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

Dave Kong

dblp:05/1876 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-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 · 3

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
2 papers
Interaction techniques and input · 73% Human-robot interaction · 21% Ubiquitous computing and smart environments · 6%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 5, 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
Human-robot interaction
remote interaction
0.012001
Interacting at a Distance Using Semantic Snarfing · UbiComp 2001

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

user study · 0.0controlled experiment · 0.0semantic snarfing · 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
CHI5
2002 Flexi-Modal and Multi-Machine User Interfaces
abstract
We describe our system which facilitates collaboration using multiple modalities, including speech, handwriting, gestures, gaze tracking, direct manipulation, large projected touch-sensitive displays, laser pointer tracking, regular monitors with a mouse and keyboard, and wireless networked handhelds. Our system allows multiple, geographically dispersed participants to simultaneously and flexibly mix different modalities using the right interface at the right time on one or more machines. We discuss each of the modalities provided, how they were integrated in the system architecture, and how the user interface enabled one or more people to flexibly use one or more devices.
Brad A. Myers, Robert G. Malkin, Michael Bett, Alex Waibel, Ben Bostwick, Rob Miller 0001, Jie Yang 0001, Matthias Denecke, Edgar Seemann, Choon Hong Peck, Dave Kong, Jeffrey Nichols 0001, William L. Scherlis
ICMI12
2001 Interacting at a Distance Using Semantic Snarfing
Brad A. Myers, Choon Hong Peck, Jeffrey Nichols 0001, Dave Kong, Rob Miller 0001
UbiComp4