BUXTON,W. 1983. Lexical and pragmatic considerations of input structures. Comput. Graph. 17, 1, 31--37.  Home/Search   Document Not in Database   Summary   Related Articles   Check

....of interfaces have already been made. However, these approaches focused primarily on input devices. In this paper, we are concerned with both the input and output attributes of an interface. At the lower level of abstraction, classifications of input devices such as those proposed by Buxton [7] and by Card et al. 8] are based on physical properties (such as motion and pressure) the data that a device returns (discrete or continuous) and the dimensions of input a device provides. At a higher level of abstraction, Foley et al. focus on graphics sub tasks and propose a taxonomy ....

Buxton W.A.S. Lexical and pragmatic considerations of input structures. ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics 17 (Jan. 1983), pp. 31-37.

....input actions not supported natively in a specific platform. For example, better support for applications that need positional input could be provided in platforms that do not have touchscreen hardware. 60 Input devices have been tried to abstract in many ways in existing studies, for example, Buxton [1983] presents a taxonomy of devices to help create a model for input device abstractions. Buxton points that effective input device abstractions cannot be done without taking pragmatic issues into account. These issues contain, for example, things like input gestures, available space and attributes of ....

William Buxton, Lexical and pragmatic considerations of input structures. Computer Graphics 17, 1 (January 1983), 31-37.

....55 Table 4 2 Operational Guidelines for Display Technologies 2 . 56 Table 4 3 Buxton s taxonomy of interaction Devices. (Buxton, 1983) . 57 Table 4 4 Common User Input Tasks . 58 Table 4 5 3D Input ....

....Environment For a VR system to be useful, it is necessary to interact with various entities in the VE. Research being conducted into interaction in a VE has largely been split into two threads. Firstly, there is the development of interaction devices and associated interaction aids in the VE. (Buxton, 1983) illustrates a taxonomy of interaction devices (refer to Table 4 3) that places input devices in a matrix by the property sensed (rows) number of dimensions sensed (columns) requisite motor skills (sub columns) and interaction directness (sub rows) Clearly, some assumptions about human ....

[Article contains additional citation context not shown here]

Buxton, W., (1983), Lexical and Pragmatic Considerations of Input Structures, Computer Graphics, vol. 17, pp.

....an integrated interface, rather we need to consider the complete VR system. 2.1 Interaction in a Virtual Environment Research being conducted into interaction in a VE has largely been split into two areas. Firstly, there is the development of interaction devices and associated interaction aids. Buxton, 1983) illustrates a taxonomy of interaction devices that places input devices in a matrix according to the property sensed (rows) number of dimensions sensed (columns) requisite motor skills (sub columns) and interaction directness (sub rows) The main issue which arises from this representation is ....

....and interaction directness (sub rows) The main issue which arises from this representation is that peripherals tend to be designed with a specific set of tasks in mind. BT Technology Journal Third review version Btjournal.doc 18 December 1998 3 Table1. A taxonomy of interaction Devices. Buxton (1983) . The complex design issues for interaction devices have been highlighted by Wickens (1986) including effects arising from specific device characteristics. For example, the number of dimensions offered by the interaction device may fall short of the task requirements. Different combinations of ....

Buxton, W. (1983). Lexical and Pragmatic Considerations of Input Structures. Computer Graphics, 17(1), 31-37.

....understanding. An investigation of VE input devices, characteristics, and use may yield clearer comprehension of dialog between users and VEs. One manner in which to systematically examine input device space is through the use of structured taxonomies [Card et al. 1990] Foley et al. 1984] [Buxton, 1983]. Foley et al. 1984] provides useful mappings of input device to tasks, but does not elaborate on device properties that generated the mappings [MacKenzie, 1995] Moreover, the taxonomies mostly deal with two degrees of freedom (DOF) devices such as mice and trackballs, and are marginally ....

Buxton, W. (1983). Lexical and pragmatic considerations of input structures. Computer Graphics, 17(1):31--37.

....needs and abilities [LUSI93a] LUSI93b] Studies from the literature dealing with interaction techniques and devices have also been taken into account in the framework of the reported work. Some of them are: a taxonomy of input devices, which provides a systematic view of input device properties [BUXT83b]; work focusing on the mapping between information transmitted from devices and application semantics and specifies expressiveness and effectiveness criteria for evaluating and comparing alternative designs [MACK90] methodologies for the selection of interaction techniques selection [BLES90] ....

W. Buxton, "Lexical and pragmatic considerations of input structures", Computer Graphics, 17(1), 1983.

....an input device in the non dominant hand. Two experiments are new and are designed to measure the parameters of using a PDA. One experiment repeats an earlier study but uses a PDA in the non dominant hand. Since the actual pragmatics of input devices can have a large impact on their effectiveness [2, 8], we wanted to determine whether the results seen in prior experiments would also apply to using PDAs. In summary, the results are: x People can quickly and reliably hit large buttons drawn on the PDA with their left hands without looking. 99 of the button taps were correct on buttons that are ....

Buxton, W., "Lexical and Pragmatic Considerations of Input Structures." Computer Graphics, 1983. 17(1) pp. 31-37.

....linked so that the programmer can provide application specific definitions for any or all of these routines. This same technique is often used for building display oriented user interfaces where an application must handle interleaved events generated by the mouse, menu system, and console keyboard [4]. This organization helps in writing software that is always ready to handle any input event as opposed to always being in some mode expecting a particular type of input. 3. Preemption Preemption occurs when one process is stopped at an arbitrary instruction in order to run another process. ....

Buxton, William. Lexical and pragmatic considerations of input structures. Computer Graphics 17(1):31-36, 1983.

....of interfaces have already been made. However, these approaches focused primarily on input devices. In this paper, we are concerned with both the input and output attributes of an interface. At the lower level of abstraction, classifications of input devices such as those proposed by Buxton [7] and by Card et al. 8] are based on physical properties (such as motion and pressure) the data that a device returns (discrete or continuous) and the dimensions of input a device provides. At a higher level of abstraction, Foley et al. focus on graphics sub tasks and propose a taxonomy ....

Buxton W.A.S. Lexical and pragmatic considerations of input structures. ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics 17 (Jan. 1983), pp. 31-37.

....tremendous diversity of wildlife in nature [Mayer Ashlock, 1991] so must the interface researcher invest efforts toward the development of a suitable taxonomy or model of design options. Although a number of taxonomies have in fact been proposed to define existing interaction techniques [e.g. Buxton, 1983; Foley et al., 1984; Card et al., 1990] these have focussed primarily on classifying more conventional 2DOF input devices, such as the mouse and the trackball. Figure 1 presents a geometric model which defines a three dimensional 1 subset of the conceptual space that we are exploring and ....

Buxton, W., 1983, Lexical and pragmatic considerations of input structures, Computer Graphics, Vol.17, No.1, 31-37.

....devices. The first approaches centered around the idea of logical devices, where devices are grouped by the type of input they provide: for example, locator, string, valuator, choice [Foley, 1984a] Another approach organizes continuous input devices by property and the number of dimensions sensed [Buxton, 1983a] More recent approaches attempt to incorporate more of the ergonomic differences between seemingly similar devices into the taxonomy, to help guide the selection of the appropriate device for a task [Mackinlay, 1990a, Bleser, 1990a] Based on these approaches, devices used for manually operated ....

W. Buxton, "Lexical and Pragmatic Considerations of Input Structures," Computer Graphics, vol. 17, no. 1, pp. 31-37, 1983.

No context found.

BUXTON,W. 1983. Lexical and pragmatic considerations of input structures. Comput. Graph. 17, 1, 31--37.

No context found.

William Buxton. Lexical and pragmatic considerations of input structures. SIGGRAPH Comput. Graph., 17(1):31--37, 1983.

No context found.

Buxton, W. Lexical and pragmatic considerations of input structures. Comput. Graph. 17, 1 (1983), 31--37.

No context found.

William Buxton. "Lexical and Pragmatic Considerations of Input Structures," Computer Graphics. Computer Graphics. 1983b. 17(1). pp. 31-37.

No context found.

Buxton, W., "Lexical and Pragmatic Considerations of Input Structure," Computer Graphics, 17 (1), 1983, pp. 31-37.

No context found.

W. Buxton. Lexical and Pragmatic Considerations of Input Structures. Computer Graphics, 17 (1), 31-37, 1983.

Online articles have much greater impact   More about CiteSeer.IST   Add search form to your site   Submit documents   Feedback  

CiteSeer.IST - Copyright Penn State and NEC