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
0 of 15 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged
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
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA 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
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesA 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesA 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesThe 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.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passes- 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesThe 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
Load-bearingStrength:boosted· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesThe 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- 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.
Strength:boosted· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passes- 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt 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.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
Load-bearingStrength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably 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.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably 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.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably 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
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably 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
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedCausal:conditional· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably 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
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✗ Based: failsProbably 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
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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.
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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.
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably 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
Strength:hedged· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesIt 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
Strength:boosted· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes? Load-bearing: unclear✓ Based: passesIt 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
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Load-bearingStrength:plain· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:direct· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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
Strength:plain· not yet calibratedCausal:correlational· not yet calibratedTests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✗ Load-bearing: fails✓ Based: passesProbably 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.
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✗ Based: failsProbably 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
Tests✓ Asserted: passes✓ Checkable: passes✓ Load-bearing: passes✓ Based: passesProbably 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.
Headmouse precision calculation gives 1.8 bits, not 2.0
MinorDividing 440 ms by 240 ms/bit gives about 1.83 bits. The reported 2.0 bits also disagrees with the 1.8 bits listed for the headmouse in Table IV.
Reported 2 · recomputed 1.833333
“the precision of the headmouse is 440 ms/(240 ins/bit) = 2.0 bits”
Precision formula names the wrong task boundary
MinorThe paper identifies a word as the hardest easy target and gives it a pointing time of 220 ms. The precision formula instead labels 440 ms-the time assigned to the easiest hard target-as the time for the hardest easy task.
“Device precision = Time[ hardest easy task for mouse] /1~ 440 ms --IM bits "”
“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
Task-analytic approach to the automated design of graphic presentations
Casner, S. M. (1991) · ACM Transactions on Graphics · doi:10.1145/108360.108361 · Cited by 342
Display-Selection Techniques for Text Manipulation
English, W. K., Engelbart, D. C., & Berman, M. L. (1967) · IEEE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics · doi:10.1109/thfe.1967.232994 · Cited by 273
Lexical and pragmatic considerations of input structures
Buxton, W. A. S. (1983) · ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics · doi:10.1145/988584.988586 · Cited by 268
The Morphological Approach to Discovery, Invention, Research and Construction
Zwicky, F. (1967) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-87617-2_14 · Cited by 204
New Methods of Thought and Procedure
Zwicky, F., & Wilson, A. G. (1967) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-87617-2 · Cited by 161
Readings in human-computer interaction : a multidisciplinary approach
Baecker, R. M., & Buxton, W. A. S. (1987) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 153
A Semantic Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices
Mackinlay, J., Card, S. K., & Robertson, G. G. (1990) · Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1080/07370024.1990.9667153 · Cited by 152
Self-citationOn accident analysis and slip-resistance measurement
Strandberg, L. (1983) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140138308963309 · Cited by 146
A Method for Evaluating Head-Controlled Computer Input Devices Using Fitts' Law
Radwin, R. G., Vanderheiden, G. C., & Lin, M.-L. (1990) · Human Factors The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1177/001872089003200405 · Cited by 126
Fitts' law as a performance model in human-computer interaction
MacKenzie, I. S. (1992) · Cited by 124
A comparison of menu selection techniques: touch panel, mouse and keyboard
Karat, J., McDonald, J. E., & Anderson, M. (1986) · International Journal of Man-Machine Studies · doi:10.1016/s0020-7373(86)80034-7 · Cited by 123
The cognitive coprocessor architecture for interactive user interfaces
Robertson, G., Card, S. K., & Mackinlay, J. D. (1989) · Proceedings of the 2nd annual ACM SIGGRAPH symposium on User interface software and technology · doi:10.1145/73660.73662 · Cited by 122
Self-citationPowermice and user performance
Jellinek, H. D., & Card, S. K. (1990) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/97243.97276 · Cited by 96
Self-citationAutomatic design of graphical presentations
Mackinlay, J. D. (1987) · Cited by 87
Self-citationIntelligent Interfaces: Theory, Research and Design
Hancock, P. A., & Chignell, M. (1989) · Medical Entomology and Zoology · Cited by 86
Parsons, S. O. (1966) · Science · doi:10.1126/science.153.3744.1679 · Cited by 77
Human-computer interaction: a multidisciplinary approach
Baecker, R., & Buxton, W. A. S. (1987) · Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc. eBooks · Cited by 62
Some Issues in Future User Interface Management System (UIMS) Development
Tanner, P. P., & Buxton, W. A. S. (1985) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-70041-5_8 · Cited by 61
Graphics and natural language as components of automatic explanation
Roth, S. F., Mattis, J., & Mesnard, X. (1991) · Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/107215.128701 · Cited by 57
Whitfield, D., BALL, R. G., & BIRD, J. M. (1983) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140138308963437 · Cited by 52
The Effect of Graphic Input Devices on Performance in a Cursor Positioning Task
Albert, A. E. (1982) · Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting · doi:10.1177/154193128202600114 · Cited by 49
Larger issues in user interface management
Olsen, D. R. (1987) · ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics · doi:10.1145/24919.24932 · Cited by 48
The device model of interaction
Anson, E. (1982) · ACM SIGGRAPH Annual Conference on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques (SIGGRAPH) · doi:10.1145/800064.801269 · Cited by 45
Interface usage measurements in a user interface management system
Olsen, D. R., & Halversen, B. W. (1988) · ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST) · doi:10.1145/62402.62420 · Cited by 40
The device model of interaction
Anson, E. (1982) · ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics · doi:10.1145/965145.801269 · Cited by 32
Sheridan, T. B. (1983) · Defense Technical Information Center (DTIC) · Cited by 31
Abstract interaction tools: a language for user interface management systems
van den Bos, J. (1988) · ACM Transactions on Programming Languages and Systems · doi:10.1145/42190.42191 · Cited by 30
Toto: a tool for selecting interaction techniques
Bleser, T. W., & Sibert, J. L. (1990) · doi:10.1145/97924.97940 · Cited by 25
Evaluation, Description and Invention: Paradigms for Human-Computer Interaction
Carroll, J. M. (1989) · Advances in computers · doi:10.1016/s0065-2458(08)60532-x · Cited by 21
Human factors and artificial intelligence
Thomas, J. (1988) · Advances in Human-Computer Interaction · Cited by 15
Graphics and Natural Language as Components of Automatic Explanation
Roth, S. F., Mattis, J., & Mesnar, X. (1988) · ACM SIGCHI Bulletin · doi:10.1145/49103.1046410 · Cited by 15
Graphics in Workstations-Emerging Systems and Solutions
Reed, J. (1984) · IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications · doi:10.1109/mcg.1984.276102 · Cited by 4
A Semantic Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices
Mackinlay, J., Card, S., & Robertson, G. (1990) · Human-Computer Interaction · doi:10.1207/s15327051hci0502&3_2
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
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
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
