Demo Data from SIGIR 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Carlo Flemming
dblp:318/7916
· DBLP profile ↗
1ranked-venue papers
1as first author
1since 2021 · last 2022
—ORCID · none
Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several
Graphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1 · 1 first-author · 1 since 2021
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 |
Immersive interaction · 77% Interaction techniques and input · 23% |
Topics — the 2 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Immersive interaction › locomotion
locomotion interface |
0.6 | 1 | 2022 | How to Take a Brake from Embodied Locomotion - Seamless Status Control Methods for Seated Leaning Interfaces · VR 2022 |
Interaction techniques and input › input modality
multimodal input |
0.2 | 1 | 2022 | How to Take a Brake from Embodied Locomotion - Seamless Status Control Methods for Seated Leaning Interfaces · VR 2022 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
user study · 0.6
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 2022 | How to Take a Brake from Embodied Locomotion - Seamless Status Control Methods for Seated Leaning InterfacesabstractEmbodied locomotion, especially leaning, has one major problem. Effectively the regular functionality of the utilized body parts is overwritten. Thus, in this work, we propose 6 different status control methods that seamlessly switch off (brake) a seated leaning locomotion interface. Different input modalities, such as a physical button, voice, and gestures/metaphors, are used and evaluated against a baseline condition and a leaning interface with a bilateral transfer function. In a user study, participants were encouraged, but not forced to use these interfaces. They did, and the most diegetic interface, a hover-board metaphor, was the most preferred. However, the overall results are more heterogeneous and the interfaces vary in their suitability for different applications/scenarios. Therefore, we summarized the results in a guideline. Carlo Flemming, Benjamin Weyers, Daniel Zielasko |
VR | 1 |