Student or educator? Sign up with your school email and get 6 months of Pro free.
Cited by 311

The DOI matches its Crossref record.

Improving the accuracy of touch screens: an experimental evaluation of three strategies

Open access
Potter, R. L., Weldon, L. J., Shneiderman, B.·1988·Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '88

Abstract

A study comparing the speed, accuracy, and user satisfaction of three different touch screen strategies was performed. The purpose of the experiment was to evaluate the merits of the more intricate touch strategies that are possible on touch screens that return a continuous stream of touch data. The results showed that a touch strategy providing continuous feedback until a selection was confirmed had fewer errors than other touch strategies. The implications of the results for touch screens containing small, densely-packed targets were discussed.

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1145/57167.57171

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.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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

See all 311

Metadata

Authors
Potter, R. L., Weldon, L. J., & Shneiderman, B.
Venue
Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '88
Publisher
ACM Press
Published
1988
Pages
27-32
OpenAlex
W2017881547
Cited by
311
References
0
FWCI
3.91
Type
conference paper
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: Improving the accuracy of touch screens: an experimental evaluation of three strategies. https://app.cochat.ai/papers/10.1145/57167.57171
The paper
Potter, R. L., Weldon, L. J., & Shneiderman, B. (1988). Improving the accuracy of touch screens: an experimental evaluation of three strategies. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems - CHI '88. https://doi.org/10.1145/57167.57171

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.