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
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
“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.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > Abstract
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 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
“A mouse can be thought of as the merge composition of two orthogonal one-dimensional sliders.”
§ 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: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a 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
“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.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > Abstract
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.
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
“calculation shows that the headmouse is not likely to be successful for text editing for the fundamental reason that, despite the fact that the headmouse has an impressive transducer, this transducer is attached to a muscle group that does not have enough bandwidth to place the tasks of interest in the easy region.”
- Also stated in: § 3.3 Example 1: Effect of Muscle Groups on input Devices · hedged
“Incidentally, a similar analysis for editing would suggest that the headmouse is not very good for text editing because the transducer has been connected to a muscle with too little bandwidth for the precision of editing subtasks, such as pointing to a character.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 4. CONCLUSION
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.
- 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.
- Also stated in: § 3.3 Example 1: Effect of Muscle Groups on input Devices · hedged
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
“But we can give a rough characterization of input device design effectiveness in terms of the following: (1) human-the bandwidth of the human muscle group to which the input device transducer is attached; (2) application-the precision requirements of the task to be done with the device; and (3) device-the effective bandwidth of the input device.”
§ 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: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a 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
“but the point is that the muscle group that is connected to an input device may impose inherent bandwidth limitations on that device.”
§ 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: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“since Langolfs measurements [18] were made using a serial task and since we are interested in discrete tasks, we have to adjust for the 2-3 bits/s higher value in continuous tasks [20].”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > Device bandwidth.
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.
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.
- 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
“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
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.
In the paper
“Figure 6 shows that more of the motor cortex is devoted to some groups of muscles (such as the fingers) than to others (such as the neck).”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3.2
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [26] 26. OLSEN, D. R., AND HALVERSON, B. W. Interface usage measurements in a user interface management system. In Proceedings of th e ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on User Interface So&oare (Banff, Alberta, Canada, Oct. 17-19, 1988). ACM, New York, 1988, pp. 102-108.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
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.
- Not matched
In the paper
“These normalizations are compatible with direct measurements on the mouse [9], which have been added to Figure 8.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > Device bandwidth.
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
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
“In the case of input devices, we can analyze the manipulations of an input device as sentences in a formal language of communication.”
§ 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 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
“A user can point to a character with the mouse in about the same time it takes a user with the headmouse to point to a word”
§ 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.
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
“Such an interaction can be modeled as the interaction in an artificial language among at least three agents [8,31]:”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 2. GENERATING THE DESIGN SPACE
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [8] 8. BUXTON, W. Lexical and pragmatic considerations of input structures. Comput. Graph. 17, 1 (Jan. 1983), 31-37. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [31] 31. ROBERTSON,G. G. , CARD, S. K., AND MACKINLAY, J. The cognitive coprocessor architecture for interactive user interfaces. In Proceedings of the ACM-SZGGRAPH Symposium on User interface Software and Technology (Williamsburg, Va., Nov. 13-15, 1989). ACM, New York, 1989, pp. 10-18. source
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 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 such a device could be built, Figure 9C shows that all of the tasks, even the high-precision task of pointing to a single period, might be made into easy tasks.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3.3 Example 1: Effect of Muscle Groups on input Devices
hedgedconditional- 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.
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 mouse must be able to move from any place on the screen to the menu bar, which is at the extreme top of the screen.The footprint is, therefore, an image of virtually the entire screen in the movement of the device.”
§ 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: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“Mackenzie's reanalysis of Fitts's data ([19,Table 2]) suggests that this would reduce the measured bandwidth by 0.3 -0.4 bit/s.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > Device bandwidth.
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [19,Table 2]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
hedgeddirect- 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
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 of human-machine dialogues is, at least in part, the design of artificial languages for this communication.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 2. GENERATING THE DESIGN SPACE
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“A technical difficulty is that eq. ( 1) has been shown to be inaccurate for pointing tasks with Z~below about 2 bits (very easy tasks) [351.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3.2
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [351]
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
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.
- 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
“The other, higher-resolution mice, uses an improved sensor to get a smaller footprint without sacrificing speed.”
§ 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: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a 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 present analysis also suggests a promising direction for developing a device to beat the mouse by using the bandwidth of the fingers.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 4. CONCLUSION
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: unclear — It is unclear whether it could 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.
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 usually desirable for an input device to be as fast to use as possible, but speed of use is actually a joint product of all three elements in our model: (1) the human, (2) the application, and (3) the device.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3.2
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.
In the paper
“Some groups of muscles can be controlled more finely than other groups of muscles.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3.2
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [26] 26. OLSEN, D. R., AND HALVERSON, B. W. Interface usage measurements in a user interface management system. In Proceedings of th e ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on User Interface So&oare (Banff, Alberta, Canada, Oct. 17-19, 1988). ACM, New York, 1988, pp. 102-108.
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
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.
- Not matched
- It may state two separate claims as one. 14
- Probably not a substantial claim. 24
- The quote only partly states this claim. 1
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Two of the devices (trackball and joystick) have small footprints that are independent of screen size.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3.1 Footprint
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The lines in Figure 7 have intercepts near, but not exactly at, the origin.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > Device bandwidth.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Using eq. ( 2), the precision of the headmouse is 440 ms/(240 ins/bit) = 2.0 bits, as compared to the 4.6 bits we computed for the mouse earlier”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3.3 Example 1: Effect of Muscle Groups on input Devices
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The typical target distance is 9.7 cm, half way from the center of a 19-inch screen to the side edge.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Three of the devices (light pen, on-screen touch pad, and rotary potentiometers) require no additional footprint (assuming that no footprint is needed to store the lightpen and that the potentiometers mount on the case).”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3.1 Footprint
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: No footprint is needed to store the lightpen and the potentiometers mount on the case.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“= 96 ins/bit”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > Device bandwidth.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. The quote only partly states this claim.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The typical target distance is 9.7 cm, half way from the center of a 19-inch screen to the side edge.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Pointing to a character at our assumed distance takes 440 ms.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > Device bandwidth.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The typical target distance is 9.7 cm, half way from the center of a 19-inch screen to the side edge.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These vary slightly from line to line and make comparisons among the muscle groups more difficult.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > Device bandwidth.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The computed device precision for the fingers is 17.6 bits, almost four times as much as for the mouse.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3.3 Example 1: Effect of Muscle Groups on input Devices
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The typical target distance is 9.7 cm, half way from the center of a 19-inch screen to the side edge.
A claim is checked only against the cited paper’s full text, never its abstract, and none is available for its sources.
In the paper
“Card, English, and Burr [9] confirmed these empirical results and discovered that pointing speed with the mouse is governed by Fitts's law [14] with a bandwidth similar to that of the hand.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 1. INTRODUCTION Human-machine interface technology has been developed to the point where it is appropriate to systematize existing research results and craft into a body of engineering and design knowledge.A case in point is the design of input devices.A bewildering variety of such devices now exists on the market, including typewriter keyboards, mice, headmice, pens and tablets, dialboxes, Polhemus sensors, gloves, and body suits.How can we make sense of this variety?How can we identify promising opportunities for new design?As part of their development, most engineering disciplines organize the designs that have emerged in terms of abstractions that give insight into the design space (e. g., [321).This insight allows individual User interface toolkits or user interface management systems help with a wide range of problems, including the construction, run-time execution, and post-run-time analysis of a user interface [33].They may help systematize input device knowledge by providing a library of prebuilt input device modules [25,27], architecture and specification techniques for combining these modules [2,34], or postprocessing analysis tools [24].Sometimes, as in [2], they even provide architectural models of input device interactions.But the device models implicit in user interface toolkits sketch only a limited picture of the design space of input devices and their properties.Even for the construction of interfaces, they present interface designers with many design alternatives but do little to help with the design decisions themselves.In order to achieve a systematic framework for input devices, toolkits need to be supported by technical abstractions about the user, the devices themselves, and the task they are used to perform. Taxonomies.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [9] 9. CARD, S. K. Human factors and artificial intelligence, In Intelligent Interfaces; Z%eory, Research and Design, P. A. Hancock and M. H. Chignell, Eds. Elsevier Science Publishers B. V., North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1989, pp. 270-284. source
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [14] 14. EPPS, B., SNYDER, H., AND MUTOL, W. Comparison of six cursor devices on a target acquisition task. In Proceedings of the Society for Information Display (San Diego, Calif., May 6-8, 1986). Society for Information Display, 1986, pp. 302-305. source
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“English and Engelbart [12] studied several devices and found the mouse the fastest device.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 1. INTRODUCTION Human-machine interface technology has been developed to the point where it is appropriate to systematize existing research results and craft into a body of engineering and design knowledge.A case in point is the design of input devices.A bewildering variety of such devices now exists on the market, including typewriter keyboards, mice, headmice, pens and tablets, dialboxes, Polhemus sensors, gloves, and body suits.How can we make sense of this variety?How can we identify promising opportunities for new design?As part of their development, most engineering disciplines organize the designs that have emerged in terms of abstractions that give insight into the design space (e. g., [321).This insight allows individual User interface toolkits or user interface management systems help with a wide range of problems, including the construction, run-time execution, and post-run-time analysis of a user interface [33].They may help systematize input device knowledge by providing a library of prebuilt input device modules [25,27], architecture and specification techniques for combining these modules [2,34], or postprocessing analysis tools [24].Sometimes, as in [2], they even provide architectural models of input device interactions.But the device models implicit in user interface toolkits sketch only a limited picture of the design space of input devices and their properties.Even for the construction of interfaces, they present interface designers with many design alternatives but do little to help with the design decisions themselves.In order to achieve a systematic framework for input devices, toolkits need to be supported by technical abstractions about the user, the devices themselves, and the task they are used to perform. Taxonomies.
What the sources say
- Not checked — no full text of the sourcecites [12] 12. CASNER, S. M. A task-analytic approach to the automated design of graphic presentations. ACM Trans. Graph. 10, 2 (Apr. 1991), 111-151. source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Unfortunately, these studies have not always agreed, largely because some studies have not attempted to disentangle task, subject, and human performance variables.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 1. INTRODUCTION Human-machine interface technology has been developed to the point where it is appropriate to systematize existing research results and craft into a body of engineering and design knowledge.A case in point is the design of input devices.A bewildering variety of such devices now exists on the market, including typewriter keyboards, mice, headmice, pens and tablets, dialboxes, Polhemus sensors, gloves, and body suits.How can we make sense of this variety?How can we identify promising opportunities for new design?As part of their development, most engineering disciplines organize the designs that have emerged in terms of abstractions that give insight into the design space (e. g., [321).This insight allows individual User interface toolkits or user interface management systems help with a wide range of problems, including the construction, run-time execution, and post-run-time analysis of a user interface [33].They may help systematize input device knowledge by providing a library of prebuilt input device modules [25,27], architecture and specification techniques for combining these modules [2,34], or postprocessing analysis tools [24].Sometimes, as in [2], they even provide architectural models of input device interactions.But the device models implicit in user interface toolkits sketch only a limited picture of the design space of input devices and their properties.Even for the construction of interfaces, they present interface designers with many design alternatives but do little to help with the design decisions themselves.In order to achieve a systematic framework for input devices, toolkits need to be supported by technical abstractions about the user, the devices themselves, and the task they are used to perform. Taxonomies.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although other input devices are possible (based, say, on speech or heat), virtually all input devices use some combination of the properties listed in Table I.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 2. GENERATING THE DESIGN SPACE
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“There are three composition operators: (1) merge composition, (2) layout composition, and (3) connect composition.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 2.2 Composition Operators
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The actual footprint of some devices such as the mouse depends on the sequence of actions in an application.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3.1 Footprint
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the point is that Figure 3 is a sufficiently rich depiction of the design space for input devices that it can be used both to classify nearly all existing devices and to generate ideas for new devices not yet invented.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 2.3 The Design Space for Input Devices
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The speed and error performance of a particular device may depend on a number of subtleties such as the relationship between the geometry of the device and the geometry of the hand or coefficients of friction.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3.2
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“According to the figure, the headmouse, with precision slightly larger than a word, is precise enough for viewing but not for pointing.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3.3 Example 1: Effect of Muscle Groups on input Devices
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Moving the virtual head to look around in the virtual 3-D world is roughly equivalent in difficulty to pointing to a paragraph, and pointing to objects is roughly equivalent to pointing to a character.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of course, the device itself can degrade the achievable performance.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > Device bandwidth.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This means that the mouse is more precise.To be concrete, it means that the headmouse could only point to a target with an Z~= 1.8/4.6 = 39 percent as great in the same amount of time.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3.3 Example 1: Effect of Muscle Groups on input Devices
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The typical target distance is 9.7 cm, half way from the center of a 19-inch screen to the side edge.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This illustrates another point about the modeling scheme, namely, that devices do not have to be physical devices, but can also be virtual devices implemented in software, such as the cursor.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 2.2 Composition Operators
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If the projection of the Out set includes elements that are not in the In set, the user can specify illegal values; and if the In set includes values that are not in the projection, the user cannot specify legal values.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3. TESTING POINTS IN THE DESIGN SPACE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These figures of merit include human performance measures such as speed and errors, as well as pragmatic concerns such as desktop footprint, panel space, or cost.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3. TESTING POINTS IN THE DESIGN SPACE
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Langolf observed the approximate muscle groups being used and made the observation that different muscle groups gave rise to different Fitts's law slopes.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3.2
What the sources say
- Not matchedcites [18] 18. S. K. Card, et al. 17, 18. 19. 20. 21. 22. 23. 24. 25. 26. 27. 28. 29. 30. 31. 32 33, 34. 35. 36
Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Not matched
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Nonetheless, the comparisons we shall make are not very sensitive to the exact values selected for the parameters.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > Device bandwidth.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The typical target distance is 9.7 cm, half way from the center of a 19-inch screen to the side edge.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It is important to note that each group of linked circles in Figure 3, which collectively represent a device, is only a single point in a very large design space and that variants in devices are possible (e.g., in the input or output domains or the mappings), which are below the level of detail visualized in the figure.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 2.3 The Design Space for Input Devices
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In some design spaces, expressiveness is a major concern.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3. TESTING POINTS IN THE DESIGN SPACE
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In the design of input devices, an expressiveness problem arises when the number of elements in the Out set does not match the number of elements in the In set to which it is connected.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3. TESTING POINTS IN THE DESIGN SPACE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The spectrum of pointing times is shifted to the right.Easy tasks become hard or moderate.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3.3 Example 1: Effect of Muscle Groups on input Devices
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: The typical target distance is 9.7 cm, half way from the center of a 19-inch screen to the side edge.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Since the task circles contain the filled circles projected from the mouse, it is clear that the mouse is precise enough for both tasks.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3.3 Example 1: Effect of Muscle Groups on input Devices
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- The authors state this as an assumption: Moving the virtual head to look around in the virtual 3-D world is roughly equivalent in difficulty to pointing to a paragraph, and pointing to objects is roughly equivalent to pointing to a character.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The combination of primitive moves and composition operators gives us a parametric abstract representation that represents the space of sentences it is possible to transmit.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 2. GENERATING THE DESIGN SPACE
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The design space for input devices is basically the set of possible combinations of the composition operators with the primitive vocabulary.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 2.3 The Design Space for Input Devices
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The three buttons of a mouse and the XY sensors are all four layout-composed together to form the mouse.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 2.2 Composition Operators
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For the mouse, the output is connected to the input for the screen cursor.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 2.2 Composition Operators
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This determines an upper bound on the bandwidth of the device (as indexed by the Fitts's law slope).”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > Device bandwidth.
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In a sense, this generates the design space of input devices.”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 2. GENERATING THE DESIGN SPACE
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The authors state this as an assumption.
Functions of the application program express the semantics of the interaction.
“In our analysis, we make the idealized assumption that functions of the application program express the semantics of the interaction.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Input devices can be treated as idealized devices without stickiness, significant lags, noise, or linearity problems.
“Generally, we assume somewhat idealized devices without stickiness, significant lags, noise, linearity problems, etc.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
It is possible to express the user's intention in a sentence in the repertoire of the input device.
“Assuming that it is possible to express the user's intention in a sentence in the repertoire of the input device, there is still the question of how well this can be done in terms of speed, errors, or other figures of merit for an input device (in a particular task for a particular user).”
The authors state this as an assumption.
No footprint is needed to store the lightpen and the potentiometers mount on the case.
“assuming that no footprint is needed to store the lightpen and that the potentiometers mount on the case”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The typical target distance is 9.7 cm, half way from the center of a 19-inch screen to the side edge.
“Since we do not have specific data on target distance, the calculation assumes a typical distance of half way from the center of a 19”
The authors state this as an assumption.
The performance of many devices is more or less set by the muscle groups with which the device is designed to connect.
“For the moment, we assume that this is so in order to compute the inherent limitations imposed on a device by the muscle group to which it is connected.”
The authors state this as an assumption.
Moving the virtual head to look around in the virtual 3-D world is roughly equivalent in difficulty to pointing to a paragraph, and pointing to objects is roughly equivalent to pointing to a character.
“For purposes of the calculation, we have assumed that moving the virtual head to look around in the virtual 3-D world is roughly equivalent in difficulty to pointing to a paragraph, and that pointing to objects is roughly equivalent to pointing to a character, which is also the easiest hard task for the mouse.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The fact that some groups of muscles can be controlled more nely than others has well-known implications for the design of human-computer interfaces [13].”
From Hands-Free Accessible Digital Musical Instruments: Conceptual Framework, Challenges, and Perspectives (2020) · cites this paper as [13]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
“the precision of the headmouse is 440 ms/(240 ins/bit) = 2.0 bits”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > 3.3 Example 1: Effect of Muscle Groups on input Devices
Reported 2 · recomputed 1.833333
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > Device bandwidth.
“Device precision = Time[ hardest easy task for mouse] /1~ 440 ms --IM bits "”
§ A Morphological Analysis of the Design Space of Input Devices > Device bandwidth.
“So we take a word as the hardest easy target.”
Citations
Cites
The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement.
Fitts, P. M. (1954) · Journal of Experimental Psychology · doi:10.1037/h0055392 · Cited by 6,466
The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement.
Fitts, P. M. (1992) · Journal of Experimental Psychology General · doi:10.1037//0096-3445.121.3.262 · Cited by 6,296
Fitts' Law as a Research and Design Tool in Human-Computer Interaction
MacKenzie, I. S. (1992) · Human–Computer Interaction · doi:10.1207/s15327051hci0701_3 · Cited by 1,637
Automating the design of graphical presentations of relational information
Mackinlay, J. D. (1986) · ACM Transactions on Graphics · doi:10.1145/22949.22950 · Cited by 1,631
Self-citationThe Cerebral Cortex of Man: A Clinical Study of Localization of Function
(1968) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.1968.03150020096041 · Cited by 1,218
Eastman, J. R., & Bertin, J. (1986) · Economic Geography · doi:10.2307/143508 · Cited by 1,100
CARD, S. K., ENGLISH, W. K., & BURR, B. J. (1978) · Ergonomics · doi:10.1080/00140137808931762 · Cited by 887
Self-citationAdams, J. A., & Welford, A. T. (1970) · The American Journal of Psychology · doi:10.2307/1421343 · Cited by 864
The human factors of computer graphics interaction techniques
Foley, J. D., Wallace, V. L., & Chan, P. (1984) · IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications · doi:10.1109/mcg.1984.6429355 · Cited by 478
User Interface Management Systems
Pfaff, G. (1985) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-642-70041-5 · Cited by 461
Research works printed but not linked: 16
- APPLE COMPUTER, 1987, Mass.
- BERTZN J., 1973, Wis., 1983
- BLESER T. W., 1990, Proceedings of User Interface Software and Technology, 135
- EPPS B., 1986, Proceedings of the Society for Information Display
- JELL~EK H., 1990, CHI'90 Conference Proceedings, 213
- KARAT J., 1985, Ed. Elsevier North-Holland, 189
- LANOOLF G.D., 1973, Mich., 1973
- MACKENZ, 1991, Univ. of Toronto
- MACKINLAY J., 1986, Calif.
- OLSEN D. R., 1987, ET AL. ACM SIGGRAPH workshop on software tools for user interface management. Comput. Graph. 21, 71
- PENF LD, W, 1990, Macmfilan
- PFAFF G.E., 1985, Springer-Verlag
- ROTH S. F., Eds. ACM Press, 207
- SmWIOREK D. BELL G. AND NEWELL A. Computer Structures. McGraw-Hill New York 1981. SmWIOREK D. BELL G. AND NEWELL A. Computer Structures. McGraw-Hill New York 1981.
- TANNER P. P., 1985, Ed. Springer-Verlag, 67
- WELFORD A.T., 1968, Methuen
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Beaudouin-Lafon, M. (2000) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/332040.332473 · Cited by 615
“Device-level models such as logical input devices [11] or Card et al.'s taxonomy [7] operate at a lower level of abstraction than interaction models.”
A survey of 3D object selection techniques for virtual environments
Argelaguet, F., & Andújar, C. (2012) · Computers & Graphics · doi:10.1016/j.cag.2012.12.003 · Cited by 555
“This variability de191 pends on the muscle groups involved in the movement [22], 192 with bigger muscle groups introducing higher variability than 193 smaller ones.”
BackgroundAccot, J., & Zhai, S. (1997) · CHI Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI EA) · doi:10.1145/1120212.1120376 · Cited by 457
Lag as a determinant of human performance in interactive systems
MacKenzie, I. S., & Ware, C. (1993) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/169059.169431 · Cited by 427
“this the index of performance, 1P.) Furthermore, if ID is calculated using the effective target width (We), adjusted for errors or spatial variability in responses, then bandwidth encompasses speed and accuracy.l This provocative measure – somewhat analogous to efficiency – holds tremendous promise for measurement and…”
MethodAccot, J., & Zhai, S. (1997) · CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/258549.258760 · Cited by 425
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
