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

Miika Silfverberg

dblp:99/671 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
4ranked-venue papers
3as first author
0since 2021 · last 2003
—ORCID · none

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

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 4 · 3 first-authorGraphics, computer vision, multimedia, augmented reality and games · 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
2 papers
Interaction techniques and input · 53% Usability and user experience research · 39% User interface design and tools · 8%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 5, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Usability and user experience research › evaluation methodology
pointing device evaluation
0.012001
Accuracy measures for evaluating computer pointing devices · CHI 2001
Interaction techniques and input › text entry
predictive text entry
0.012000
Predicting text entry speed on mobile phones · CHI 2000
Interaction techniques and input
text entry
0.012000
Predicting text entry speed on mobile phones · CHI 2000

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

experiment · 0.0fitts' law · 0.0digraph probability modeling · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
2003 Using Mobile Keypads with Limited Visual Feedback: Implications to Handheld and Wearable Devices
Miika Silfverberg
Mobile HCI1
2001 Accuracy measures for evaluating computer pointing devices
abstract
In view of the difficulties in evaluating computer pointing devices across different tasks within dynamic and complex systems, new performance measures are needed. This paper proposes seven new accuracy measures to elicit (sometimes subtle) differences among devices in precision pointing tasks. The measures are target re-entry, task axis crossing, movement direction change, orthogonal direction change, movement variability, movement error, and movement offset. Unlike movement time, error rate, and throughput, which are based on a single measurement per trial, the new measures capture aspects of movement behaviour during a trial. The theoretical basis and computational techniques for the measures are described, with examples given. An evaluation with four pointing devices was conducted to validate the measures. A causal relationship to pointing device efficiency (viz. throughput) was found, as was an ability to discriminate among devices in situations where differences did not otherwise appear. Implications for pointing device research are discussed.
I. Scott MacKenzie, Tatu Kauppinen, Miika Silfverberg
CHI3
2001 An Isometric Joystick as a Pointing Device for Handheld Information Terminals
Miika Silfverberg, I. Scott MacKenzie, Tatu Kauppinen
Graphics Interface1
2000 Predicting text entry speed on mobile phones
abstract
We present a model for predicting expert text entry rates for several input methods on a 12-key mobile phone keypad. The model includes a movement component based on Fitts' law and a linguistic component based on digraph, or letter-pair, probabilities. Predictions are provided for one-handed thumb and two-handed index finger input. For the traditional multi-press method or the lesser-used two-key method, predicted expert rates vary from about 21 to 27 words per minute (wpm). The relatively new T9 method works with a disambiguating algorithm and inputs each character with a single key press. Predicted expert rates vary from 41 wpm for one-handed thumb input to 46 wpm for two-handed index finger input. These figures are degraded somewhat depending on the user's strategy in coping with less-than-perfect disambiguation. Analyses of these strategies are presented.
Miika Silfverberg, I. Scott MacKenzie, Panu Korhonen
CHI1