MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W2611136445 · doi:10.1145/3025453.3025520

Investigating Tilt-based Gesture Keyboard Entry for Single-Handed Text Entry on Large Devices

2017· article· en· W2611136445 on OpenAlexaff
Hui-Shyong Yeo, Xiao-Shen Phang, Steven J. Castellucci, Per Ola Kristensson, Aaron Quigley

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInteractive and Immersive Displays
Canadian institutionsYork University
FundersEngineering and Physical Sciences Research CouncilUniversity of St Andrews
KeywordsStylusText entryGestureComputer scienceTilt (camera)Mobile deviceWords per minuteHuman–computer interactionPoint (geometry)TouchscreenComputer visionComputer graphics (images)EngineeringWorld Wide WebMathematics

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

The popularity of mobile devices with large screens is making single-handed interaction difficult. We propose and evaluate a novel design point around a tilt-based text entry technique which supports single handed usage. Our technique is based on the gesture keyboard (shape writing). However, instead of drawing gestures with a finger or stylus, users articulate a gesture by tilting the device. This can be especially useful when the user's other hand is otherwise encumbered or unavailable. We show that novice users achieve an entry rate of 15 words-per-minute (wpm) after minimal practice. A pilot longitudinal study reveals that a single participant achieved an entry rate of 32 wpm after approximate 90 minutes of practice. Our data indicate that tilt-based gesture keyboard entry enables walk-up use and provides a suitable text entry rate for occasional use and can act as a promising alternative to single-handed typing in certain situations.

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)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.010
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 score0.010

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.010
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.002
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0030.001

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.

Opus teacher head0.035
GPT teacher head0.296
Teacher spread0.261 · 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

Citations51
Published2017
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInteractive and Immersive DisplaysFrench-language works237,207