A Comparison of Ray Pointing Techniques for Very Large Displays
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Ray pointing techniques such as laser pointing have long been proposed as a natural way to interact with large and distant displays. However we still do not understand the differences between ray pointing alternatives and how they are affected by the large size of modern displays. We present a study where four different variants of ray pointing are tested for horizontal targeting, vertical targeting and tracing tasks in a room-sized display that covers a large part of the user‟s field of view. Our goal was to better under-stand two factors: control type and parallax under this sce-nario. The results show that techniques based on rotational control perform better for targeting tasks and techniques with low parallax are best for tracing tasks. This implies that ray pointing techniques must be carefully selected de-pending on the kind of tasks supported by the system. We also present evidence on how a Fitts‟s law analysis based on angles can explain the differences in completion time of tasks better than the standard analysis based on linear width and distance.
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.
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) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
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 it