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
Items 101–200 of 336
Zhang, B., Chen, Y.-H., Tuna, C., Dave, A., Li, Y., Lee, E. A., & Hartmann, B. (2014) · ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction (SUI) · doi:10.1145/2659766.2659773 · Cited by 26
A novel taxonomy for gestural interaction techniques based on accelerometers
Scoditti, A., Blanch, R., & Coutaz, J. (2011) · ACM International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces (IUI) · doi:10.1145/1943403.1943414 · Cited by 25
“Granularity, resolution function as well as state machines have already been taken into account by others [9, 21].”
BackgroundMethodControl centric approach in designing scrolling and zooming user interfaces
Eslambolchilar, P., & Murray‐Smith, R. (2008) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2008.07.005 · Cited by 25
“GOMS (goals, operators, models and selections) proposed by Card et al. (1991) considers only user's cognitive skills in the interaction.”
BackgroundA Design-Oriented Information-Flow Refinement of the ASUR Interaction Model
Dubois, E., & Gray, P. (2008) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-92698-6_28 · Cited by 24
“Card et al’s input modelling language is perhaps the closest to our model in its attention to the physical and concrete aspects of an interaction [3].”
BackgroundForm-From: A Design Space of Social Media Systems
Zhang, A. X., Bernstein, M. S., Karger, D. R., et al. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3641006 · Cited by 23
“There [6, p. 101], the authors argue they found it necessary to “represent the designs as points in this design space [of input devices], some parametric representation [must be] determined that can represent the central idea of particular designs.”
BackgroundHoly smartphones and tablets, Batman!
Piazza, T., Fjeld, M., Ramos, G., et al. (2013) · doi:10.1145/2525194.2525205 · Cited by 23
“[7].”
A Compositional Model for the Formal Specification of User Interface Software
Markopoulos, P. (2013) · Queen Mary Research Online (Queen Mary University of London) · Cited by 23
König, W. A., Gerken, J., Dierdorf, S., et al. (2009) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/1520340.1520635 · Cited by 22
“…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 [4] for a more detailed discussion).”
BackgroundN-fingers: a finger-based interaction technique for wearable computers
Lehikoinen, J., & Röykkee, M. (2001) · Interacting with Computers · doi:10.1016/s0953-5438(01)00032-7 · Cited by 22
What Does `Evaluationź Mean for the NIME Community?
Barbosa, J., Malloch, J. W., Wanderley, M. M., & Huot, S. (2015) · New Interfaces for Musical Expression · Cited by 20
Shuggi, I. M., Oh, H., Wu, H. Y. W., Ayoub, M. J., Moreno, A. R., Shaw, E. P., Shewokis, P. A., & Gentili, R. J. (2019) · Neuroscience · doi:10.1016/j.neuroscience.2019.07.001 · Cited by 21
Design space cards: using a card deck to navigate the design space of interactive play
Lomas, J. D., Karac, M., & Gielen, M. (2021) · Proceedings of the ACM on Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1145/3474654 · Cited by 20
“In 1991, Stuart Card et al famously showed the utility of a formal design space by systematically considering the morphological diversity of the design space of computer input devices [11].”
BackgroundPointing with fingers, hands and arms for wearable computing
Oakley, I., Sunwoo, J., & Cho, I.-Y. (2008) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/1358628.1358840 · Cited by 19
“This has the advantage of being easily available in most wearable scenarios, but has received little attention in the literature, in part due to influential work by Card et al [3].”
BackgroundInformation Technologies in Medicine
Piętka, E., Badura, P., Kawa, J., & Więcławek, W. (2016) · Advances in intelligent systems and computing · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-39796-2 · Cited by 19
Theoretical and architectural support for input device adaptation
Wang, J., & Mankoff, J. C. (2002) · doi:10.1145/957205.957220 · Cited by 19
Collage is the New Writing: Exploring the Fragmentation of Text and User Interfaces in AI Tools
Buschek, D. (2024) · Designing Interactive Systems Conference · doi:10.1145/3643834.3660681 · Cited by 30
“In this way, we employ these patterns for a kind of morphological analysis [18] to generate new designs.”
Exploring public wearable display of wellness tracker data
Colley, A., Pfleging, B., Alt, F., & Häkkilä, J. (2020) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2020.102408 · Cited by 18
Evaluation of Text Selection Techniques in Virtual Reality Head-Mounted Displays
Xu, W., Meng, X., Yu, K., Sarcar, S., & Liang, H. (2022) · Proceedings - International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, ISMAR · doi:10.1109/ismar55827.2022.00027 · Cited by 17
“In line with a previous study on text entry [41] and supported by the bandwidth of the human muscle groups [5], we found that the default VR Interaction Techniques ConC (i.e., Controller+Click) is the best candidate regarding the task completion speed, followed by HeadC (i.e., Head+Click), and then…”
Speed-accuracy measures in a population of six mice
Isokoski, P. (2002) · Cited by 18
Vision and Reality of Hypertext and Graphical User Interfaces
Müller-Prove, M. (2002) · Cited by 18
A design space for conversational in-vehicle information systems
Braun, M., Broy, N., Pfleging, B., & Alt, F. (2017) · International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI) · doi:10.1145/3098279.3122122 · Cited by 18
“First design spaces by Buxton and Card et al. focused on the classification of input devices for HCI [2, 4] and with emerging technologies, design spaces for various upcoming fields have been presented and refined over the years.”
BackgroundSmart Rings vs. Smartwatches: Utilizing Motion Sensors for Gesture Recognition
Kurz, M., Gstoettner, R., & Sonnleitner, E. (2021) · Applied Sciences · doi:10.3390/app11052015 · Cited by 17
Exposing and understanding scrolling transfer functions
Quinn, P., Cockburn, A., Casiez, G., et al. (2012) · ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST) · doi:10.1145/2380116.2380161 · Cited by 17
“[6, 7] expanded this into a morphological analysis, placing devices as points in a parametrically described design space that included the eight combinations of linear/rotary, absolute/relative, and position/force across six linear and rotational dimensions.”
Background(1995) · Elsevier eBooks · doi:10.1016/b978-0-08-051574-8.50049-2 · Cited by 17
Guimbretière, F. V., Dixon, M., & Hinckley, K. (2007) · ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) · doi:10.1145/1240624.1240826 · Cited by 17
“[10] convention of using +∞ to indicate a continuum of states.”
BackgroundMobile Phones as Pointing Devices
Sheridan, J. G., Ballagas, R., & Rohs, M. (2005) · Lancaster EPrints (Lancaster University) · Cited by 17
Improving scrolling devices with document length dependent gain
Cockburn, A., Quinn, P., Gutwin, C. A., et al. (2012) · ACM SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI) · doi:10.1145/2207676.2207714 · Cited by 16
Context Sensing, Aggregation, Representation and Exploitation in Wireless Networks
Ferscha, A., Vogl, S., & Beer, W. (2001) · doi:10.12694/scpe.v6i2.327 · Cited by 16
Serrano, M., Juras, D., & Nigay, L. (2008) · International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces · doi:10.1145/1452392.1452421 · Cited by 16
Gestural Control of a Real-Time Physical Model of a Bowed String Instrument
Serafin, S., Dudas, R., Wanderley, M. M., & Xavier Rodet, A. (1999) · Cited by 16
Davanzo, N., & Avanzini, F. (2020) · IEEE Access · doi:10.1109/access.2020.3019978 · Cited by 16
“The fact that some groups of muscles can be controlled more finely than others has well-known implications for the design of human-computer interfaces [13].”
BackgroundMultiple Input Support in a Model-Based Interaction Framework
Chatty, S., Lemort, A., & Valès, S. (2007) · IEEE International Workshop on Horizontal Interactive Human-Computer Systems · doi:10.1109/tabletop.2007.27 · Cited by 15
“It also matches theoretical models of input devices [3] and provides a useful basis for dealing with device equivalence and combination when detecting and adapting the input configuration for reusing components or applications.”
BackgroundRevisiting embodiment for brain–computer interfaces
Serim, B., Spapé, M., & Jacucci, G. (2023) · Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/07370024.2023.2170801 · Cited by 15
“We particularly turn to “expressiveness” and “effectiveness” criteria (Card et al., 1991) that provide a comprehensive list of considerations for input device evaluation.”
InfluentialUsing ontologies in design of multimodal user interfaces
Obrenović, Ž., Starčević, D., & Devedžić, V. (2003) · TU/e Research Portal · Cited by 13
Look-From Camera Control for 3D Terrain Maps
Danyluk, K., Jenny, B., & Willett, W. (2019) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3290605.3300594 · Cited by 13
“Card et al. [5], Jacob et al. [16] and Mackinlay et al. [19] describemanydifferentwaystomapuserinputcontrols,how-everwelimitourexaminationto look-from camera control techniques that can be executed using single-touch gestures.”
BackgroundDelamare, W., Silpasuwanchai, C., Sarcar, S., Shiraki, T., & Ren, X. (2019) · ACM International Conference on Interactive Surfaces and Spaces (ISS) · doi:10.1145/3343055.3359706 · Cited by 13
“First, it can characterize the overall footprint (i.e. movement length) [6], and hence the potential fatigue due to the gesture execution.”
BackgroundMobile pointing task in the physical world
Delamare, W., Coutrix, C., & Nigay, L. (2013) · International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI) · doi:10.1145/2493190.2493232 · Cited by 13
The Design Space of Ubiquitous Mobile Input
Ballagas, R., Rohs, M., Sheridan, J. G., et al. (2008) · IGI Global eBooks · doi:10.4018/978-1-59904-871-0.ch024 · Cited by 13
A Design Space for Vision Augmentations and Augmented Human Perception using Digital Eyewear
Langlotz, T., Sutton, J., & Regenbrecht, H. T. (2024) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3613904.3642380 · Cited by 16
“Within the literature, we see many diferent approaches to developing or structuring a design space (e.g. [7, 40] and they vary widely in their complexity.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialHarrer, S., Nielsen, S., & Jarnfelt, P. (2019) · Extended Abstracts of the CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3290607.3310431 · Cited by 12
“One indicator pointing to the quantification discourse in these mouse studies is the reference to Fitts law [4, 7, 19], a model used to quantify the information capacity of human responses.”
MethodMulti-sensor Based Gestures Recognition with a Smart Finger Ring
Roshandel, M., Munjal, A., Moghadam, P., et al. (2014) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-07230-2_31 · Cited by 12
“[10] shows that the information entropy of a finger-based interaction is much larger than the interaction based on any other human body parts.”
BackgroundFraisse, V., Wanderley, M. M., & Guastavino, C. (2021) · Multimodal Technologies and Interaction · doi:10.3390/mti5040019 · Cited by 12
“Despite lacking in detail compared to existing taxonomies concerning input devices [37], gestural control [38] and sensor characterization [28], it has a broader scope as it combines perspectives from sound art, human–computer interactions and engineering.”
BackgroundCharacterizing Input Methods for Human-to-Robot Demonstrations
Praveena, P., Subramani, G., Mutlu, B., & Gleicher, M. L. (2019) · ACM/IEEE International Conference on Human-Robot Interaction (HRI) · doi:10.1109/hri.2019.8673310 · Cited by 13
“We also draw insights for generating our framework from work in human-computer interaction that involves systematizing human-machine input devices [14], [15], and designing specialized devices to address input needs, most notably to support teleoperation [16]–[18].”
BackgroundModelling Devices for Natural Interaction
Dix, A. J., Ghazali, M., & Ramduny-Ellis, D. (2008) · Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science · doi:10.1016/j.entcs.2008.03.105 · Cited by 12
(2017) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-72038-8 · Cited by 11
Evaluating Input Devices for Robotic Telepresence*
Björnfot, P. (2021) · European Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics · doi:10.1145/3452853.3452869 · Cited by 10
“While limits on the input device design space imposed by the physical world and our bodily capabilities are unavoidable [9], there are also less tangible factors regarding how well the design matches the task [14].”
BackgroundLow-Fi VR Controller: Improved Mobile Virtual Reality Interaction via Camera-Based Tracking
Grinyer, K., & Teather, R. J. (2023) · ACM Symposium on Spatial User Interaction (SUI) · doi:10.1145/3607822.3614517 · Cited by 11
“Unlike operating a mouse in 2D, handheld controllers for 3D interaction require complex arm movements using larger, slower muscles [9, 26].”
BackgroundShuggi, I. M., Shewokis, P. A., Herrmann, J. W., & Gentili, R. J. (2017) · Experimental Brain Research · doi:10.1007/s00221-017-5136-8 · Cited by 11
An interaction approach to computer animation
Walther-Franks, B., & Malaka, R. (2014) · Entertainment Computing · doi:10.1016/j.entcom.2014.08.007 · Cited by 11
An Interactive Design Space for Wearable Displays
Heller, F., Todi, K., & Luyten, K. (2021) · International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (MobileHCI) · doi:10.1145/3447526.3472034 · Cited by 10
“They have been used previously to, for example, systematically analyse input devices [18], study specific interaction modalities [13], and to study the application of specific methods [116].”
MethodTilt-Responsive Techniques for Digital Drawing Boards
Romat, H., Collins, C. M., Riche, N. H., Pahud, M., Holz, C., Riddle, A., Buxton, B., & Hinckley, K. (2020) · ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST) · doi:10.1145/3379337.3415861 · Cited by 10
“As well, we draw from the input devices literature [10, 16, 43] to reason about absolute/relative, continuous/ discrete, and other properties of tilt as an input channel.”
MethodModeling human interaction resources to support the design of wearable multimodal systems
Klug, T., & Mühlhäuser, M. (2007) · International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces · doi:10.1145/1322192.1322244 · Cited by 10
Chen, Y.-H., Zhang, B., Tuna, C., Li, Y., Lee, E. A., & Hartmann, B. (2013) · doi:10.21236/ada603626 · Cited by 10
“experimentally determined that the bandwidth of neck muscles is much lower than that of arm, wrist or finger muscle groups [3], which limits the performance of any head orientation-based interaction scheme.”
Selexels: a Conceptual Framework for Pointing Devices with Low Expressiveness
Ballagas, R., & Borchers, J. (2006) · RWTH Publications (RWTH Aachen) · Cited by 10
Pointing Devices for Wearable Computers
Calvo, A. A., & Perugini, S. (2014) · Advances in Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1155/2014/527320 · Cited by 9
“These muscle groups determine the upper bound of the bandwidth of the device as measured using Fitts’ law [10] and, therefore, must be selected with consideration of the device intended uses and body positions of a user [11].”
MethodGeiger, C., Fritze, R., Lehmann, A., et al. (2008) · International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction (TEI) · doi:10.1145/1347390.1347406 · Cited by 9
“use sensor data and composition operators to characterize interaction techniques and guide the design [7].”
MethodAn Emergent Design Framework for Accessible and Inclusive Future Mobility
Detjen, H., Schneegaß, S., Geisler, S., Kun, A. L., & Sundar, V. (2022) · International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (AutomotiveUI) · doi:10.1145/3543174.3546087 · Cited by 10
“, computer input devices [12], interactive public displays [40], gaze-interaction in head-mounted displays [26], or 3D-printing [2].”
BackgroundA Novel Design Approach for Multi-device Adaptable User Interfaces: Concepts, Methods and Examples
Mourouzis, A., Leonidis, A., Foukarakis, M., et al. (2011) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-21672-5_44 · Cited by 9
“HCI researchers have emphasized the importance of understanding how the design space for user interfaces is influenced by characteristics of input and output devices [4].”
BackgroundSundin, M., & Fjeld, M. (2009) · International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/10447310902964124 · Cited by 9
“This investigation has been cited by Card, MacKinley, and Robertson (1991 ) to predict promising improved alternatives to the conventional mouse, where fingers are utilized to a greater extent.”
Tangible user interfaces for peripheral interaction
Edge, D. (2021) · CL Technical Reports · doi:10.48456/tr-733 · Cited by 9
Zheng, Y., Huang, J., Zhang, H., Bian, Y., Liu, J., Yang, C., Tian, F., & Meng, X. (2025) · International Journal of Human-Computer Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijhcs.2025.103454 · Cited by 10
Introduction to Human-Computer Interaction
Hornbæk, K., Kristensson, P. O., & Oulasvirta, A. (2025) · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192864543.001.0001 · Cited by 13
Multi-touch 3D positioning with the pantograph technique
Butkiewicz, T., Stevens, A. H., & Ware, C. (2019) · ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on Interactive 3D Graphics and Games (I3D) · doi:10.1145/3306131.3317014 · Cited by 8
“In Card et al.’s [Card et al. 1991] characterization of input device effectiveness, it is noted that consideration should be given to the bandwidth of human muscle groups involved.”
BackgroundThe Design and Use of Squeezable Computers: An Exploration of Manipulative User Interfaces
Harrison, B. L., Fishkin, K., Gujar, A. U., et al. (1998) · Cited by 8
Zhou, Z., Jin, J., Phadnis, V., Yuan, X., Jiang, J., Qian, X., Zhou, J., Huang, Y., Xu, Z., Zhang, Y., et al. (2024) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3613905.3648656 · Cited by 7
“We followed the design space analysis methods [2] and held iterative discussion sessions.”
Kim, S., Shim, Y. A., & Lee, G. (2022) · ACM Symposium on Virtual Reality Software and Technology (VRST) · doi:10.1145/3562939.3565625 · Cited by 7
“According to neurophysiological findings (e.g., the homunculus model) and Fitts’ law studies, input devices manipulated with small muscle groups may be expected to perform better than those manipulated with large muscle groups [6].”
BackgroundRakib, M. A. N., Scidmore, J., Ginsberg, J., & Torres, C. (2023) · Designing Interactive Systems Conference · doi:10.1145/3563657.3596027 · Cited by 7
“These spaces have been used analytically to understand the capabilities of input devices [14] or to guide design exploration [22].”
MethodKetabdar, H., Haji-Abolhassani, A., & Roshandel, M. (2013) · International Journal of Mobile Human Computer Interaction · doi:10.4018/jmhci.2013070102 · Cited by 7
Designing disambiguation techniques for pointing in the physical world
Delamare, W., Coutrix, C., & Nigay, L. (2013) · ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems (EICS) · doi:10.1145/2494603.2480309 · Cited by 7
“Since the arm is already used for the rough pointing gesture, we decided to apply the physiologic chain of the arm [1, 3]: Shoulder and elbow are used for the coarse physical pointing task, thus we chose a wrist input.”
MethodAddressing Security and Privacy Challenges in Internet of ThingsPreprint
Mosenia, A. (2018) · arXiv (Cornell University) · doi:10.48550/arxiv.1807.06724 · Cited by 9
“Although gestures from any part of the body can be used for interacting with a computing device, previous experimental research efforts [67] have demonstrated that finger-based gesture detection mechanisms are more successful in practice since their information entropy is much larger than that of interactions based on…”
BackgroundBEAUTY TECHNOLOGY AS AN INTERACTIVE COMPUTING PLATFORM
Vega, K. C. (2014) · doi:10.17771/pucrio.acad.28700 · Cited by 7
Wentzel, J., Luz, A., Mott, M. E., et al. (2025) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3713837 · Cited by 6
Perelman, G., Serrano, M., Raynal, M., et al. (2016) · ACM Conference on Designing Interactive Systems (DIS) · doi:10.1145/2901790.2901893 · Cited by 6
“Among them, Card‘s design space [8] defines three composition operators that can be used to combine sensors: Merger, Layout and Connection composition.”
MethodOptimizing User Interfaces for Human Performance
Oulasvirta, A. (2017) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-72038-8_1 · Cited by 6
“Some main approaches include: (1) use of psychological knowledge to derive or optimize designs [1–3], (2) breakdown of complex design problems to constituent decisions [4], (3) formulation of design problems as optimization problems [5], (4) use of design heuristics in objective functions [6], (5) use of psychological…”
BackgroundSelf-Actuated Displays for Vertical Surfaces
Bader, P., Schwind, V., Pohl, N., et al. (2015) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-319-22723-8_23 · Cited by 6
“These two groups of devices are well explored and the design space is well understood (e.g., for input devices [2]).”
Un espace de conception fondé sur une analyse morphologique des techniques de menus
Nancel, M., Huot, S., & Beaudouin-Lafon, M. (2009) · doi:10.1145/1629826.1629829 · Cited by 6
“La morphologie de l’interaction [10, 7] consiste à étudier les propriétés des techniques d’interaction afin d’identifier des dimensions d’analyse permettant de comprendre les différences et similitudes entre techniques existantes et de faciliter la création de nouvelles techniques.”
MethodCherek, C., Asselborn, D., Voelker, S., & Borchers, J. (2019) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/3290607.3312966 · Cited by 6
“’s design space of input devices [1] to describe Off-Surface Tangibles.”
BackgroundOn the Relative Utility of 3D Interfaces
Tavanti, M. (2004) · KTH Publication Database DiVA (KTH Royal Institute of Technology) · Cited by 6
Understanding Gesture and Microgesture Inputs for Augmented Reality Maps
Danyluk, K., Klueber, S., Nittala, A. S., & Willett, W. (2024) · Designing Interactive Systems Conference · doi:10.1145/3643834.3661630 · Cited by 5
“To evaluate these, the first two authors manually coded the entire set of proposed gestures in a style similar to Card et al.’s morphological analysis [11] — identifying both the body part(s) used and interaction type(s).”
Babu, S. V., Huang, H., Teather, R. J., & Chuang, J. (2022) · Proceedings - International Symposium on Mixed and Augmented Reality, ISMAR · doi:10.1109/ismar55827.2022.00056 · Cited by 6
“This ensured that targets were not rendered in the range between critical reach boundary (maximum arms reach distance without shoulder motion) and absolute reach boundary (maximum arms reach distance with shoulder motion), which requires additional motor effort [10, 33].”
BackgroundMove, Connect, Interact: Introducing a Design Space for Cross-Traffic Interaction
Stampf, A., Sasalovici, M., Meinhardt, L.-M., et al. (2024) · Proceedings of the ACM on Interactive Mobile Wearable and Ubiquitous Technologies · doi:10.1145/3678580 · Cited by 5
“The field of HCI utilizes design spaces [22, 74] and taxonomies [62] to understand the impacts of technologies on interaction [41], methodically categorize interaction concepts [62], and investigate potential design solutions [22].”
BackgroundMethodRealization of Tangible Mobile Human Machine Interfaces Using Wireless Personal Area Networks
Ziegler, J., & Urbas, L. (2009) · Communications in computer and information science · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-10263-9_4 · Cited by 5
“There are three composition operators defined in [3].”
BackgroundInfluentialAutomotive multimodal human-machine interface
Schnelle-Walka, D., & Radomski, S. (2019) · ACM eBooks · doi:10.1145/3233795.3233809 · Cited by 6
Tangible interfaces for volume navigation
Subramanian, S. (2004) · TU/e Research Portal · doi:10.6100/ir575920 · Cited by 5
Holbrook, C. (2003) · VTechWorks (Virginia Tech) · Cited by 5
A Morphological Analysis Of Audio-Objects And Their Control Methods For {3D} AudioPreprint
Mathew, J., Huot, S., & Blum, A. (2014) · HAL (Le Centre pour la Communication Scientifique Directe) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.1178864 · Cited by 5
Dolata, M., & Aleya, K. B. (2022) · Lecture notes in computer science · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-06516-3_2 · Cited by 5
Hornbæk, K., Kristensson, P. O., & Oulasvirta, A. (2025) · Oxford University Press eBooks · doi:10.1093/oso/9780192864543.003.0017 · Cited by 4
Baudisch, P., Sinclair, M., & Wilson, A. D. (2007) · ACM SIGGRAPH Emerging Technologies · doi:10.1145/1278280.1278298 · Cited by 4
A Modified Zwicky’s Morphological Analysis: Application to the design of a robotic laparoscope
Medina, G. V., Pham, M. T., & Marquis-Favre, W. (2009) · World Congress on Medical Physics and Biomedical Engineering, September 7 - 12, 2009, Munich, Germany · doi:10.1007/978-3-540-89208-3_395 · Cited by 4
“Zwicky’s Morphological Analysis (ZMA) [1] is an approach that provides all the possible design solutions for a given system whatever the fields of application [2], [3].”
BackgroundThe Role Of Time In Engineering Computer Music Systems
Lee, E., & Borchers, J. (2005) · doi:10.5281/zenodo.1176765 · Cited by 4
Two-handed input in a standard configuration of notebook with external mouse
Block, F., & Gellersen, H. W. (2010) · doi:10.1145/1868914.1868926 · Cited by 4
“Figure 1 shows the input space of N+M configuration using the taxonomy of Card et al. [ 6 ].”
MethodInfluentialTowards a quantitative analysis of audio scrolling interfaces
Lee, E. (2007) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/1240866.1240982 · Cited by 4
“mapping techniques, based on work by Card et al. [ 3 ].”
MethodTubeMouse - A Two-Handed Input Device for Flexible Objects
Geiger, C., & Rattay, O. (2008) · IEEE Symposium on 3D User Interfaces (3DUI) · doi:10.1109/3dui.2008.4476587 · Cited by 4
Decision support for multi-objective linear programming using an interactive graphic presentation.
Anderson, R. K. (1994) · UA Campus Repository (The University of Arizona) · Cited by 4
Murakami, H., & Yamada, N. (2025) · Scientific Reports · doi:10.1038/s41598-025-04601-4 · Cited by 3
van der Vlist, B. J. J., Niezen, G., Hu, J., et al. (2011) · IEEE AFRICON · doi:10.1109/afrcon.2011.6072101 · Cited by 3
“Card et al. [4] pointed out that the Foley taxonomy has not tried to define a notion of completeness, and is thus not generic enough.”
BackgroundLee, E., & Borchers, J. (2006) · doi:10.1145/1178723.1178740 · Cited by 3
“Many devices, such as a mouse, report only changes to position [8]; the windowing system may also choose to discard input events under high system load.”
BackgroundLiu, Y., Shah, A., Ackerman, J., & Saha, M. (2025) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3706598.3714262 · Cited by 3
“Previous work in knowledge engineering has categorized knowledge into four types: object knowledge (knowledge about “things” and concepts of the domain), performance knowledge (description of abilities or potential behaviors of an object), event knowledge (recognition of a certain combination of…”
Mitra, M., Kumar, G., Chakrabarti, P. P., & Biswas, P. (2025) · ACM Transactions on Human-Robot Interaction · doi:10.1145/3736423 · Cited by 4
“Stuart Card further solidified the use of Fitts’ Law as a benchmark for comparing pointing devices in 1979, conducting a comparative analysis of head trackers, joysticks, and mice [8].”
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
