The DOI matches its Crossref record; 1 of the 1 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
A study in two-handed input
Abstract
Two experiments were run to investigate two-handed input. The experimental tasks were representative of those found in CAD and office information systems. Experiment one involved the performance of a compound selection/positioning task. The two sub-tasks were performed by different hands using separate transducers. Without prompting, novice subjects adopted strategies that involved performing the two sub-tasks simultaneously. We interpret this as a demonstration that, in the appropriate context, users are capable of simultaneously providing continuous data from two hands without significant overhead. The results also show that the speed of performing the task was strongly correlated to the degree of parallelism employed. Experiment two involved the performance of a compound navigation/selection task. It compared a one-handed versus two-handed method for finding and selecting words in a document. The two-handed method significantly outperformed the commonly used one-handed method by a number of measures. Unlike experiment one, only two subjects adopted strategies that used both hands simultaneously. The benefits of the two-handed technique, therefore, are interpreted as being due to efficiency of hand motion. However, the two subjects who did use parallel strategies had the two fastest times of all subjects.
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
Direct Manipulation: A Step Beyond Programming Languages
Shneiderman (1983) · Computer · doi:10.1109/mc.1983.1654471 · Cited by 1,939
Cited by
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
Interacting with paper on the DigitalDesk
Wellner, P. (1993) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/159544.159630 · Cited by 1,074
Moving objects in space: exploiting proprioception in virtual-environment interaction
Mine, M. R., Brooks, F. P., & Sequin, C. H. (1997) · Proceedings of the 24th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques - SIGGRAPH '97 · doi:10.1145/258734.258747 · Cited by 677
How bodies matter: five themes for interaction design
Klemmer, S. R., Hartmann, B., & Takayama, L. (2006) · Proceedings of the 6th conference on Designing Interactive systems · doi:10.1145/1142405.1142429 · Cited by 645
Passive real-world interface props for neurosurgical visualization
Hinckley, K., Pausch, R., Goble, J. C., & Kassell, N. F. (1994) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/191666.191821 · Cited by 521
Metadata
- Authors
- Buxton, W., & Myers, B.
- Venue
- ACM SIGCHI Bulletin
- Published
- 1986-04
- Volume
- 17
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 321-326
- ISSN
- 0736-6906 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W2095956339
- Cited by
- 400
- References
- 1
- FWCI
- 6.35
- Type
- journal article
- 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
How to cite
Cite CoChat for the checks on this page, and the paper for its own findings.
- This page
- CoChat. (2026). Citation check: A study in two-handed input. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/22339.22390
- The paper
- Buxton, W., & Myers, B. (1986). A study in two-handed input. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1145/22339.22390
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.