The DOI matches its Crossref record; the references it cites are not checked yet.
Too much of a good thing?: identifying and resolving bloat in the user interface
Open accessAbstract
No abstract available.
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.
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?
In the citing paper
“The existence of individual differences with respect to software features is an idea that has been proposed in the literature [Kaufman & Weed, 1998; J. McGrenere & Moore, 2000] but has undergone minimal evaluation.”
From A field evaluation of an adaptable two-interface design for feature-rich software (2007) · cites this paper as Kaufman & Weed, 1998
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
The citation lists are queued
They are fetched later and appear here then.
Cited by 13
Metadata
- Authors
- Kaufman, L., & Weed, B.
- Venue
- ACM SIGCHI Bulletin
- Published
- 1998-10
- Volume
- 30
- Issue
- 4
- Pages
- 46-47
- ISSN
- 0736-6906 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W1983558263
- Cited by
- 13
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2022: 1 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 2 · 2014: 1
- FWCI
- 0.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- bronze
- doi.org
- Locations
- ACM SIGCHI Bulletin (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Information Systems and Management › Personal Information Management and User Behavior
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: Too much of a good thing?: identifying and resolving bloat in the user interface. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/310307.310370
- The paper
- Kaufman, L., & Weed, B. (1998). Too much of a good thing?: identifying and resolving bloat in the user interface. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin. https://doi.org/10.1145/310307.310370
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.
