MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2137057176 · doi:10.1145/1753326.1753663

The design and evaluation of multitouch marking menus

2010· article· en· W2137057176 on OpenAlexaff
G. Julian Lepinski, Tovi Grossman, George Fitzmaurice

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInteractive and Immersive Displays
Canadian institutionsAutodesk (Canada)
Fundersnot available
KeywordsComputer scienceHuman–computer interactionSet (abstract data type)GestureModalitiesMultimediaArtificial intelligence

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Despite the considerable quantity of research directed towards multitouch technologies, a set of standardized UI components have not been developed. Menu systems provide a particular challenge, as traditional GUI menus require a level of pointing precision inappropriate for direct finger input. Marking menus are a promising alternative, but have yet to be investigated or adapted for use within multitouch systems. In this paper, we first investigate the human capabilities for performing directional chording gestures, to assess the feasibility of multitouch marking menus. Based on the positive results collected from this study, and in particular, high angular accuracy, we discuss our new multitouch marking menu design, which can increase the number of items in a menu, and eliminate a level of depth. A second experiment showed that multitouch marking menus perform significantly faster than traditional hierarchal marking menus, reducing acquisition times in both novice and expert usage modalities.

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 machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.002
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.012
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Bench or experimental · Consensus signal: Bench or experimental
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.013

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0020.012
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0010.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.000

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.

Opus teacher head0.032
GPT teacher head0.307
Teacher spread0.275 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designBench or experimental
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

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".

Quick stats

Citations120
Published2010
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInteractive and Immersive DisplaysFrench-language works237,207