MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3162777344 · doi:10.1145/3411764.3445201

BezelGlide: Interacting with Graphs on Smartwatches with Minimal Screen Occlusion

2021· article· en· W3162777344 on OpenAlexaff
Ali Neshati, Bradley Rey, Ahmed Shariff Mohommed Faleel, Sandra Bardot, Celine Latulipe, Pourang Irani

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicInteractive and Immersive Displays
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Manitoba
Fundersnot available
KeywordsSmartwatchTouchscreenComputer scienceGraphOcclusionHuman–computer interactionComputer visionArtificial intelligenceWearable computerEmbedded systemTheoretical computer scienceMedicine

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

We present BezelGlide, a novel suite of bezel interaction techniques, designed to minimize screen occlusion and ‘fat finger’ effects, when interacting with common graphs on smartwatches. To explore the design of BezelGlide, we conducted two user studies. First, we quantified the amount of screen occlusion experienced when interacting with the smartwatch bezel. Next, we designed two techniques that involve gliding the finger along the smartwatch bezel for graph interaction. Full BezelGlide (FBG) and Partial BezelGlide (PBG), use the full or a portion of the bezel, respectively, to reduce screen occlusion while scanning a line chart for data. In the common value detection task, we find that PBG outperforms FBG and Shift, a touchscreen occlusion-free technique, both quantitatively and subjectively, also while mobile. We finally illustrate the generzability potential of PBG to interact with common graph types making it a valuable interaction technique for smartwatch users.

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)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.003
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Simulation or modeling · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.008
Threshold uncertainty score0.027

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.003
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.002
Research integrity0.0010.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0080.001

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 head0.012
GPT teacher head0.240
Teacher spread0.228 · 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 designSimulation or modeling
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

Citations23
Published2021
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicInteractive and Immersive DisplaysFrench-language works237,207