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