The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
The evaluation of text editors: methodology and empirical results.
Open accessAbstract
This paper presents a methodology for evaluating text editors on several dimensions: the time it takes experts to perform basic editing tasks, the time experts spend making and correcting errors, the rate at which novices learn to perform basic editing tasks, and the functionality of editors over more complex tasks. Time, errors, and learning are measured experimentally; functionality is measured analytically; time is also calculated analytically. The methodology has thus far been used to evaluate nine diverse text editors, producing an initial database of performance results. The database is used to tell us not only about the editors but also about the users—the magnitude of individual differences and the factors affecting novice learning.
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
Cites
The keystroke-level model for user performance time with interactive systems
Card, S. K., Moran, T. P., & Newell, A. (1980) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/358886.358895 · Cited by 1,174
Self-citation
Cited by
Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology
Davis, F. D. (1989) · MIS Quarterly · doi:10.2307/249008 · Cited by 68,483
Extrinsic and Intrinsic Motivation to Use Computers in the Workplace 1
Davis, F. D., Bagozzi, R. P., & Warshaw, P. R. (1992) · Journal of Applied Social Psychology · doi:10.1111/j.1559-1816.1992.tb00945.x · Cited by 6,231
A Model of the Antecedents of Perceived Ease of Use: Development and Test
Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (1996) · Decision Sciences · doi:10.1111/j.1540-5915.1996.tb01822.x · Cited by 3,802
The Challenge of Innovation Implementation
Klein, K. J., & Sorra, J. S. (1996) · The Academy of Management Review · doi:10.2307/259164 · Cited by 2,113
The vocabulary problem in human-system communication
Furnas, G. W., Landauer, T. K., Gomez, L. M., & Dumais, S. T. (1987) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/32206.32212 · Cited by 1,504
Metadata
- Authors
- Roberts, T. L., & Moran, T. P.
- Venue
- Communications of the ACM
- Published
- 1983-04
- Volume
- 26
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 265-283
- ISSN
- 0001-0782 (ISSN-L)
- 1557-7317
- OpenAlex
- W50190571
- Cited by
- 189
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 14.13
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: The evaluation of text editors: methodology and empirical results. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/2163.2164
- The paper
- Roberts, T. L., & Moran, T. P. (1983). The evaluation of text editors: methodology and empirical results. Communications of the ACM. https://doi.org/10.1145/2163.2164
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.
