### Table 1 Modular Properties

"... In PAGE 3: ... So, the final list of quality parameters for CM tool architectural design comparison is: Flexibility, testability, portability, availability, simplicity, traceability for correctness and communication, and interoperability 10. Based on Table1 , entries for every architecture, for each of their components, an assessment of the five parameters degree of cohesion, coupling, fan-out, complexity and module size is done, and corresponding ratings, like, M1, M2, M3, MF1 and MF2 are determined with the help of Table 1. Number of components = n; For each component compute following: CMPX_n = MF1*MF2 ; SMP_n =1-CMPX_n; MOD_n = M1*M2*M3 ; COM_n = Sqrt(MOD_n*(10-CMPX_n) ; Here, M1,M2,M3, MF1 and MF2 referrers to a particular component.... In PAGE 3: ... So, the final list of quality parameters for CM tool architectural design comparison is: Flexibility, testability, portability, availability, simplicity, traceability for correctness and communication, and interoperability 10. Based on Table 1, entries for every architecture, for each of their components, an assessment of the five parameters degree of cohesion, coupling, fan-out, complexity and module size is done, and corresponding ratings, like, M1, M2, M3, MF1 and MF2 are determined with the help of Table1 . Number of components = n; For each component compute following: CMPX_n = MF1*MF2 ; SMP_n =1-CMPX_n; MOD_n = M1*M2*M3 ; COM_n = Sqrt(MOD_n*(10-CMPX_n) ; Here, M1,M2,M3, MF1 and MF2 referrers to a particular component.... ..."

### Table 3. GPI applied to example pages GPI clicks GPI / clicks

2005

"... In PAGE 6: ... Both navigation pages are search pages, namely the simple search and the advanced search offering more selection possibilities. Table3 shows the absolute GPI values. In order to com- pare the GPI values of pages with different traffic density, we contrast their average GPIs per click.... ..."

Cited by 3

### Table 3: Mouse click movement

"... In PAGE 7: ... For example, clicking on one of the arrows of a scroll bar is classified as a press. Figure 3: Cursor movement while clicking Table3 summarises the numberof clicks of each type madeby each subject, giving the number in which there was no move- ment, and the number in which the mouse moved during the click. Dragging operations are omitted, since the movement within them is intentional.... ..."

### TABLE I CLASSIFICATION OF CLICK ELEMENTS

2003

Cited by 9

### TABLE I CLASSIFICATION OF CLICK ELEMENTS

2003

Cited by 9

### Table 28 Design dimensions for the Modular Event System Modular Event System

2005

"... In PAGE 6: ...able 27 Design dimensions for TSpaces .................................................................................................... 59 Table28 Design dimensions for the Modular Event System .... ..."

### Table 1. Modularity scores comparison

"... In PAGE 8: ... When we compared the modularity scores, we once again found the PCA-based methods outperforming MCODE and MCL. The modularity scores are given in Table1 . As we mentioned earlier, MCL produced a large number of clusters and most of the proteins in the clusters were sparsely connected.... ..."

### Table 2: The number of modular exponentiations.

"... In PAGE 11: ...that the actual numbers of modular exponentiations in the group signature-based scheme are larger than those shown in Table2 . The numbers in the proposed scheme are actual.... ..."

### Table 5. Modular Natural Semantics

2001

"... In PAGE 10: ...Similarly, Modular Natural Semantics requires all auxiliary entities to be incorporated in labels on evaluations. Apart from the usual differences between SOS and natural semantics, observe in Table5 that composition of labels has to be used explicitly in modular natural semantics. This composition corresponds to the threading of the store through premises of rules in conventional natural semantics, as was illustrated in Table 3.... ..."

Cited by 1

### Table 2: Data for the modular algorithm

"... In PAGE 8: ... For the time being our implementation handles square sys- tems that generate radical ideals. We compare our al- gorithm called TriangularizeModular with gsolve and Triangularize; For each benchmark system, Table 1 lists the numbers n; d; h a46 and Table2 lists the prime p1, the a priori and ac- tual number of lifting steps (a0 and a) and the maximal height of the output coe cients (Ca). Table 3 gives the time of one call to Triangularize modulo p1 ( p), the equiprojectable decomposition (Ep), and the lifting (Lift.... ..."