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
Demo Data from VLDB 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert

Jeff D. Edey

dblp:56/9727 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 1990
—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 · 87% Usability and user experience research · 13%

Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Interaction techniques and input › selection techniques
command selection		 0.011990
Measuring the true cost of command selection: techniques and results · CHI 1990
Interaction techniques and input
input modality comparison		 0.011990
Measuring the true cost of command selection: techniques and results · CHI 1990

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

timing measurement · 0.0controlled experiment · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1990 Measuring the true cost of command selection: techniques and results
abstract
A technique that measures the impact of command selection on task time and errors is described. Users were timed while performing a drawing task, then while performing the same task with interpolated command selections. The difference between these times, consisting of both the time to select the command and to resume drawing, is the time cost of command selection. Several interface configurations were evaluated with this method including selected combinations of single mouse, two mice, voice and touch. Touch and voice input resulted in faster command selection times (approximately 1 sec) than any of the mouse conditions (approximately 3 sec).
Richard F. Dillon, Jeff D. Edey, Jo W. Tombaugh
 CHI2