The DOI matches its Crossref record.
Gestures without libraries, toolkits or training: a $1 recognizer for user interface prototypes
Abstract
Although mobile, tablet, large display, and tabletop computers increasingly present opportunities for using pen, finger, and wand gestures in user interfaces, implementing gesture recognition largely has been the privilege of pattern matching experts, not user interface prototypers. Although some user interface libraries and toolkits offer gesture recognizers, such infrastructure is often unavailable in design-oriented environments like Flash, scripting environments like JavaScript, or brand new off-desktop prototyping environments. To enable novice programmers to incorporate gestures into their UI prototypes, we present a "$1 recognizer" that is easy, cheap, and usable almost anywhere in about 100 lines of code. In a study comparing our $1 recognizer, Dynamic Time Warping, and the Rubine classifier on user-supplied gestures, we found that $1 obtains over 97% accuracy with only 1 loaded template and 99% accuracy with 3+ loaded templates. These results were nearly identical to DTW and superior to Rubine. In addition, we found that medium-speed gestures, in which users balanced speed and accuracy, were recognized better than slow or fast gestures for all three recognizers. We also discuss the effect that the number of templates or training examples has on recognition, the score falloff along recognizers' N-best lists, and results for individual gestures. We include detailed pseudocode of the $1 recognizer to aid development, inspection, extension, and testing.
Overview
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Citations
Cited by
OctoPocus: a dynamic guide for learning gesture-based command sets
Bau, O., & Mackay, W. E. (2008) · Proceedings of the 21st annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology · doi:10.1145/1449715.1449724 · Cited by 278
Gestalt: integrated support for implementation and analysis in machine learning
Patel, K., Bancroft, N., Drucker, S. M., Fogarty, J., Ko, A. J., & Landay, J. (2010) · Proceedings of the 23nd annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology · doi:10.1145/1866029.1866038 · Cited by 112
The Disagreement Deconvolution: Bringing Machine Learning Performance Metrics In Line With Reality
Gordon, M. L., Zhou, K., Patel, K., Hashimoto, T., & Bernstein, M. S. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445423 · Cited by 101
Learning and performance with gesture guides
Anderson, F., & Bischof, W. F. (2013) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2470654.2466143 · Cited by 66
Planning for Natural Language Failures with the AI Playbook
Hong, M. K., Fourney, A., DeBellis, D., & Amershi, S. (2021) · Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445735 · Cited by 54
Analyzing visually impaired people’s touch gestures on smartphones
Buzzi, M. C., Buzzi, M., Leporini, B., & Trujillo, A. (2017) · Multimedia Tools and Applications · doi:10.1007/s11042-016-3594-9 · Cited by 53
Eyes-Free Text Entry with EdgeWrite Alphabets for Round-Face Smartwatches
Go, K., Kikawa, M., Kinoshita, Y., & Mao, X. (2019) · 2019 International Conference on Cyberworlds (CW) · doi:10.1109/cw.2019.00037 · Cited by 5
Metadata
- Authors
- Wobbrock, J. O., Wilson, A. D., & Li, Y.
- Venue
- Proceedings of the 20th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2007-10-07
- Pages
- 159-168
- OpenAlex
- W2097248932
- Cited by
- 822
- References
- 0
- FWCI
- 21.23
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
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.
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
Data sources
Bibliographic data: Semantic Scholar, OpenAlex, Crossref.
Contains information from the Semantic Scholar Academic Graph Datasets, made available under the ODC Attribution License (ODC-BY 1.0).
Semantic Scholar’s data is described in: Kinney, R., et al. (2023). The Semantic Scholar Open Data Platform. arXiv:2301.10140.