
the dynamic compositions enabled by selfie sticks, including
the low-angle and high-angle shots. For instance, a male
participant (24 years) commented, “[I like that now] I can
compose beautiful pictures with dynamic angles [with my
selfie stick]”.
Most Disliked Aspects
Below are the most disliked aspects of selfie sticks.
1. The devices are heavy and bulky (55.2%),
2. The preparation involved with using a selfie stick, such as
mounting the phone and expanding the rod (12.4%), and
3. [Tied] The devices are not durable (9.5%), the rod is often
conspicuous to others (9.5%), and the fear of accidentally
dropping the smartphone or camera (9.5%).
Most participants disliked the portability of selfie sticks. They
found selfie sticks to be too heavy and bulky to carry around.
For example, one female participant (27 years) wrote, “[I would
prefer] a more compact selfie stick for my phone”. Some also
mentioned other issues associated with the length and weight
of the devices. For instance, one female participant (20 years)
wrote, “The length and weight of the selfie stick often makes
my hand tremor”.
There were also some type specific criticisms. For instance,
several Type A selfie stick users complained about the absence
of a shutter button. Similarly, several Type C selfie stick users
complained about the fast battery-drain.
Desired Improvements
The most liked and disliked aspects align with user responses
to the question, “If you could change one thing about your
selfie stick, what would it be?”. Roughly 36.2%, 12.4%, and
12.4% of the participants responded that they would like to
change the volume and weight (i.e., would make them smaller,
thinner, and lighter), the holder design, and the connection
method of the selfie sticks. For example, several Type A users
wanted shutter buttons, and some Type B owners wanted
more reliable 3.5 mm jack connection. In addition, 9.5%
wanted a more durable and 5.7% wanted longer rods. About
5.7% of the participants wanted better tactile buttons since
using hard-to-press buttons tend to shake the device, resulting
in blurry images.
The most liked and disliked aspects also correspond to user
responses to the question, “What is the ‘one’ thing you would
consider in your next selfie stick purchase?”. Participants
responded that the price (27.6%), portability (21.9%), durability
(21%), solid holder (18.1%), functionality (14.3%), and the
convenience (11.4%) of the selfie sticks would influence their
choice the most.
Physical Stress
Most of the participants (72.4%) responded that they have
experienced physical discomfort or fatigue due to selfie sticks,
while about 12.4% reported that they did not experience any
discomfort. The remining 15.3% of them were uncertain about
this.
The following sections present further analysis on the 72.4%
participants that reported physical discomfort or fatigue due
to selfie sticks.
Most participants (98.8%) reported short-term fatigues that
appeared only when using the device and disappeared with

rest. Only one participant (1.2%) reported long-term (or
chronic) fatigues that did not go away with rest and appeared
even when not using the device. Table 3 displays self-reported
physical stress due to selfie sticks.
Based on user responses, the most fatigued body parts were
forearm (45%), followed by hand (44%), and fingers (33%).
Shoulder (23%) and upper arm (19%) were moderately
fatigued, followed by wrist (9%) and neck (3%). Interestingly,
about 2.8% of the participants also reported mental stress due
to the anxiety of dropping their smartphone or camera.
Since the survey did not measure explicit fatigue levels, we
counted the number of fatigued body parts for each user and
used it as their fatigue score for further analysis. For example,
if a user reported fatigue in three body parts, his/her fatigue
score was three.
A Kruskal-Wallis test failed to identify a significant effect of
usage frequency on fatigue score (2 = 3.228, p = .520, df =
4). For further analysis, we filtered the data for the users that
did not experience any physical discomfort due to selfie stick.
A Kruskal-Wallis test on the data failed to identify a significant
effect of usage frequency on absence of fatigue (2 = 2.535,
p = .638, df = 4).
The average fatigue score for female and male were 2.08 (SD
= 1.4) and 1.47 (SD = 1.06), respectively. However, a Mann-
Whitney U test marginally failed to identify a significant effect
of gender on fatigue score (U = 1003, p = .052). For further
analysis, we filtered the data for the users that used selfie
sticks rarely (Table 3) since they represent the majority of
the participants (75%). Nevertheless, a Mann-Whitney U test
marginally failed to identify a significant effect of gender on
fatigue score (U = 566.5, p = .057).
DISCUSSION
Results revealed that most participants (76%) were occasional
users of selfie sticks, suggesting that selfie sticks are still not
Frequency Gender Finger Hand Forearm Upper Arm Shoulder Neck Other None N
Once a week
Female 33.3 (1) 0 (0) 33.3 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 33.3 (1) 0 (0) 1
Male 50 (2) 25 (1) 25 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2
Total 42.8 (3) 14.3 (1) 28.6 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 14.3 (1) 0 (0) 3
Several times a month
Female 11.1 (1) 22.2 (2) 33.3 (3) 11.1 (1) 11.1 (1) 0 (0) 11.1 (1) 0 (0) 4
Male 27.3 (3) 36.4 (4) 9.1 (1) 0 (0) 18.1 (2) 0 (0) 0 (0) 9.1 (1) 6
Total 20 (4) 30 (6) 20 (4) 5 (1) 15 (3) 0 (0) 5 (1) 5 (1) 10
Once a month
Female 0 (0) 0 (0) 100 (1) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1
Male 15 (3) 15 (3) 20 (4) 10 (2) 5 (1) 10 (2) 15 (3) 10 (2) 10
Total 14.3 (3) 14.3 (3) 23.8 (5) 9.5 (2) 4.8 (1) 9.5 (2) 14.3 (3) 9.5 (2) 11
Rarely:
Once in two months
Female 17.3 (13) 22.7 (17) 20 (15) 13.3 (10) 16 (12) 1.3 (1) 2.7 (2) 6.7 (5) 32
Male 13.3 (11) 24.1 (20) 25.3 (21) 7.2 (6) 9.6 (8) 2.4 (2) 4.8 (4) 13.3 (11) 47
Total 15.2 (24) 23.4 (37) 22.8 (36) 10.1 (16) 12.7 (20) 1.9 (3) 3.8 (6) 10.1 (16) 79
Almost never:
Several times a year
Female 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1
Male 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 1
Total 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 0 (0) 2
Table 3. Self-reported fatigue due to selfie sticks, normalized within the usage frequency. The values inside the parenthesis are
the raw number of responses. Here, “Other” and “N” signify other body parts (e.g., the wrist) and the total number of
responses, respectively.
Figure 3. Self-reported fatigue due to selfie sticks, normalized within the usage frequency.
33.33
50.00
11.11
27.27
.00
15.00
17.33
13.25
25.00
22.22
36.36
.00
15.00
22.67
24.10
33.33
25.00
33.33
9.09
100.00
20.00
20.00
25.30
.00
11.11
.00
10.00
13.33
7.23
11.11
18.18
5.00
16.00
9.64
10.00
1.33
2.41
33.33
11.11
15.00
2.67
4.82
9.09
10.00
6.67
13.25
0% 10% 20% 30% 40 % 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Femal e
Male
Femal e
Male
Femal e
Male
Femal e
Male
Onceaweek
Severaltimesam onth
Onceamonth
Rarely:
(e. g.,onceintw omonths )
Finge r Hand Fo rearm Up perA rm Shoulder Neck Other None

an everyday device. Most users used selfie sticks at special
occasions, such as when travelling or attending a social event.
There was a significant effect of selfie stick type on perceived
importance of selfie sticks. Evidently, Type A selfie stick users
found selfie sticks less important than the other users. This
suggests that users that find selfie sticks unimportant tend to
settle for cheaper, Type A selfie sticks. Expectedly, there was
a significant effect of importance on willingness to upgrade,
suggesting that users that find selfie sticks important are likely
to upgrade to better or smarter selfie sticks.
Figure 4. Relationship between selfie stick usage frequency
and perceived importance of selfie sticks. Error bars represent
±1 standard deviation (SD).
There was a significant effect of usage frequency on importance,
but a post hoc analysis failed to identify a significant different
between the different frequency groups. However, in Figure
4 one can see that the data correlates well with an exponential
function (R
2
= 0.95), suggesting a weak relationship between
usage frequency and importance (i.e., perceived importance
of the devices increase with usage frequency). Similarly, there
was no significant effect of gender on importance, although
on average female participants considered selfie sticks more
important than male participants, Figure 5.
Figure 5. Importance of selfie sticks by gender. Error bars
represent ±1 standard deviation (SD).
Other than the ability to take self-portraits, many participants
praised the ability to capture a wider background. The typical
angle of view for smartphone cameras is around 60°, which
is comparable to the ~35 mm focal length of the 35 mm films.
Hence, when taking a self-portrait using the arm (~1 m) in the
4:3 aspect ratio, the human bust (~60 cm vertically) covers
almost 50% of the frame area. Most selfie sticks free up the
space by 25% by extending the view, allowing users to capture
a wider background or take group pictures. Interestingly, some
users responded that they use a selfie stick because it enables
adjusting the angle of view. For example, one male participant
(21 years) wrote, “I can take wide-angle shots with selfie sticks”.
But, in practice, focal length is the only factor that determines
the angle of view since most smartphone cameras use lenses
with a fixed focal length. Users get a wider view with a selfie
stick due to the extended distance between the user and the
camera, which is fundamentally different from zooming out
using lenses with a variable focal length.
Most participants complained about the portability of the selfie
sticks. Apparently, they found the volume and weight of the
devices inconvenient, even when folded. They also reported
that operating selfie sticks is often tiresome, especially when
obstructed by the crowd or other obstacles.
Results suggest that using selfie sticks cause short-term fatigue
in all major arm and shoulder muscles. Evidently, most selfie
sticks are designed to amplify the weight of the phone or
camera, which is an obvious cause of fatigue when holding a
selfie stick. Although, there was not sufficient data to fully
investigate the potential of chronic fatigues, the extent of the
short-term fatigues (Table 3) suggests that they could turn
into chronic over the time and with extensive use.
Interestingly, there was no significant effect of usage frequency
on fatigue score and the absence of fatigue. Results revealed
that on average female participants reported 29% higher
fatigue than male participants. Yet, there was no significant
(but a marginal) effect of gender on fatigue score (p = .052),
even for the users that used selfie sticks rarely (p = .057), see
Table 3, the dominant group in the survey. However, we
recommend caution in interpreting these results since the
survey data was insufficient to thoroughly explore the effects
of usage frequency and gender on fatigue (e.g., the “Once a
week” group involved only three participants, Table 3).
Recommendations
To reduce fatigue in the major arm and shoulder muscles due
to the second-class lever, Figure 1 (a), we recommend using
a shorter arm or adding counterweight to the handle, such as
the pommel of a sword. However, this is a trade-off since
adding counterweight could increase fatigue due to the third-
class lever, Figure 1 (b). Using a lightweight material for the
rod, such as carbon fiber composite, could resolve this.
Since selfie sticks with a narrow or slippery handle frequently
require forceful grips to control the friction to prevent any
unwanted rotations, we recommend using a wider handle,
either made or covered with anti-skid materials, to reduce
fatigue in the finger, hand, and lower-arm muscles.
Finally, we suggest automating repetitive features that could
cause repetitive strain injuries (RSI), such as angle adjustment.
However, this solution requires additional hardware and
sensors that could increase the price of the devices. Since the
affordability of the selfie sticks is one of the most desired
factors (25%), it is important to maintain a balance between
the functionality and the cost of these devices.

LIMITATIONS AND FUTURE WORK
There are several limitations of the work. First, as the survey
required participants to self-reported fatigues associated with
selfie sticks, it is possible that some fatigues were caused by
a different action and/or by a pre-existing condition. Second,
about 96% of our participants were from the Republic of
Korea, introducing a potential cultural bias. Third, the survey
failed to gather sufficient data to fully explore the effects of
usage frequency and gender on fatigue. We will address these
in a future user study by increasing our sample size (N) and
broadening our participant pool.
We also failed to investigate the long-term effects of selfie
sticks since most participants were either new or infrequent
users of the devices. However, considering that selfie stick is
a relatively new gadget, it might be too early to explore its
long-term effect. Therefore, we included an optional field in
the survey that asked the volunteers to enter their emails for
a follow-up study. About 95% of them responded to this
request. Our plan is to revisit the survey in a few years to find
out if the users continued using their selfie sticks, upgraded
or downgraded to different selfie sticks, and the long-term
effects of the selfie sticks.
Finally, we intend to extend our research to other low-cost
smartphone accessories targeted at the millennials, such as
smartphone cases, stands, holders, and power banks.
CONCLUSION
In this paper, we reviewed and categorized the most common
types of selfie sticks available in the market, and discussed
their design and usability. Through a theoretical analysis, we
demonstrated how most commercial selfie sticks ignore vital
human factors, i.e., ergonomics. We then presented results of
an online survey, where 105 selfie stick users, predominantly
from the Republic of Korea, rated the usability of their selfie
sticks. Survey results also suggested that most commercial
selfie sticks are unergonomic, causing the users short-term
fatigues that could “in theory” turn into chronic over the time
with extensive use. Results also provided an insight into users’
selfie stick usage behavior, their most liked and disliked
aspects of selfie sticks, and their take on how to improve the
usability of the existing selfie sticks. Finally, based on the
findings of the survey, we made recommendations for future
development.
ACKNOWLEDGMENTS
We thank all volunteers, who participated in survey. We also
thank all reviewers, who provided thoughtful comments on
previous versions of this document.
REFERENCES
1. AirSelfie. AirSelfie: Life-Size Emotions. Retrieved
December 12, 2016 from
http://www.airselfiecamera.com
2. Andy Boxall. 2015. There’s A Selfie Stick for Your
Tablet. Digital Trends. Retrieved February 9, 2017
from http://www.digitaltrends.com/photography/tablet-
selfie-stick-strap-news
3. Rick Broida. 2017. Get a Folding Mini Selfie Drone for
$33.92. CNET. Retrieved May 17, 2017 from
https://www.cnet.com/news/get-a-folding-mini-selfie-
drone-for-33-92
4. Nicola Bruno and Marco Bertamini. 2013. Self-
portraits: smartphones reveal a side bias in non-artists.
PLoS ONE 8, 2: e55141.
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0055141
5. Lauren Buchanan. 2015. Staggering Stats on Selfies.
Retrieved November 25, 2016 from
http://blog.lusterpremiumwhite.com/staggering-stats-
on-selfies
6. Chien-Fang Chen, Kang-Ping Liu, and Neng-Hao Yu.
2015. Exploring interaction modalities for a selfie
drone. In SIGGRAPH Asia 2015 Posters on - SA ’15,
1–2. https://doi.org/10.1145/2820926.2820965
7. Maressa C. Criscito and Jennifer A. Stein. 2016. The
selfie skin examination. Journal of the American
Academy of Dermatology 74, 6: e123–e125.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jaad.2015.12.023
8. Michael Lindsey Davison. 2015. Selfie-stick
syndrome: archive fever, narcissism and social
networks. Kill Your Darlings, 21: 54–67.
9. Gerard T Flaherty and Joonkoo Choi. 2016. The
“selfie” phenomenon: reducing the risk of harm while
using smartphones during international travel. Journal
of Travel Medicine 23, 2: tav026.
https://doi.org/10.1093/jtm/tav026
10. Michele Geronazzo, Jacopo Fantin, Giacomo Sorato,
Guido Baldovino, and Federico Avanzini. 2016.
Acoustic selfies for extraction of external ear features
in mobile audio augmented reality. In Proceedings of
the 22nd ACM Conference on Virtual Reality Software
and Technology - VRST ’16, 23–26.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2993369.2993376
11. A. Hasan, Md. Nafiul; Noman. 2011. Design and
Implementation of Smart Home Security System with
Automatic Snapshot. East West University, Dhaka,
Bangladesh. Retrieved from
http://hdl.handle.net/123456789/1791
12. Ka-Tjun Hau. 2015. “The Amsterdam Diaries”: A
Critical Reflection on Amsterdam City Bloggers.
Masters of Media, 1–4. Retrieved December 12, 2016
from
http://mastersofmedia.hum.uva.nl/blog/2015/10/15/the-
amsterdam-diaries-a-critical-reflection-on-amsterdam-
city-bloggers
13. M Howes. 2015. Let me take a #Selfie: An analysis of
how cycling should respond to the increasing threats
posed by exuberant spectators? Laws of the Game,
North America 1, 1: 1–7.
14. Jian-chiun Liou, Wen-Chieh Lin, Wei-jie Wen, and
Wen-de Lin. 2016. Manipulated cell phone camera

with using accelerometer devices. In 2016 IEEE
International Conference on Consumer Electronics-
Taiwan (ICCE-TW), 165–166.
https://doi.org/10.1109/ICCE-TW.2016.7520969
15. An Xiao Mina. 2015. Memes, Puns, and Selfies: A
Look at the Chinese Internet. Asian Art Museum.
Retrieved February 9, 2017 from
https://youtu.be/waIpBBWM0L4
16. Yusuf Omar. 2015. Selfie journalism. Rhodes
Journalism Review 2015, August: 36–39. Retrieved
December 12, 2016 from
https://journals.co.za/content/rujr/2015/35/EJC175784
17. Agnieszka Sorokowska, Anna Oleszkiewicz, Tomasz
Frackowiak, Katarzyna Pisanski, Anna Chmiel, and
Piotr Sorokowski. 2016. Selfies and personality: who
posts self-portrait photographs? Personality and
Individual Differences 90: 119–123.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.paid.2015.10.037
18. Piotr Sorokowski, Agnieszka Sorokowska, Tomasz
Frackowiak, Maciej Karwowski, Irmina Rusicka, and
Anna Oleszkiewicz. 2016. Sex differences in online
selfie posting behaviors predict histrionic personality
scores among men but not women. Computers in
Human Behavior 59: 368–373.
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2016.02.033
19. Angelica Svelander and Mikael Wiberg. 2015. The
practice of selfies. interactions 22, 4: 34–38.
https://doi.org/10.1145/2770886
20. TechNavio. 2016. Global selfie stick market 2016-
2020. Dublin, Ireland. Retrieved February 9, 2017 from
http://www.researchandmarkets.com/research/x7xn8v/
global_selfie
21. Alex Wee. 2016. OPPO F1 Launching on 22th January
with Free OPPO Selfie Stick for the First 200
Customer! Zing Gadget. Retrieved December 13, 2016
from http://en.zinggadget.com/oppo-f1-launching-on-
22th-january-with-free-oppo-selfie-stick-for-the-first-
200-customer