Cited by 75Usability and User Interface DesignGaze Tracking and Assistive TechnologyUser Authentication and Security Systems

Five Challenges for Intelligent Text Entry Methods

Open access
Kristensson, Per Ola, Jameson, Anthony·2009·AI Magazine

Abstract

For text entry methods to be useful they have to deliver high entry rates and low error rates. At the same time they need to be easy to learn and provide effective means of correcting mistakes. Intelligent text entry methods combine AI techniques with human‐computer interaction (HCI) theory to enable users to enter text as efficiently and effortlessly as possible. Here I sample a selection of such techniques from the research literature and set them into their historical context. I then highlight five challenges for text entry methods that aspire to make an impact in our society: localization, error correction, editor support, feedback, and context of use.

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 · 10.1609/aimag.v30i4.2269

Cites

33 of 33 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

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?

  • Omission errors are usually described as cognitive errors because they are the absence of characters.

    “These errors are usually described as cognitive errors [11], since they are the absence of characters.”

    From Typing Performance of Blind Users (2015) · cites this paper as [11]

    In “Challenge 2: Error Correction” (p. 89), the paper defines cognitive errors by an improper understanding of the intended word, not by missing characters. In “Walking the Last Mile” (page not specified), it describes an accidentally omitted tap as a deletion error, contrary to classifying omissions as cognitive because characters are absent. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Checked by a reasoning model — may be wrong.

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Gould, S. J. 1992. The Panda's Thumb of Technology. In Bully for Brontosaurus, 59-75. London: Penguin Books.
  2. Kristensson, P. O., and Zhai, S. 2004. SHARK2: A Large Vocabulary Shorthand Writing System for Pen-Based Computers. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth ACM Sympo- sium on User Interface Software and Technology, 43-52. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
  3. Schmandt, C. 1981. The Intelligent Ear: A Graphical Inter- face to Digital Audio. In Proceedings of the IEEE Internation- al Conference on Cybernetics and Society, 393-397. Piscat- away, NJ: Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers.
  4. Vertanen, K., and Kristensson, P. O. 2009. Parakeet: A Con- tinuous Speech Recognition System for Mobile Touch- Screen Devices. In Proceedings of the Fourteenth ACM Inter- national Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces, 237-246. New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
  5. Watanabe, T.; Okada, S.; and Ifukube, T. 1998. Develop- ment of a GUI Screen Reader for Blind Persons. Systems and Computers in Japan 29(13): 18-27.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Kristensson, P. O., & Jameson, A.
Affiliations
University of Cambridge (GB)
Venue
AI Magazine
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2009-12
Volume
30
Issue
4
Pages
85-94
ISSN
  • 0738-4602 (ISSN-L)
  • 2371-9621
OpenAlex
W1680743030
Cited by
75
References
33
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 3 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 4 · 2021: 2 · 2020: 2 · 2019: 2 · 2018: 6 · 2017: 1 · 2016: 4 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 11 · 2013: 5 · 2012: 9
FWCI
7.98
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
AI Magazine (publishedVersion)
Funders
European Commission (220793)
Topics
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Gaze Tracking and Assistive Technology
  • Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Information Systems › User Authentication and Security Systems
Keywords
handwriting recognition, entry rate, error correction, localization, user feedback, context of use, human-computer interaction

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