VelociWatch

Vertanen, Keith; Gaines, Dylan; Fletcher, Crystal; Stanage, Alex M.; Watling, Robbie; Kristensson, Per Ola

doi:10.1145/3290605.3300821

Cited by 32 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 33 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…One-way ANOVAs on Box-Cox transformed data found a significant main effect of having corrections on Total Time (F 1,27 = 178.66, p < .001, Effort: Continuing the trend, there was was no significant difference between SPEECH and KEYBOARD for COMPOSITION, but there was again for TRANSCRIPTION. A Friedman analysis found a significant effect on Effort (χ 2 (3) = 28.41, p < .001), and post-hoc comparisons found a 120% increase in ratings for KEYBOARD (55) compared to SPEECH (25) for TRANSCRIP-TION (p < .001). Post-hoc comparisons also found COMPOSI-TION (40) was rated 60% greater than TRANSCRIPTION (25) for SPEECH (p < .01).…”

Section: Corrected and Non-corrected Sentencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A Friedman analysis found a significant effect on Effort (χ 2 (3) = 28.41, p < .001), and post-hoc comparisons found a 120% increase in ratings for KEYBOARD (55) compared to SPEECH (25) for TRANSCRIP-TION (p < .001). Post-hoc comparisons also found COMPOSI-TION (40) was rated 60% greater than TRANSCRIPTION (25) for SPEECH (p < .01).…”

Section: Corrected and Non-corrected Sentencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…There are publicly available phrases sets for text entry evaluation [9,25,27], but constructing the transcription phrase sets in this way better controls our comparison of composition and transcription by reducing variance between participants.…”

Section: Image and Phrase Stimulimentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Comparing Smartphone Speech Recognition and Touchscreen Typing for Composition and Transcription

Foley

Casiez

Vogel

2020

Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Ruan et al. found transcribing short phrases with speech recognition nearly 200% faster than typing on a smartphone. We extend this comparison to a novel composition task, using a protocol that enables a controlled comparison with transcription. Results show that both composing and transcribing with speech is faster than typing. But, the magnitude of this difference is lower with composition, and speech has a lower error rate than keyboard during composition, but not during transcription. When transcribing, speech outperformed typing in most NASA-TLX measures, but when composing, there were no significant differences between typing and speech for any measure except physical demand.

show abstract

Section: Corrected and Non-corrected Sentencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Corrected and Non-corrected Sentencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Comparing Smartphone Speech Recognition and Touchscreen Typing for Composition and Transcription

Foley

Casiez

Vogel

2020

Proceedings of the 2020 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…To accurately select a target key on a small touchscreen, various interaction techniques have been proposed that can be classified as multistep or indirect selection techniques [1], [3]- [6] while preserving the familiar QWERTY layout. Another way to overcome the fat-finger problem [13] when typing is to use a statistical decoder to select target keys probabilistically [8], [9], [11], [12]. Statistical decoder-based text entry opened up opportunities, demonstrating the surprisingly fast text entry speed with acceptable error rates on tiny touchscreens [8], [9], [11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another way to overcome the fat-finger problem [13] when typing is to use a statistical decoder to select target keys probabilistically [8], [9], [11], [12]. Statistical decoder-based text entry opened up opportunities, demonstrating the surprisingly fast text entry speed with acceptable error rates on tiny touchscreens [8], [9], [11]. Most previous research has focused on improving the accuracy of decoders to see the performance improvement on soft keyboards of different sizes.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficient Typing on Ultrasmall Touch Screens With In Situ Decoder and Visual Feedback

Min

Seo

2021

IEEE Access

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Typing on a smartwatch is challenging because of the fat-finger problem. Rising to the challenge, we present a soft keyboard for ultrasmall touch screen devices with efficient visual feedback integrated with autocorrection and prediction techniques. After exploring the design space to support efficient typing on smartwatches, we designed a novel and space-saving text entry interface based on an in situ decoder and prediction function that can run in real-time on a smartwatch such as LG Watch Style. We outlined the details implemented through performance optimization techniques and released interface code, APIs, and libraries as open source. We examined the design decisions with the simulations and studied the visual feedback methods in terms of performance and user preferences. The experiment showed that users could type more accurately and quickly on the target device with our best-performing visual feedback design and implementation. The simulation result showed that the single word suggestion could yield a sufficiently high hit ratio using the optimized word suggestion algorithm. INDEX TERMSConsumer electronics, human computer interaction, natural language processing, system analysis and design.

show abstract

Comparison of Task Performance and User Satisfaction Between Holographic and Standard QWERTY Keyboard

Hassan

Mohd

2022

2022 IEEE World AI IoT Congress (AIIoT)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

VelociWatch

Cited by 32 publications

References 33 publications

Comparing Smartphone Speech Recognition and Touchscreen Typing for Composition and Transcription

Comparing Smartphone Speech Recognition and Touchscreen Typing for Composition and Transcription

Efficient Typing on Ultrasmall Touch Screens With In Situ Decoder and Visual Feedback

Comparison of Task Performance and User Satisfaction Between Holographic and Standard QWERTY Keyboard

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About