The DOI matches its Crossref record; 43 of the 43 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 15 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
A morphological analysis of the design space of input devices
Open accessAbstract
The market now contains a bewildering variety of input devices for communication from humans to computers. This paper discusses a means to systematize these devices through morphological design space analysis, in which different input device designs are taken as points in a parametrically described design space. The design space is characterized by finding methods to generate and test design points. In a previous paper, we discussed a method for generating the space of input device designs using primitive and compositional movement operators. This allowed us to propose a taxonomy of input devices. In this paper, we summarize the generation method and explore the use of device footprint and Fitts's law as a test. We then use calculations to reason about the design space. Calculations are used to show why the mouse is a more effective device than the headmouse and where in the design space there is likely to be a more effective device than the mouse.
Overview
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
33 Own interpretation · 19 No basis given · 7 Sources not found · 5 No full text of the sources · 3 Own result
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“They represent all combinations of linear and rotary, absolute and relative, and position and force.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 2. GENERATING THE DESIGN SPACE
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“In particular, we have used our model of the input device design space to help design novel egocentric motion devices for virtual 3-D environments [23,29].”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 2.3 The Design Space for Input Devices
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [23] 23. MACKINLAY, J. Automatic design of graphical presentations. Ph.D. dissertation Computer Science Dept., Stanford Univ., Calif., 1986. (Also Tech. Rep. Stan-CS-86-1038. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [29] 29. PFAFF, G. E.. User Interface Management Systems. Springer-Verlag, New York, 1985. source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“With the exception of voice, we have been able to position all of the devices considered so far.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 2.3 The Design Space for Input Devices
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The target size (column (1) in the table) ranges from 5.5 cm for a typical paragraph to 0.069 cm for a period.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3.2
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Several facts about the design space of potential devices are evident from the diagram: (1) The tablet and the mouse are very expensive in footprint relative to other devices.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3.1 Footprint
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the mouse, this is the 1~of the character, or 4.59 bits.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > Device bandwidth.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The typical target distance is 9.7 cm, half way from the center of a 19-inch screen to the side edge.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“ID ranges from 1.18 bits for pointing to a paragraph to 7.14 bits for pointing to a period.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3.2
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“We have shown that we can distinguish systematically among devices used in other taxonomies.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3. TESTING POINTS IN THE DESIGN SPACE
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For a headmouse, pointing to a word requires MovementTime [ headmouse, word] = 240 ins/bit .2.24 bits = 540 ms.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3.3 Example 1: Effect of Muscle Groups on input Devices
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The typical target distance is 9.7 cm, half way from the center of a 19-inch screen to the side edge.
In the paper
“The performance studies have, however, established abstractions, including Fitts's relation [20], which, in turn, expresses the linkage between device performance and fundamental performance parameters of the human.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 1. INTRODUCTION Human-machine interface technology has been developed to the point where it is appropriate to systematize existing research results and craft into a body of engineering and design knowledge.A case in point is the design of input devices.A bewildering variety of such devices now exists on the market, including typewriter keyboards, mice, headmice, pens and tablets, dialboxes, Polhemus sensors, gloves, and body suits.How can we make sense of this variety?How can we identify promising opportunities for new design?As part of their development, most engineering disciplines organize the designs that have emerged in terms of abstractions that give insight into the design space (e. g., [321).This insight allows individual User interface toolkits or user interface management systems help with a wide range of problems, including the construction, run-time execution, and post-run-time analysis of a user interface [33].They may help systematize input device knowledge by providing a library of prebuilt input device modules [25,27], architecture and specification techniques for combining these modules [2,34], or postprocessing analysis tools [24].Sometimes, as in [2], they even provide architectural models of input device interactions.But the device models implicit in user interface toolkits sketch only a limited picture of the design space of input devices and their properties.Even for the construction of interfaces, they present interface designers with many design alternatives but do little to help with the design decisions themselves.In order to achieve a systematic framework for input devices, toolkits need to be supported by technical abstractions about the user, the devices themselves, and the task they are used to perform. Taxonomies.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [20] 20. LANGOLF, G. D. Human motor performance in precise microscopic work. Ph.D. dissertation, Dept. of Indsutrial Engineering, Univ. of Michigan, Ann Arbor, Mich., 1973. (Also published by the MTM Association, Fairlawn, N J., 1973.)
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
boostedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Not matched
- It may state two separate claims as one. 14
- Probably not a substantial claim. 24
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two of the devices (trackball and joystick) have small footprints that are independent of screen size.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3.1 Footprint
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The lines in Figure 7 have intercepts near, but not exactly at, the origin.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > Device bandwidth.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Using eq. ( 2), the precision of the headmouse is 440 ms/(240 ins/bit) = 2.0 bits, as compared to the 4.6 bits we computed for the mouse earlier”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3.3 Example 1: Effect of Muscle Groups on input Devices
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The typical target distance is 9.7 cm, half way from the center of a 19-inch screen to the side edge.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Three of the devices (light pen, on-screen touch pad, and rotary potentiometers) require no additional footprint (assuming that no footprint is needed to store the lightpen and that the potentiometers mount on the case).”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3.1 Footprint
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: No footprint is needed to store the lightpen and the potentiometers mount on the case.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“= 96 ins/bit”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > Device bandwidth.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. The quote only partly states this claim.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The typical target distance is 9.7 cm, half way from the center of a 19-inch screen to the side edge.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Pointing to a character at our assumed distance takes 440 ms.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > Device bandwidth.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The typical target distance is 9.7 cm, half way from the center of a 19-inch screen to the side edge.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These vary slightly from line to line and make comparisons among the muscle groups more difficult.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > Device bandwidth.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The computed device precision for the fingers is 17.6 bits, almost four times as much as for the mouse.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3.3 Example 1: Effect of Muscle Groups on input Devices
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The typical target distance is 9.7 cm, half way from the center of a 19-inch screen to the side edge.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Card, English, and Burr [9] confirmed these empirical results and discovered that pointing speed with the mouse is governed by Fitts's law [14] with a bandwidth similar to that of the hand.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 1. INTRODUCTION Human-machine interface technology has been developed to the point where it is appropriate to systematize existing research results and craft into a body of engineering and design knowledge.A case in point is the design of input devices.A bewildering variety of such devices now exists on the market, including typewriter keyboards, mice, headmice, pens and tablets, dialboxes, Polhemus sensors, gloves, and body suits.How can we make sense of this variety?How can we identify promising opportunities for new design?As part of their development, most engineering disciplines organize the designs that have emerged in terms of abstractions that give insight into the design space (e. g., [321).This insight allows individual User interface toolkits or user interface management systems help with a wide range of problems, including the construction, run-time execution, and post-run-time analysis of a user interface [33].They may help systematize input device knowledge by providing a library of prebuilt input device modules [25,27], architecture and specification techniques for combining these modules [2,34], or postprocessing analysis tools [24].Sometimes, as in [2], they even provide architectural models of input device interactions.But the device models implicit in user interface toolkits sketch only a limited picture of the design space of input devices and their properties.Even for the construction of interfaces, they present interface designers with many design alternatives but do little to help with the design decisions themselves.In order to achieve a systematic framework for input devices, toolkits need to be supported by technical abstractions about the user, the devices themselves, and the task they are used to perform. Taxonomies.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [9] 9. CARD, S. K. Human factors and artificial intelligence, In Intelligent Interfaces; Z%eory, Research and Design, P. A. Hancock and M. H. Chignell, Eds. Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1989, pp. 270-284. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [14] 14. EPPS, B., SNYDER, H., AND MUTOL, W. Comparison of six cursor devices on a target acquisition task. In Proceedings of the Society for Information Display (San Diego, Calif., May 6-8, 1986). Society for Information Display, 1986, pp. 302-305. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“English and Engelbart [12] studied several devices and found the mouse the fastest device.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 1. INTRODUCTION Human-machine interface technology has been developed to the point where it is appropriate to systematize existing research results and craft into a body of engineering and design knowledge.A case in point is the design of input devices.A bewildering variety of such devices now exists on the market, including typewriter keyboards, mice, headmice, pens and tablets, dialboxes, Polhemus sensors, gloves, and body suits.How can we make sense of this variety?How can we identify promising opportunities for new design?As part of their development, most engineering disciplines organize the designs that have emerged in terms of abstractions that give insight into the design space (e. g., [321).This insight allows individual User interface toolkits or user interface management systems help with a wide range of problems, including the construction, run-time execution, and post-run-time analysis of a user interface [33].They may help systematize input device knowledge by providing a library of prebuilt input device modules [25,27], architecture and specification techniques for combining these modules [2,34], or postprocessing analysis tools [24].Sometimes, as in [2], they even provide architectural models of input device interactions.But the device models implicit in user interface toolkits sketch only a limited picture of the design space of input devices and their properties.Even for the construction of interfaces, they present interface designers with many design alternatives but do little to help with the design decisions themselves.In order to achieve a systematic framework for input devices, toolkits need to be supported by technical abstractions about the user, the devices themselves, and the task they are used to perform. Taxonomies.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [12] 12. CASNER, S. M. A task-analytic approach to the automated design of graphic presentations. ACM Trans. Graph. 10, 2 (Apr. 1991), 111-151. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unfortunately, these studies have not always agreed, largely because some studies have not attempted to disentangle task, subject, and human performance variables.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 1. INTRODUCTION Human-machine interface technology has been developed to the point where it is appropriate to systematize existing research results and craft into a body of engineering and design knowledge.A case in point is the design of input devices.A bewildering variety of such devices now exists on the market, including typewriter keyboards, mice, headmice, pens and tablets, dialboxes, Polhemus sensors, gloves, and body suits.How can we make sense of this variety?How can we identify promising opportunities for new design?As part of their development, most engineering disciplines organize the designs that have emerged in terms of abstractions that give insight into the design space (e. g., [321).This insight allows individual User interface toolkits or user interface management systems help with a wide range of problems, including the construction, run-time execution, and post-run-time analysis of a user interface [33].They may help systematize input device knowledge by providing a library of prebuilt input device modules [25,27], architecture and specification techniques for combining these modules [2,34], or postprocessing analysis tools [24].Sometimes, as in [2], they even provide architectural models of input device interactions.But the device models implicit in user interface toolkits sketch only a limited picture of the design space of input devices and their properties.Even for the construction of interfaces, they present interface designers with many design alternatives but do little to help with the design decisions themselves.In order to achieve a systematic framework for input devices, toolkits need to be supported by technical abstractions about the user, the devices themselves, and the task they are used to perform. Taxonomies.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although other input devices are possible (based, say, on speech or heat), virtually all input devices use some combination of the properties listed in Table I.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 2. GENERATING THE DESIGN SPACE
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are three composition operators: (1) merge composition, (2) layout composition, and (3) connect composition.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 2.2 Composition Operators
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The actual footprint of some devices such as the mouse depends on the sequence of actions in an application.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3.1 Footprint
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the point is that Figure 3 is a sufficiently rich depiction of the design space for input devices that it can be used both to classify nearly all existing devices and to generate ideas for new devices not yet invented.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 2.3 The Design Space for Input Devices
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The speed and error performance of a particular device may depend on a number of subtleties such as the relationship between the geometry of the device and the geometry of the hand or coefficients of friction.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3.2
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“According to the figure, the headmouse, with precision slightly larger than a word, is precise enough for viewing but not for pointing.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3.3 Example 1: Effect of Muscle Groups on input Devices
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Moving the virtual head to look around in the virtual 3-D world is roughly equivalent in difficulty to pointing to a paragraph, and pointing to objects is roughly equivalent to pointing to a character.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of course, the device itself can degrade the achievable performance.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > Device bandwidth.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This means that the mouse is more precise.To be concrete, it means that the headmouse could only point to a target with an Z~= 1.8/4.6 = 39 percent as great in the same amount of time.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3.3 Example 1: Effect of Muscle Groups on input Devices
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The typical target distance is 9.7 cm, half way from the center of a 19-inch screen to the side edge.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This illustrates another point about the modeling scheme, namely, that devices do not have to be physical devices, but can also be virtual devices implemented in software, such as the cursor.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 2.2 Composition Operators
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If the projection of the Out set includes elements that are not in the In set, the user can specify illegal values; and if the In set includes values that are not in the projection, the user cannot specify legal values.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3. TESTING POINTS IN THE DESIGN SPACE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These figures of merit include human performance measures such as speed and errors, as well as pragmatic concerns such as desktop footprint, panel space, or cost.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3. TESTING POINTS IN THE DESIGN SPACE
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Langolf observed the approximate muscle groups being used and made the observation that different muscle groups gave rise to different Fitts's law slopes.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3.2
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [18] 18. S. K. Card, et al. 17, 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32 33, 34. 35. 36
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nonetheless, the comparisons we shall make are not very sensitive to the exact values selected for the parameters.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > Device bandwidth.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The typical target distance is 9.7 cm, half way from the center of a 19-inch screen to the side edge.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is important to note that each group of linked circles in Figure 3, which collectively represent a device, is only a single point in a very large design space and that variants in devices are possible (e.g., in the input or output domains or the mappings), which are below the level of detail visualized in the figure.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 2.3 The Design Space for Input Devices
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In some design spaces, expressiveness is a major concern.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3. TESTING POINTS IN THE DESIGN SPACE
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the design of input devices, an expressiveness problem arises when the number of elements in the Out set does not match the number of elements in the In set to which it is connected.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3. TESTING POINTS IN THE DESIGN SPACE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The spectrum of pointing times is shifted to the right.Easy tasks become hard or moderate.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3.3 Example 1: Effect of Muscle Groups on input Devices
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The typical target distance is 9.7 cm, half way from the center of a 19-inch screen to the side edge.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since the task circles contain the filled circles projected from the mouse, it is clear that the mouse is precise enough for both tasks.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3.3 Example 1: Effect of Muscle Groups on input Devices
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Moving the virtual head to look around in the virtual 3-D world is roughly equivalent in difficulty to pointing to a paragraph, and pointing to objects is roughly equivalent to pointing to a character.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The combination of primitive moves and composition operators gives us a parametric abstract representation that represents the space of sentences it is possible to transmit.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 2. GENERATING THE DESIGN SPACE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The design space for input devices is basically the set of possible combinations of the composition operators with the primitive vocabulary.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 2.3 The Design Space for Input Devices
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The three buttons of a mouse and the XY sensors are all four layout-composed together to form the mouse.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 2.2 Composition Operators
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the mouse, the output is connected to the input for the screen cursor.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 2.2 Composition Operators
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This determines an upper bound on the bandwidth of the device (as indexed by the Fitts's law slope).”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > Device bandwidth.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In a sense, this generates the design space of input devices.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 2. GENERATING THE DESIGN SPACE
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The authors state this as an assumption.
Functions of the application program express the semantics of the interaction.
“In our analysis, we make the idealized assumption that functions of the application program express the semantics of the interaction.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Input devices can be treated as idealized devices without stickiness, significant lags, noise, or linearity problems.
“Generally, we assume somewhat idealized devices without stickiness, significant lags, noise, linearity problems, etc.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
It is possible to express the user's intention in a sentence in the repertoire of the input device.
“Assuming that it is possible to express the user's intention in a sentence in the repertoire of the input device, there is still the question of how well this can be done in terms of speed, errors, or other figures of merit for an input device (in a particular task for a particular user).”
The authors state this as an assumption.
No footprint is needed to store the lightpen and the potentiometers mount on the case.
“assuming that no footprint is needed to store the lightpen and that the potentiometers mount on the case”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The typical target distance is 9.7 cm, half way from the center of a 19-inch screen to the side edge.
“Since we do not have specific data on target distance, the calculation assumes a typical distance of half way from the center of a 19”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The performance of many devices is more or less set by the muscle groups with which the device is designed to connect.
“For the moment, we assume that this is so in order to compute the inherent limitations imposed on a device by the muscle group to which it is connected.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Moving the virtual head to look around in the virtual 3-D world is roughly equivalent in difficulty to pointing to a paragraph, and pointing to objects is roughly equivalent to pointing to a character.
“For purposes of the calculation, we have assumed that moving the virtual head to look around in the virtual 3-D world is roughly equivalent in difficulty to pointing to a paragraph, and that pointing to objects is roughly equivalent to pointing to a character, which is also the easiest hard task for the mouse.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The fact that some groups of muscles can be controlled more nely than others has well-known implications for the design of human-computer interfaces [13].”
From Hands-Free Accessible Digital Musical Instruments: Conceptual Framework, Challenges, and Perspectives (2020) · cites this paper as [13]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“the precision of the headmouse is 440 ms/(240 ins/bit) = 2.0 bits”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3.3 Example 1: Effect of Muscle Groups on input Devices
Reported 2 · recomputed 1.833333
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > Device bandwidth.
“Device precision = Time[ hardest easy task for mouse] /1~ 440 ms --IM bits "”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > Device bandwidth.
“So we take a word as the hardest easy target.”
Citations
Cites
The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement.
Fitts, P. M. (1954) · Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0055392 · Cited by 6,466
The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement.
Fitts, P. M. (1992) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037//0096-3445.121.3.262 · Cited by 6,296
Fitts' Law as a Research and Design Tool in Human-Computer Interaction
MacKenzie, I. S. (1992) · Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1207/s15327051hci0701_3 · Cited by 1,637
Automating the design of graphical presentations of relational information
Mackinlay, J. D. (1986) · ACM Transactions on Graphics · doi:10.1145/22949.22950 · Cited by 1,631
Self-citationThe Cerebral Cortex of Man: A Clinical Study of Localization of Function
(1968) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1968.03150020096041 · Cited by 1,218
Eastman, J. R., & Bertin, J. (1986) · Economic Geography · doi:10.2307/143508 · Cited by 1,100
CARD, S. K., ENGLISH, W. K., & BURR, B. J. (1978) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140137808931762 · Cited by 887
Self-citationAdams, J. A., & Welford, A. T. (1970) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1421343 · Cited by 864
The human factors of computer graphics interaction techniques
Foley, J. D., Wallace, V. L., & Chan, P. (1984) · IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications · doi:10.1109/mcg.1984.6429355 · Cited by 478
User Interface Management Systems
Pfaff, G. (1985) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-70041-5 · Cited by 461
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- APPLE COMPUTER, 1987, Mass.
- BERTZN J., 1973, Wis., 1983
- BLESER T. W., 1990, Proceedings of User Interface Software and Technology, 135
- EPPS B., 1986, Proceedings of the Society for Information Display
- JELL~EK H., 1990, CHI'90 Conference Proceedings, 213
- KARAT J., 1985, Ed. Elsevier North-Holland, 189
- LANOOLF G.D., 1973, Mich., 1973
- MACKENZ, 1991, Univ. of Toronto
- MACKINLAY J., 1986, Calif.
- OLSEN D. R., 1987, ET AL. ACM SIGGRAPH workshop on software tools for user interface management. Comput. Graph. 21, 71
- PENF LD, W, 1990, Macmfilan
- PFAFF G.E., 1985, Springer-Verlag
- ROTH S. F., Eds. ACM Press, 207
- SmWIOREK D. BELL G. AND NEWELL A. Computer Structures. McGraw-Hill New York 1981. SmWIOREK D. BELL G. AND NEWELL A. Computer Structures. McGraw-Hill New York 1981.
- TANNER P. P., 1985, Ed. Springer-Verlag, 67
- WELFORD A.T., 1968, Methuen
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Beaudouin-Lafon, M. (2000) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/332040.332473 · Cited by 615
“Device-level models such as logical input devices [11] or Card et al.'s taxonomy [7] operate at a lower level of abstraction than interaction models.”
A survey of 3D object selection techniques for virtual environments
Argelaguet, F., & Andújar, C. (2012) · Computers & Graphics · doi:10.1016/j.cag.2012.12.003 · Cited by 555
“This variability de191 pends on the muscle groups involved in the movement [22], 192 with bigger muscle groups introducing higher variability than 193 smaller ones.”
BackgroundAccot, J., & Zhai, S. (1997) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/1120212.1120376 · Cited by 457
Lag as a determinant of human performance in interactive systems
MacKenzie, I. S., & Ware, C. (1993) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/169059.169431 · Cited by 427
“this the index of performance, 1P.) Furthermore, if ID is calculated using the effective target width (We), adjusted for errors or spatial variability in responses, then bandwidth encompasses speed and accuracy.l This provocative measure – somewhat analogous to efficiency – holds tremendous promise for measurement and…”
MethodAccot, J., & Zhai, S. (1997) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/258549.258760 · Cited by 425
The Smart Phone: A Ubiquitous Input Device
Ballagas, R., Borchers, J., Rohs, M., & Sheridan, J. G. (2006) · IEEE Pervasive Computing · doi:10.1109/mprv.2006.18 · Cited by 396
“Card, Mackinlay, and Robertson [20] point out that this format is somewhat ad hoc and that there is no attempt at defining a notion of completeness.”
BackgroundIntegrality and separability of input devices
Jacob, R. J. K., Sibert, L. E., McFarlane, D. C., et al. (1994) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/174630.174631 · Cited by 374
HCI Models, Theories, and Frameworks
(2003) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-1-55860-808-5.x5000-x · Cited by 377
Squeeze me, hold me, tilt me! An exploration of manipulative user interfaces
Harrison, B. L., Fishkin, K. P., Gujar, A. U., Mochon, C., & Want, R. (1998) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/274644.274647 · Cited by 325
A design space for multimodal systems
Nigay, L., & Coutaz, J. (1993) · ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) · doi:10.1145/169059.169143 · Cited by 312
“[8], are based on physical properties (such as motion and pressure), the data that a device returns (discrete or continuous) and the dimensions of input a device provides.”
BackgroundEvaluation of Input Devices for Musical Expression: Borrowing Tools from HCI
Wanderley, M. M., & Orio, N. (2002) · Computer Music Journal · doi:10.1162/014892602320582981 · Cited by 254
Gestural Control of Sound Synthesis
Wanderley, M. M., & Depalle, P. (2004) · Proceedings of the IEEE · doi:10.1109/jproc.2004.825882 · Cited by 196
“This evaluation is essential, for instance, in the selection of existing input devices for performing different tasks [74], but it can also be useful in the identification of promising new opportunities for the design of novel input devices [88].”
BackgroundBallagas, R., Rohs, M., & Sheridan, J. G. (2005) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/1056808.1056876 · Cited by 194
“Card design space classification [1] of our camera-based interaction techniques.”
MethodThe influence of muscle groups on performance of multiple degree-of-freedom input
Zhai, S., Milgram, P., & Buxton, W. (1996) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/238386.238534 · Cited by 194
“[1]; [15]; [2]) as evidence that fingers are among the most dextrous organs.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialStanney, K. M., Mollaghasemi, M., Reeves, L. M., Breaux, R., & Graeber, D. A. (2003) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/s1071-5819(03)00015-6 · Cited by 184
Arons, B. (1997) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/244754.244758 · Cited by 182
From STEM to STEAM: Strategies for Enhancing Engineering & Technology Education
Connor, A. M., Karmokar, S., & Whittington, C. (2015) · International Journal of Engineering Pedagogy (iJEP) · doi:10.3991/ijep.v5i2.4458 · Cited by 222
“Two particular techniques were introduced, namely morphological analysis [49] to generate concepts and Pugh’s method [50] for evaluating concepts.”
MethodBoring, S., Jurmu, M., & Butz, A. M. (2009) · doi:10.1145/1738826.1738853 · Cited by 171
“According to Card’s input design space (Card et al., 1991), Move adds the most input dimensions to the phone as it allows continuous linear as well as rotary measurements, while Tilt only allows rotary measurements.”
Benford, S., Schnädelbach, H. M., Koleva, B. N., Anastasi, R., Greenhalgh, C., Rodden, T. A., Green, J., Ghali, A., Pridmore, T., Gaver, W. W., et al. (2005) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/1057237.1057239 · Cited by 166
A Taxonomy of Usability Characteristics in Virtual Environments
Gabbard, J. L. (1997) · Cited by 162
Pointing at trivariate targets in 3D environments
Grossman, T., & Balakrishnan, R. (2004) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/985692.985749 · Cited by 162
Design space for driver-based automotive user interfaces
Kern, D., & Schmidt, A. (2009) · International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (AutomotiveUI) · doi:10.1145/1620509.1620511 · Cited by 156
“In Card et al’s [9] design space, input devices are compositions of one-dimension sensors.”
BackgroundHartmann, B., Abdulla, L., Mittal, M., & Klemmer, S. (2007) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1240624.1240646 · Cited by 154
Human Performance in Six Degree of Freedom Input Control
Zhai, S. (2002) · Cited by 152
Performance differences in the fingers, wrist, and forearm in computer input control
Balakrishnan, R., & MacKenzie, I. S. (1997) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/258549.258764 · Cited by 153
“Recently, HCI researchers have attempted to use this knowledge to formulate theories and designs for high performance computer pointing devices [6, 7, 24].”
BackgroundInfluentialWearable Medical Sensor-Based System Design: A Survey
Mosenia, A., Sur‐Kolay, S., Raghunathan, A., & Jha, N. K. (2017) · IEEE Transactions on Multi-Scale Computing Systems · doi:10.1109/tmscs.2017.2675888 · Cited by 143
A Design Space to Support the Development of Windshield Applications for the Car
Haeuslschmid, R., Pfleging, B., & Alt, F. (2016) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2858036.2858336 · Cited by 142
“Early work concentrated on basic HCI aspects, such as a classification and taxonomy of input devices [22, 25].”
BackgroundBalakrishnan, R., Baudel, T., Kurtenbach, G., et al. (1997) · doi:10.1145/258549.258778 · Cited by 140
“[4], and Jacob et al.”
A Design Space for Intelligent and Interactive Writing Assistants
Lee, M., Gero, K. I., Chung, J. J. Y., Shum, S. B., Raheja, V., Shen, H., Venugopalan, S., Wambsganss, T., Zhou, D., Alghamdi, E. A., et al. (2024) · Proceedings of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642697 · Cited by 136
“Design spaces are taxonomies that present critical aspects of a design [32, 33, 166, 178, 214] with three main uses.”
A Framework of Interaction Costs in Information Visualization
Lam, H. (2008) · IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2008.109 · Cited by 133
“Pirolli and Card developed the information foraging theory [44] that has been applied to designs of web-searching support tool designs (e.g., [43]) and to model web usage behaviours (e.g., [7] [12]).”
MethodA Task Taxonomy for Network Evolution Analysis
Ahn, J., Catherine Plaisant, B., & Shneiderman, B. (2013) · IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2013.238 · Cited by 138
“In order to make the process systematic, we adopted an idea of the design space [7, 8, 21].”
MethodDual device user interface design
Robertson, S. L., Wharton, C., Ashworth, C. A., et al. (1996) · doi:10.1145/238386.238408 · Cited by 120
“They also greatly complicate any attempt to produce a taxonomy of devices [3,6] since their usage patterns change through time and vary depending on their combination (e.g. is exploring a floorplan on a stand-alone PDA different from using the same PDA application to control a video walkthrough?).”
BackgroundHandbook of Research on User Interface Design and Evaluation for Mobile Technology
Lumsden, J. (2008) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-871-0 · Cited by 120
Sheridan, J. G., Ballagas, R., & Rohs, M. (2004) · Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) · Cited by 103
3D selection with freehand gesture
Ren, G., & O'Neill, E. J. (2013) · Computers & Graphics · doi:10.1016/j.cag.2012.12.006 · Cited by 102
INPUT TECHNOLOGIES AND TECHNIQUES
Hinckley, K. (2007) · CRC Press eBooks · doi:10.1201/9781410615862-19 · Cited by 100
Motor Behavior Models for Human-Computer Interaction
MacKenzie, I. S. (2003) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-155860808-5/50003-4 · Cited by 98
“For other descriptive models on input devices, including movement characteristics, properties sensed, stimulus-response mappings, and interaction techniques, the reader is directed to several primary sources (Buxton, 1983; Card, Mackinlay, & Robertson, 1990; Card, Mackinlay, & Robertson, 1991; Foley, Wallace, & Chan,…”
Designing Better Map Interfaces: A Framework for Panning and Zooming
Harrower, M., & Sheesley, B. (2005) · Transactions in GIS · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9671.2005.00207.x · Cited by 95
A probabilistic approach to modeling two-dimensional pointing
Grossman, T., & Balakrishnan, R. (2005) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/1096737.1096741 · Cited by 93
“This matches the results of previous studies [Langolf et al. 1976; Boritz et al. 1991; Card et al. 1991; Balakrishnan and MacKenzie 1997; Hancock and Booth 2004] which found that the use of smaller muscle groups (hand, wrist) required for horizontal movement will result in better performance in a pointing task than th…”
ResultBody-centric design space for multi-surface interaction
Wagner, J., Nancel, M., Gustafson, S. G., Huot, S., & Mackay, W. E. (2013) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2470654.2466170 · Cited by 95
Tatar, D. G. (2007) · Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/07370020701638814 · Cited by 99
Embodied User Interfaces: Towards Invisible User Interfaces
Fishkin, K. P., Moran, T. P., & Harrison, B. L. (1999) · IFIP advances in information and communication technology · doi:10.1007/978-0-387-35349-4_1 · Cited by 94
“As Card et al. (1991) put it, “the design of human-machine dialogues is, at least in part, the design of artificial languages for this communication.””
BackgroundThe effect of DOF separation in 3D manipulation tasks with multi-touch displays
Martinet, A., Casiez, G., & Grisoni, L. (2010) · ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (VRST) · doi:10.1145/1889863.1889888 · Cited by 85
“To help comparing existing manipulation techniques we chose to adapt the taxonomy introduced by Card et al. [1991]. We wanted to represent the relationship between the number of fingers, their directness (whether direct or indirect) and the corresponding DOF controlled in the task.”
MethodInstruments and players: Some thoughts on digital lutherie
Jordà, S. (2004) · Journal of New Music Research · doi:10.1080/0929821042000317886 · Cited by 81
“Many other authors (e.g., Buxton, 1987; Card et al., 1991; Wanderley & Orio, 2002) propose taxonomies of input devices that are based on HCI methodologies, considering aspects like the physical variables being sensed (position, motion, pressure, etc.), their degrees of freedom and their resolution.”
BackgroundA Design Space for Gaze Interaction on Head-mounted Displays
Hirzle, T., Gugenheimer, J., Geiselhart, F., et al. (2019) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3290605.3300855 · Cited by 79
“In the case of user interfaces these parameters are often certain properties of devices (e.g. physical properties such as rotate or position of input devices [2, 9]).”
BackgroundMethodDavies, T. R., & Chandler, R. (2012) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/acprof:oso/9780199899265.003.0006 · Cited by 74
Adaptive blind interaction technique for touchscreens
Yfantidis, G., & Evreinov, G. (2006) · Universal Access in the Information Society · doi:10.1007/s10209-004-0109-7 · Cited by 73
“time also helps to develop new ways of interaction for visually handicapped users the main problem of which is absolute spatial pointing and selection of the menu items within a screen space [6, 7, 24].”
BackgroundIntegrality and Separability of Multitouch Interaction Techniques in 3D Manipulation Tasks
Martinet, A., Casiez, G., & Grisoni, L. (2011) · IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics · doi:10.1109/tvcg.2011.129 · Cited by 70
Vision-Based Hand Interaction in Augmented Reality Environment
Shen, Y., Ong, S. K., & Nee, A. Y. C. (2011) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2011.555297 · Cited by 70
“Card, MacKinlay, and Robertson (1991) predicted that the interaction method making greater use of the fingers would be a promising alternative to the conventional mouse, and Ullman (2004) developed a pen-shaped device to replace the mouse.”
MethodKönig, W. A., Gerken, J., Dierdorf, S., et al. (2009) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-03655-2_73 · Cited by 68
“In such a case, even if the tremor compensation worked perfectly, the user would not be able to move discretely one pixel at a time because of limited hand-eye coordination, restricted motor precision, and the necessary but unachievable fine control of the muscle groups involved in the movement (see [6] and [7] for a…”
BackgroundInteractively skimming recorded speech
Arons, B. M., & Schmandt, C. (1994) · DSpace@MIT (Massachusetts Institute of Technology) · Cited by 66
Foresight for a responsible future with ICT
Markus, M. L., & Mentzer, K. (2014) · Information Systems Frontiers · doi:10.1007/s10796-013-9479-9 · Cited by 75
“, input devices) and to (Card et al. 1991; Davies and Chandler 2012; Ritchey 2011; Zwicky 1967) Inf Syst Front”
BackgroundMovement in Cluttered Virtual Environments
Ruddle, R. A., & Jones, D. M. (2001) · PRESENCE Virtual and Augmented Reality · doi:10.1162/105474601753132687 · Cited by 62
“(For a review, see Card, Mackinlay, and Robertson (1991) .)”
DIRA: A model of the user interface
Bergström, J., & Hornbæk, K. (2024) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2024.103381 · Cited by 60
User Onboarding in Virtual Reality: An Investigation of Current Practices
Chauvergne, E., Hachet, M., & Prouzeau, A. (2023) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3581211 · Cited by 70
“The morphological analysis from Zwicky [40] can be used to both generate and exploit a framework [12].”
Customizable physical interfaces for interacting with conventional applications
Greenberg, S., & Boyle, M. (2002) · ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST) · doi:10.1145/571985.571991 · Cited by 57
“While nearly all GUI controls rely on the mouse and display for input and output, a pointing device is not necessarily the best input device for any given control task [2,3,20].”
BackgroundRobinson, S., Coutrix, C., Pearson, J. S., Rosso, J., Torquato, M. F., Nigay, L., & Jones, M. (2016) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2858036.2858097 · Cited by 54
“As a starting point to explore their potential, we consider two basic tangible manipulations from [4]: translation and rotation, each in three dimensions.”
BackgroundCasiez, G., Vogel, D., Pan, Q., et al. (2007) · ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST) · doi:10.1145/1294211.1294234 · Cited by 54
“Absolute position control assigns a unique output position to every input position [5,7].”
BackgroundEffects of angle of approach on cursor movement with a mouse: Consideration of Fitt's law
Whisenand, T. G., & Emurian, H. H. (1996) · Computers in Human Behavior · doi:10.1016/0747-5632(96)00020-9 · Cited by 53
A framework for research and design of gesture-based human-computer interactions
Karam, M. (2006) · ePrints Soton (University of Southampton) · Cited by 52
Web accessibility for low bandwidth input
Mankoff, J. C., Dey, A. K., Batra, U., & Moore, M. M. (2002) · International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS) · doi:10.1145/638249.638255 · Cited by 51
“Bandwidth is influenced by a combination of the user, application and device in use, so interface choices can affect bandwidth and hence performance of a task [5].”
BackgroundInput devices for musical expression: borrowing tools from HCI
Orio, N., Schnell, N., & Wanderley, M. M. (2001) · doi:10.5072/zenodo.205079 · Cited by 50
Interactive design of multimodal user interfaces
König, W. A., Rädle, R., & Reiterer, H. (2010) · Journal on Multimodal User Interfaces · doi:10.1007/s12193-010-0044-2 · Cited by 49
“[7].”
Vega, K., & Fukś, H. (2014) · International Conference on Tangible, Embedded, and Embodied Interaction (TEI) · doi:10.1145/2540930.2540961 · Cited by 49
Baudisch, P., Sinclair, M., & Wilson, A. D. (2006) · ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST) · doi:10.1145/1166253.1166261 · Cited by 49
“RELATED WORK A variety of mid-air pointing devices have been proposed [3], some of which are available as products.”
BackgroundSquidy: A Zoomable Design Environment for Natural User Interfaces
König, W. A., Rädle, R., & Reiterer, H. (2011) · KOPS (University of Konstanz) · doi:10.1145/1520340.1520700 · Cited by 47
Fekete, J., Elmqvist, N., & Guiard, Y. (2009) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1518701.1518748 · Cited by 47
“[4] is useful for reasoning about the (mainly spatial) input devices in this category.”
BackgroundShuggi, I. M., Oh, H., Shewokis, P. A., & Gentili, R. J. (2017) · Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2017.07.048 · Cited by 47
Physigrams: modelling devices for natural interaction
Dix, A. J., Ghazali, M., Gill, S., Hare, J., & Ramduny-Ellis, D. (2008) · Formal Aspects of Computing · doi:10.1007/s00165-008-0099-y · Cited by 45
“Card et al.’s Design Space for Input Devices [CMR90, CMR91] was influential in developing these notions beyond simple 2D pointers.”
BackgroundMethodCounterfactual Thinking: What Theories Do in Design
Oulasvirta, A., & Hornbæk, K. (2021) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447318.2021.1925436 · Cited by 50
Visual Captions: Augmenting Verbal Communication with On-the-fly Visuals
Liu, X., Kirilyuk, V., Yuan, X., Olwal, A., Chi, P., Chen, X., & Du, R. (2023) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3544548.3581566 · Cited by 61
“We followed the design space analysis methods [6] and held iterative discussion sessions.”
MethodLubos, P., Bruder, G., Ariza, O., & Steinicke, F. (2016) · Symposium on Spatial User Interaction · doi:10.1145/2983310.2985753 · Cited by 44
“While traditional headcentered menus are by design placed within arm’s reach in front of the user, it is seldomly the case that they can be reached without requiring movements of the shoulder joint and as a result inducing high levels of fatigue over time [10].”
BackgroundHand-adaptive user interface: improved gestural interaction in virtual reality
Lou, X., Li, X. A., Hansen, P., & Du, P. F. (2020) · Virtual Reality · doi:10.1007/s10055-020-00461-7 · Cited by 44
Yamagami, M., Junuzovic, S., González-Franco, M., Ofek, E., Cutrell, E. B., Porter, J. R., Wilson, A. D., & Mott, M. E. (2022) · ACM Transactions on Accessible Computing · doi:10.1145/3510463 · Cited by 44
“In their subsequent work, Card et al. [1991] performed a morphological analysis to generate a new design space for input devices, and to identify points within the space that warranted further investigation.”
Background2003: Designing, Playing, and Performing with a Vision-Based Mouth Interface
Lyons, M. J., Hähnel, M., & Tetsutani, N. (2017) · Current research in systematic musicology · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-47214-0_8 · Cited by 44
Tapping vs. circling selections on pen-based devices
Mizobuchi, S., & Yasumura, M. (2004) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/985692.985769 · Cited by 42
“However, there was a significant twoway interaction between complexity and selection method (F[2,22]=34.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialShaw, M. (2012) · IEEE Software · doi:10.1109/ms.2011.121 · Cited by 38
Context matters: Evaluating Interaction Techniques with the CIS Model
Appert, C., Beaudouin-Lafon, M., & Mackay, W. E. (2007) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/1-84628-062-1_18 · Cited by 38
“Card et al (1991) introduce a taxonomy of input devices, described as translators from physical properties to logical parameters of an application.”
BackgroundRukzio, E. (2007) · Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) · doi:10.5282/edoc.6494 · Cited by 38
User-Centered Design of Landmark Visualizations
Elias, B., & Paelke, V. (2008) · Lecture Notes in Geoinformation and Cartography · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-37110-6_3 · Cited by 38
Human-computer interaction as science
Reeves, S. (2015) · Aarhus Series on Human Centered Computing · doi:10.7146/aahcc.v1i1.21296 · Cited by 36
“In comparison, Card, Mackinley and Robertson emphasise the importance of uncovering design space structure [7], and through this taking different device designs as inputs or “points in a parametrically described design space” [7]—in”
BackgroundInfluentialA comparative study of user performance in a map-based virtual environment
Swan, J. E., Gabbard, J. L., Hix, D., et al. (2003) · IEEE Virtual Reality (VR) · doi:10.1109/vr.2003.1191149 · Cited by 36
“[4] established the widely adopted classification of device design space that includes a discussion of rate- and position-based devices for 2D interaction.”
BackgroundDo Architects and Designers Think about Interactivity Differently?
Kirsh, D. (2019) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3301425 · Cited by 35
“Each dimension is an information channel – an input or output stream – each with its defined capacity and expressive power [13].”
BackgroundThe Design Space of 3D Printable Interactivity
Ballagas, R., Ghosh, S., & Landay, J. A. (2018) · Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive Mobile Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies · doi:10.1145/3214264 · Cited by 36
“Morphological Analysis previously led to breakthroughs in analyzing the design space of input devices [10, 11], as well as discoveries in astronomy [87], and the invention of new types of jet engines [86].”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialPingu: A New Miniature Wearable Device for Ubiquitous Computing Environments
Ketabdar, H., Moghadam, P., & Roshandel, M. (2012) · ... International Conference on Complex, Intelligent and Software Intensive Systems · doi:10.1109/cisis.2012.123 · Cited by 35
“According to the experiments conducted by Card et al. [13], the information entropy of interaction by finger is much larger than any other body parts that are currently used for interaction.”
MethodUsing Feedforward to Reveal Interaction Possibilities in Virtual Reality
Muresan, A., McIntosh, J., & Hornbæk, K. (2023) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3603623 · Cited by 47
“Researchers have also used this methodology to arrive at design spaces in HCI [ 3 ], for example, for input devices [ 17 ], and in VR for gaze interaction [ 40 ], 3D sketching [ 27 ], and, more recently, a design space for worlds-in-miniature [ 20 ].”
MethodDynamically adapting GUIs to diverse input devices
Carter, S., Hurst, A. K., Mankoff, J. C., et al. (2006) · International ACM SIGACCESS Conference on Computers and Accessibility (ASSETS) · doi:10.1145/1168987.1169000 · Cited by 34
“Our analysis can be differentiated from past work analyzing the space of input devices (such as [5, 3]) in our consideration not only of physical manipulators such as the keyboard and mouse, but also virtual, error-prone “manipulators” such as speech recognition.”
MethodRadiologist Assessment of PACS User Interface Devices
Weiss, D. L., Siddiqui, K., & Scopelliti, J. (2006) · Journal of the American College of Radiology · doi:10.1016/j.jacr.2005.10.016 · Cited by 31
Gaining design insight through interaction prototyping tools
Hartmann, B. (2009) · Cited by 30
Towards a tool for predicting speech functionality
Bernsen, N. O. (1997) · Speech Communication · doi:10.1016/s0167-6393(97)00046-0 · Cited by 31
“Arguably, an important contribution of input modality theory should be to enable appropriate mappings from input information onto input devices, such as keyboards and push-buttons [9,11,25].”
BackgroundKnowledge-based document retrieval in office environments
Celentano, A., Fugini, M., & Pozzi, S. (1995) · ACM Transactions on Information Systems · doi:10.1145/203052.203056 · Cited by 31
“In particular, threedimensional information structures [Card et al. 1991] provide a spatial encoding of information that can be successfully exploited.”
BackgroundInteraction and presentation techniques for situated visualization
Feiner, S., & White, S. (2009) · Cited by 30
Beauty technology as an interactive computing platform
Vega, K. C., & Fukś, H. (2013) · ACM International Conference on Interactive Tabletops and Surfaces (ITS) · doi:10.1145/2512349.2512399 · Cited by 29
Representing information – Classifying the Augmented Reality presentation space
Tönnis, M., Plecher, D. A., & Klinker, G. J. (2013) · Computers & Graphics · doi:10.1016/j.cag.2013.09.002 · Cited by 29
Human centred design of 3-D interaction devices to control virtual environments
Patel, H., Stefani, O., Sharples, S., et al. (2005) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2005.08.010 · Cited by 29
“…taxonomies which classify the design space of devices generally according to physical properties (Buxton, 1986), structure of the design space (Card et al., 1991), physical characteristics of the device in addition to knowledge about the task requirements (Jacob et al., 1994), and factors…”
BackgroundInput/Output Devices and Interaction Techniques
Wigdor, D. (2014) · Chapman & Hall/CRC eBooks · doi:10.1201/b16812-25 · Cited by 30
“For further insight readers may also wish to consult complete taxonomies of devices ((Buxton, 1983; Card, Mackinlay & Robertson, 1991)).”
BackgroundPointing on a computer display
Graham, E. D., & MacKenzie, C. L. (1995) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/223355.223691 · Cited by 28
Alternative Input Devices for Efficient Navigation of Large CT Angiography Data Sets
Sherbondy, A. J., Holmlund, D., Rubin, G. D., et al. (2005) · Radiology · doi:10.1148/radiol.2342032017 · Cited by 27
“Results of previous studies have shown that a trackball performs more poorly than mouse or stylus devices for other kinds of tasks, such as pointing and dragging (1), but the trade-off of using devices other than a trackball is a complex interaction of device, device parameters, and task (2).”
BackgroundA Method and Toolkit for Digital Musical Instruments: Generating Ideas and Prototypes
Calegário, F., Wanderley, M. M., Huot, S., Cabral, G. R. E., & Ramalho, G. L. (2017) · IEEE Multimedia · doi:10.1109/mmul.2017.18 · Cited by 26
A Human-Centered Taxonomy of Interaction Modalities and Devices
Augstein, M., & Neumayr, T. (2019) · Interacting with Computers · doi:10.1093/iwc/iwz003 · Cited by 28
Metadata
- Authors
- Card, S. K., Mackinlay, J. D., & Robertson, G. G.
- Affiliations
- Palo Alto Research Center (US)
- Venue
- ACM Transactions on Information Systems
- Published
- 1991-04
- Volume
- 9
- Issue
- 2
- Pages
- 99-122
- ISSN
- 1046-8188 (ISSN-L)
- 1558-2868
- OpenAlex
- W2036024905
- Semantic Scholar
- 01f4112e9ce1cca76c152ffd8836fcb18f7cfc63
- Cited by
- 337
- References
- 42
- Citations by year
- 2026: 13 · 2025: 64 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 6 · 2021: 10 · 2020: 7 · 2019: 12 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 9 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 8 · 2014: 10 · 2013: 14 · 2012: 6
- FWCI
- 3.26
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- ACM Transactions on Information Systems (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Interactive and Immersive Displays
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Keywords
- input devices, design space analysis, human-computer interaction, device footprint, Fitts' law, mice, input device design
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-10, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-10 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
