ISO's work on tactile and haptic interaction guidelines
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Tactile and haptic interaction is becoming increasingly important both in assistive technologies and in special purpose computing environments. While considerable research exists, the current lack of ergonomic standards in this area results in many systems being developed without sufficient concerns for either ergonomics or interoperability. This leads to serious ergonomic difficulties for users of multiple, incompatible or conflicting tactile/haptic devices/applications. A new set of ISO standards is being developed as a set of new parts of ISO 9241 Ergonomics of Human-System Interaction by a working group of ISO TC159/SC4 (WG9 Tactile and Haptic Interactions). These standards, which are being dual-tracked as both ISO and CEN standards, provide ergonomic requirements and recommendations for haptic and tactile hardware and software interactions, including guidance related to the design and evaluation of hardware, software, and combinations of hardware and software interactions. This paper starts with a short introduction on the background of tactile and haptic perception and devices. Thereafter, we will introduce the work plan for WG9 and the documents that already are, or will be under development in 2006/2007. More details are provided on the guidelines document, including an introduction of the framework that will be used to structure the guidance. The first working draft of this document was developed by experts from 6 countries, and combines guidance from 40 research papers and from 10 ISO standards.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".