The role of visual search in the design of effective soft keyboards
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
As portable, handheld computing devices become more common, alternatives to traditional keyboards must be explored. These alternatives must be compact, lightweight and sufficiently efficient to support the users' tasks. One alternative is the use of small physical keyboards or soft keyboards presented on touch-sensitive surfaces. Many alternative layouts have been explored, including the QWERTY, Dvorak, telephone and various alphabetic organizations. Soukoreff and MacKenzie proposed a model to predict typing times for alternative layouts, but have experienced limited success matching their predictions to observed performance. This paper proposes a revision of the visual search component of their model that considers the familiarity of the organization and the number of letters represented by each key. Results are reported of an experiment that supports the claim that both familiarity and the number of letters per key must be considered when predicting visual search times for alternative keyboard layouts.
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 | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| 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