In search of text writing methods for off the desktop computing atomik and shark l.jpg
1 / 38

In Search of Text Writing Methods for Off the Desktop Computing ― ATOMIK and SHARK.

Uploaded on:
Category: General / Misc
In Search of Text Writing Methods for Off the Desktop Computing ― ATOMIK and SHARK Shumin Zhai In collaboration with Barton Smith, Per-Ola Kristensson ( Linkoping U ), Alison Sue, Clemens Drews, Paul Lee ( Stanford ), Johnny Accot, Michael Hunter ( BYU ), Jingtao Wang ( Berkeley )
Slide 1

In Search of Text Writing Methods for Off the Desktop Computing ― ATOMIK and SHARK Shumin Zhai as a team with Barton Smith, Per-Ola Kristensson ( Linkoping U ), Alison Sue, Clemens Drews, Paul Lee ( Stanford ), Johnny Accot, Michael Hunter ( BYU ), Jingtao Wang ( Berkeley ) IBM Almaden Research Center San Jose, CA

Slide 2

Computing off the Desktop registering “workstation” interface establishment Large and individual showcase Input gadget (mouse) Typewriter console HCI Frontier – past the desktop Interfaces without presentation mouse-console tripod Numerous troublesome difficulties

Slide 3

The content data challenge Indispensable client undertaking Efficiency Learning Size/transportability Visual intellectual consideration “History” of composing innovation

Slide 4

Text Entry Methods Reduced console T9, small console Hand composing English, Unistroke, Graffiti Speech Human elements impediment Stylus (graphical) consoles

Slide 5

The QWERTY Keyboard Invented by Sholes, Glidden, and Soule in1868 ― minimizing mechanical sticking QWERTYnomics ( P. David versus Liebowitz & Margolis) Touch writing ― low visual consideration interest Happen to be useful for two hands rotation ― Dvorak did not win

Slide 6

W j Key i Key j D ij Fitts’ law For stylus console — a = 0.08 sec, b = 0.127 sec/bit (Zhai, Su, Accot, CHI 2002)

Slide 7

Letter Transition Frequency (Digraph) Mayzner and Tresselt (1965) British National Corpus (BNC) 2 new current corpora News - NY Time, SJ Mercury, LA Times Chat room logs

Slide 8

34.2 WPM Movement Efficiency Model of Stylus Keyboards (Soukoreff & MacKenzie,1995; Zhai, Sue & Accot 2002)

Slide 9

Manual investigations OPTI , MacKenzie & Zhang ( 42.8 wpm) FITALY console (41.2 wpm)

Slide 10

Zhai, Hunter, Smith, UIST2000 Algorithmic configuration - dynamic reproduction Hooke’s Keyboard (45.1 wpm)

Slide 11

Fitts-digraph “energy” “Random walk” Zhai, Hunter & Smith , HCI 2002 Metropolis Method UI material science - Keyboard as a “molecule” Annealing – shifting T

Slide 12

46.6 wpm – 36% more proficient than QWERTY

Slide 13

30% littler pursuit zone by Hick’s law examination Smith & Zhai INTERACT2001 Alphabetical “tuning” for amateur clients Novice client taping pace (wpm)

Slide 14

Word network Zipf’s law P i ~ 1/i an availability Index

Slide 15

18000 16000 14000 Word availability Human Movement Study: Fitts’ law MT = a + b Log 2 (D si/W i + 1) 12000 10000 8000 6000 4000 2000 0 sp E T A H O N S R I D L U W M C G Y F B P K V J X Q Z English Letter Corpus (News, visit and so on) “Fitts-digraph energy” Metropolis “random walk” improvement Alphabetical tuning Alphabetically Tuned and Optimized Mobile Interface Keyboard (ATOMIK)

Slide 16

Limitations and clues from ATOMIK Tapping one key at once – monotonous. The stylus can be more expressive and adroit. Does not use dialect excess/factual knowledge. Individuals have a tendency to recall the example of an entire word, not individual letters.

Slide 17

“word” Zhai, Kristensson, CHI 2003 The new stage - SHARK The fundamental thought: motioning the word example characterized by the console

Slide 18

Shorthand Aided Rapid Keyboarding ― SHARK Sample “ sokgraphs ” ( S horthand O n K eyboard)

Slide 19

Principle 1 - productivity “Writing” single word at once (not letters)

Slide 20

A type of shorthand

Slide 21

Principle 2: Scale and area unwinding Sokgraph designs, not individual letters crossed, are perceived and entered Lower visual consideration request from tapping

Slide 22

Principle 3: Duality tapping/following to signaling (Novice) User’s decision Tapping and following as an extension to shorthand signaling. Same direction design.

Slide 23

Principle 4: Zipf’s law and basic word segments A little number of words make disproportional percent of content Common parts e.g. - tion , - ing Benefits early

Slide 24

Principle 5 – Skill move Consistent development examples between tapping/following and motioning Visually guided activity to review based activity Gradual movement: shut circle to open-circle Falling back and relearning

Slide 25

Related Work Artificial letters in order Unistrokes (Goldberg & Richardson 1993) Graffiti (Blickenstorfer 1995) Quikwriting (Perlin 1998) Cirrin (Mankoff & Abowd 1998) Dasher (Ward, Blackwell, Mackay 2000) Marking menus (Kurtenbach & Buxton 1993) T-Cube (Venolia & Neiberg 1994)

Slide 26

Shark Gesture Recognition Gesture acknowledgment examining sifting standardization coordinating against models Many shape coordinating calculations intricacy – adaptability precision intellectual, discerning, motoric elements Currently versatile coordinating

Slide 27

Elastic Matching (Tappert 1982) Measuring bend to bend separation Finding so as to minimize normal separation nearest comparing focuses Dynamic programming

Slide 28

Live demo

Slide 29

Many issues Most convincing Can individuals learn, recall, produce conspicuous SHARK motions by any means? Are SHARK motion excessively self-assertive? Is SHARK truly possible?

Slide 30

Zhai, Kristensson, CHI 2003 A “Feasibility” Experiment

Slide 31

Results: number of words educated per session

Slide 32

Study conclusions SHARK motions can be found out About 15 words for each hour About 60 words learned in 4 hours – officially exceptionally helpful (40% BNC)

Slide 33

More research inquiries Robust sokgraph acknowledgment calculations are being created Intimate human-machine cooperation Visual consideration Learning, expertise obtaining How individuals see, recollect, produce signals (e.g. topological versus corresponding)? Speed precision exchange off How quick individuals can do signals? How “sloppy” individuals get? What is “reasonable”? How do client PC “negotiate”? Data measurement and displaying Theory!

Slide 34

D W Snapshot of other examination programs ― Laws of activity Law of Pointing (Fitts’ law) t = f (D/W) (Fitts, 1954) Pointing with adequacy and directional requirement (Accot & Zhai, CHI 2003) Two sorts of velocity exactness tradeoff (Zhai 2004) Law of Crossing More than spotting the i’s (Accot & Zhai, CHI’02) Law of Steering Beyond Fitts’ law (Drury 1975, Accot& Zhai CHI’97) VR movement (Zhai, Waltjer, IEEE VR 2003 best paper) More “laws” required

Slide 35

Snapshot of other exploration programs ― eye stare detecting based collaboration Hand-Eye composed activity ― MAGIC guiding (Zhai, Morimoto, Ihde CHI’99; Zhai CACM 2003) EASE Chinese information (Wang, Zhai, Su, CHI’01)

Slide 36

Thank you and inquiries

Slide 37

xW W Varying Key Sizes Fitts’ law log(D/W + 1) Central area impact Asymmetry Packing Varying control accuracy Combined Time from left toward right key Time from right to left key

Slide 38

35 30 2