Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Géry d'Ydewalle
dblp:15/2846
· DBLP profile ↗
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
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Wearable and physiological sensing
eye movements |
0.0 | 1 | 1996 | 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
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2011 | Semantic, Aesthetic, and Cognitive Effects of Flashbacks in Film
Aline Sevenants, Géry d'Ydewalle |
CogSci | 2 |
| 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 performanceabstractThe 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 |