Mid-air text input techniques for very large wall displays
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
Traditional text input modalities, namely keyboards, are often not appropriate for use when standing in front of very large wall displays. Direct interaction techniques, such as handwriting, are better, but are not well suited to situations where users are not in close physical proximity to the display. We discuss the potential of mid-air interaction techniques for text input on very large wall displays, and introduce two factors, distance-dependence and visibility-dependence, which are useful for segmenting the design space of mid-air techniques. We then describe three techniques that were designed with the goal of exploring the design space, and present a comparative evaluation of those techniques. Questions raised by the evaluation were investigated further in a second evaluation focusing on distance-dependence. The two factors of distance- and visibility-dependence can guide the design of future text input techniques, and our results suggest that distance-independent techniques may be best for use with very large wall displays.
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 | 0.001 | 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