Improving Discoverability and Expert Performance in Force-Sensitive Text Selection for Touch Devices with Mode Gauges
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
Text selection on touch devices can be a difficult task for users. Letters and words are often too small to select directly, and the enhanced interaction techniques provided by the OS -- magnifiers, selection handles, and methods for selecting at the character, word, or sentence level -- often lead to as many usability problems as they solve. The introduction of force-sensitive touchscreens has added another enhancement to text selection (using force for different selection modes); however, these modes are difficult to discover and many users continue to struggle with accurate selection. In this paper we report on an investigation of the design of touch-based and force-based text selection mechanisms, and describe two novel text-selection techniques that provide improved discoverability, enhanced visual feedback, and a higher performance ceiling for experienced users. Two evaluations show that one design successfully combined support for novices and experts, was never worse than the standard iOS technique, and was preferred by participants.
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 | 0.001 |
| 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