Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

A. Chris Long

dblp:45/218 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 2002
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Interaction techniques and input · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Interaction techniques and input › large display interaction
distant display interaction
0.012002
Interacting at a distance: measuring the performance of laser pointers and other devices · CHI 2002
Interaction techniques and input › target selection › pointing
laser pointer interaction
0.012002
Interacting at a distance: measuring the performance of laser pointers and other devices · CHI 2002
Interaction techniques and input › input device
pointing devices
0.012002
Interacting at a distance: measuring the performance of laser pointers and other devices · CHI 2002

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

user study · 0.0controlled experiment · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2002 Interacting at a distance: measuring the performance of laser pointers and other devices
abstract
It is difficult to interact with computer displays that are across the room. A popular approach is to use laser pointers tracked by a camera, but interaction techniques using laser pointers tend to be imprecise, error-prone, and slow. Although many previous papers discuss laser pointer interaction techniques, none seem to have performed user studies to help inform the design. This paper reports on two studies of laser pointer interactions that answer some of the questions related to interacting with objects using a laser pointer. The first experiment evaluates various parameters of laser pointers. For example, the time to acquire a target is about 1 second, and the jitter due to hand unsteadiness is about ±8 pixels, which can be reduced to about ±2 to ±4 pixels by filtering. We compared 7 different ways to hold various kinds of laser pointers, and found that a laser pointer built into a PalmOS device was the most stable. The second experiment compared 4 different ways to select objects on a large projected display. We found that tapping directly on a wall-size SmartBoard was the fastest and most accurate method, followed by a new interaction technique that copies the area of interest from the big screen to a handheld. Third in speed was the conventional mouse, and the laser pointer came in last, with a time almost twice as long as tapping on the SmartBoard
Brad A. Myers, Rishi Bhatnagar, Jeffrey Nichols 0001, Choon Hong Peck, Dave Kong, Rob Miller 0001, A. Chris Long
CHI7