Validating Eyes-free Affordance of On-Finger Hand Proximate User Interfaces in In-situ Scenarios
Bibliographic record
Abstract
We explore the value of Hand Proximate User Interfaces (HPUIs) for in-situ interactive head-mounted systems, i.e. systems designed to support a user’s primary activity. HPUIs are unencumbered, single-handed, and have tactile and proprioceptive affordances. This allows novice and expert users to rely on the visual cues available in the UI, but to then gradually interact eyes-free such that they minimize interrupting the user’s core task. Prior work on HPUI falls short of validating this premise. We address this gap with comparative analysis in the context of a compound task, where one hand is involved in a primary task and the second interacts with a secondary but supporting task (e.g. selecting items from a menu). We compare HPUI with mid-air direct interactions, a common form of interacting with head-mounted displays. The results show that HPUI performs similarly to mid-air but with better eyes-free affordances and user preferences.
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 imitationNot 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.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.014 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.005 | 0.001 |
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.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
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".