2005
DOI: 10.1207/s15327590ijhc1902_5
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

A Process for Anticipating and Executing Icon Selection in Graphical User Interfaces

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
1
1
1

Citation Types

0
9
0

Year Published

2012
2012
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
4
2
2

Relationship

0
8

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 20 publications
(9 citation statements)
references
References 7 publications
0
9
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Researchers already worked on algorithms to reduce pointing time through determining the difficulty of a task using Fitts' Law (Fitt, 1954), increasing target size (Bates, 1999;Hwang, Hollinworth, & Williams, 2013;Lane, Peres, Sándor, & Napier, 2005;McGuffin & Balakrishnan, 2005), employing larger cursor activation regions, moving targets closer to cursor location, dragging cursor to nearest target, changing CD ratio (Wobbrock, Fogarty, Liu, Kimuro, & Harada, 2009), and so on. It is certain that these algorithms will perform even better in the existence of a target prediction algorithm so that only correct or most probable targets could be dynamically altered.…”
Section: Target Prediction Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Researchers already worked on algorithms to reduce pointing time through determining the difficulty of a task using Fitts' Law (Fitt, 1954), increasing target size (Bates, 1999;Hwang, Hollinworth, & Williams, 2013;Lane, Peres, Sándor, & Napier, 2005;McGuffin & Balakrishnan, 2005), employing larger cursor activation regions, moving targets closer to cursor location, dragging cursor to nearest target, changing CD ratio (Wobbrock, Fogarty, Liu, Kimuro, & Harada, 2009), and so on. It is certain that these algorithms will perform even better in the existence of a target prediction algorithm so that only correct or most probable targets could be dynamically altered.…”
Section: Target Prediction Modelmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Many different approaches have been developed for this prediction task [25,18,21,3,22]. However, we will argue throughout this paper that those approaches have lacked important properties required for supporting pointing facilitation systems, or have been too simplistic to provide accurate predictions in the general cursor target prediction setting.…”
Section: Prediction Requirements For Pointing Facilitationmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Early work specifically devoted to pointing target prediction treats the prediction task as a classification problem using properties of the motion trajectory state sequence as input. For example, Lane et al [21] provides short-cuts for selecting predicted targets and base target predictions primarily on the distance to each potential target. Though probabilistic techniques have been employed, e.g., using a multinomial distribution for targets conditioned on velocity, acceleration, and motion curvature characteristics [25], they have been in support of target classification rather than belief-based prediction.…”
Section: Classification Prediction Approachesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Therefore, destination prediction should precede any pointing facilitation action. Existing prediction algorithms include the nearest neighbor, which chooses the target that is closest to the cursor's current position [24], and bearing angle, which assumes that the cursor moves in a nearly constant direction toward the intended endpoint [23], [25]. These methods treat destination inference as a classification problem and rely on known priors such as selection pattern(s).…”
Section: Related Workmentioning
confidence: 99%