Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!decwrl!ucbvax!ucbcad!zodiac!klee!klee
From: klee@klee.ads.com (Ken Lee)
Newsgroups: comp.cog-eng
Subject: Re: Issues of comp.cog-eng
Message-ID: <1060@zodiac.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 25-Nov-87 17:07:18 EST
Article-I.D.: zodiac.1060
Posted: Wed Nov 25 17:07:18 1987
Date-Received: Sun, 29-Nov-87 11:11:48 EST
References: <19@gollum.Columbia.NCR.COM> <52000002@hplabsb.UUCP>
Sender: news@zodiac.UUCP
Reply-To: klee@klee.UUCP (Ken Lee)
Organization: Advanced Decision Systems, Mt. View, CA (415) 941-3912
Lines: 16

In article <52000002@hplabsb.UUCP> jeffries@hplabsb.UUCP (Robin Jeffries) writes:
>A good starting point is "A comparison of selection techniques: touch panel,
>mouse, and keyboard", J. Karat, J.E. McDonald, and M. Anderson, Proceedigns
>of Interact'84, vol 2, p. 149.
>
>I think this work has since been published in Int. Journal of Man-Machine
>Studies, but I can't put my fingers on a reference off-hand.

It's in IJMMS (1986) Vol 25, p. 73-88.  Note that these results are based on
experimenting with a relatively crude application, using the input devices only
for menu selection.  As would be expected, the cognitively simple touch screen
wins since its limitations don't appear in this application.  Contrast these
results to what you would expect with a 3D CAD or medical imaging application.

Ken Lee
klee@ads.arpa