EDBT 2026 Demo / reviewers in the wild / expert
Muhsin Ugur
dblp:161/3726
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2015
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 1 first-author
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
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Interaction techniques and input
mobile interaction |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Evaluating smartphone-based user interface designs for a 2D psychological questionnaire · UbiComp 2015 |
Interaction techniques and input › mobile interaction
mobile interface design |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Evaluating smartphone-based user interface designs for a 2D psychological questionnaire · UbiComp 2015 |
Interaction techniques and input
touch interaction |
0.2 | 1 | 2015 | Evaluating smartphone-based user interface designs for a 2D psychological questionnaire · UbiComp 2015 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
user study · 0.2
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2015 | Evaluating smartphone-based user interface designs for a 2D psychological questionnaireabstractThis study explored various user interface designs to transition a two dimensional (2D) questionnaire from its paper-and-pencil testing format to the mobile platform. The current administration of the test limits its usage beyond the lab environment. Creating a mobile version would facilitate ubiquitous administration of the test. Yet, the mobile design must be at least as good as its paper-based counterpart in terms of input accuracy and user interaction efforts. We developed four user interface designs, each of which featured a specific interaction approach. These approaches included displaying the 2D space of the questionnaire in its original form (M1), inputting one variable at a time on the 2D space (M2), dissolving the 2D space into two one-dimensional ordinal scales (M3), and orienting the input selections to the diagonal axes (M4). The designs were tested by a total of 34 participants, aged 18 to 52 years. The study results find the first three interaction approaches (M1-M3) effective but the fourth approach inefficient. Furthermore, the results indicate that the two-tap designs (M2 and M3) are equally as good as the one-tap design (M1). Muhsin Ugur, Dvijesh J. Shastri, Panagiotis Tsiamyrtzis, Malcolm Dcosta, Allison Kalpakci, Carla Sharp, Ioannis Pavlidis |
UbiComp | 1 |