Understanding Pen and Touch Interaction for Data Exploration on Interactive Whiteboards
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
Current interfaces for common information visualizations such as bar graphs, line graphs, and scatterplots usually make use of the WIMP (Windows, Icons, Menus and a Pointer) interface paradigm with its frequently discussed problems of multiple levels of indirection via cascading menus, dialog boxes, and control panels. Recent advances in interface capabilities such as the availability of pen and touch interaction challenge us to re-think this and investigate more direct access to both the visualizations and the data they portray. We conducted a Wizard of Oz study to explore applying pen and touch interaction to the creation of information visualization interfaces on interactive whiteboards without implementing a plethora of recognizers. Our wizard acted as a robust and flexible pen and touch recognizer, giving participants maximum freedom in how they interacted with the system. Based on our qualitative analysis of the interactions our participants used, we discuss our insights about pen and touch interactions in the context of learnability and the interplay between pen and touch gestures. We conclude with suggestions for designing pen and touch enabled interactive visualization interfaces.
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 | 0.003 |
| 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