Movement model, hits distribution and learning in virtual keyboarding
Abstract
In a ten-session experiment, six participants practiced typing with an expanding rehearsal method on an optimized virtual keyboard. Based on a large amount of in-situ performance data, this paper reports the following findings. First, the Fitts-digraph movement efficiency model of virtual keyboards is revised. The format and parameters of Fitts' law used previously in virtual keyboards research were incorrect. Second, performance limit predictions of various layouts are calculated with the new model. Third, learning with expanding rehearsal intervals for maximum memory benefits is effective, but many improvements of the training algorithm used can be made in the future. Finally, increased visual load when typing previously practiced text did not significantly change users' performance at this stage of learning, but typing unpracticed text did have a performance effect, suggesting a certain degree of text specific learning when typing on virtual keyboards
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Effective memorization occurs when users are trained using expanding rehearsal intervals.
“with results suggesting effective memorization when users were trained using expanding rehearsal intervals.”
From Supporting Novice to Expert Transitions in User Interfaces (2015) · cites this paper as Zhai et al. 2002
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Supporting Novice to Expert Transitions in User Interfaces
Cockburn, A., Gutwin, C., Scarr, J., & Malacria, S. (2015) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/2659796 · Cited by 193 · see citing works
Typing on flat glass: examining ten-finger expert typing patterns on touch surfaces
Findlater, L., Wobbrock, J. O., & Wigdor, D. (2011) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/1978942.1979301 · Cited by 115 · see citing works
Dunlop, M., & Levine, J. (2012) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/2207676.2208659 · Cited by 99 · see citing works
Relaxing stylus typing precision by geometric pattern matching
Kristensson, P.-O., & Zhai, S. (2005) · Proceedings of the 10th international conference on Intelligent user interfaces · doi:10.1145/1040830.1040867 · Cited by 88 · see citing works
Self-citationWord Clarity as a Metric in Sampling Keyboard Test Sets
Yi, X., Yu, C., Shi, W., Bi, X., & Shi, Y. (2017) · Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3025453.3025701 · Cited by 26 · see citing works
- Authors
- Zhai, S., Sue, A., & Accot, J.
- Affiliations
- IBM Research - Almaden (US)
- ORCID
- Zhai, Shumin
- Venue
- Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2002-04-20
- Pages
- 17-24
- OpenAlex
- W2052570369
- Cited by
- 77
- References
- 0
- Citations by year
- 2025: 1 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 3 · 2018: 3 · 2017: 5 · 2015: 4 · 2014: 3 · 2013: 4 · 2012: 7
- FWCI
- 3.22
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing 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
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Motor Control and Adaptation
- Keywords
- virtual keyboard, Fitts' law, keyboard layout, performance bounds, visual load
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