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

Géry d'Ydewalle

dblp:15/2846 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
1as first author
0since 2021 · last 2011
—ORCID · none

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

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 2 · 1 first-authorArtificial intelligence and machine learning · 1Applied, interdisciplinary, general and emerging 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
Wearable and physiological sensing · 77% Usability and user experience research · 23%

Topics — the 1 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Wearable and physiological sensing
eye movements
0.011996
Knowledge acquisition in poetry criticism: the expert's eye movements as an information tool · Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud. 1996

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

eye tracking · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2011 Semantic, Aesthetic, and Cognitive Effects of Flashbacks in Film
Aline Sevenants, Géry d'Ydewalle
CogSci2
1996 Knowledge acquisition in poetry criticism: the expert's eye movements as an information tool
Johan Lauwereyns, Géry d'Ydewalle
Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud.2
1995 Graphical versus character-based word processors: an analysis of user performance
abstract
The study investigates how experienced computer users take advantage of the availability of graphic user interfaces in a word processing task. Performance time and actions were compared in three groups of subjects working respectively with WordPerfect 5.1, WordPerfect for Windows, or WordPerfect V2.00 for the Macintosh. The three groups did not differ in efficiency: they performed the word processing task at the same speed. Very few WordPerfect 5.1 users worked with the pull-down menus; the great majority preferred using the function key shortcuts. No significant difference in menu use was noted between the two graphical user interface word processors (Windows and Macintosh). Windows users did not apply shortcuts to move text, but used menus or the button bar instead. There was no difference in the use of the mouse between the Windows and Macintosh groups. While better task satisfaction is often reported with the availability of graphical user interfaces, our findings are in agreement with other studies suggesting that experienced users don't perform more efficiently with such a computer environment.
Géry d'Ydewalle, Jurgen Leemans, Johan van Rensbergen
Behav. Inf. Technol.1