Calendar

May 22

Knowing (by) Designing 2013

May 27

13th Intl. Conf. on New Interfaces for Musical Expression

May 28

Graphics Interface 2013

May 21

“ Computer analyst to programmer: "You start coding. I'll go find out what they want." ”

-- Popular computer one-liner

Share this quote on...
Get more quotes via RSS or by joining our Usability Quote of the Day Facebook Page

Featured chapter

Read the fascinating history of Wearable Computing, told by its father, Steve Mann

Read Steve's chapter !

Help us help you!

Spread the word:
Donate
Other ways to help

Michael S. Miller

Add description

← Button will not work: You have not enabled Javascript. How do I enable it?

Rename / change spelling

Add publication

← Button will not work: You have not enabled Javascript. How do I enable it?

Publications by Michael S. Miller (bibliography)

1999

Edit | Del

Sebrechts, Marc M., Cugini, John V., Laskowski, Sharon J., Vasilakis, Joanna and Miller, Michael S. (1999): Visualization of Search Results: A Comparative Evaluation of Text, 2D, and 3D Interfaces. In: Proceedings of the 22nd Annual International ACM SIGIR Conference on Research and Development in Information Retrieval 1999. pp. 3-10.

1992

Edit | Del

Santos, Paulo J., Baltzer, Amy J., Badre, Albert N., Henneman, Richard L. and Miller, Michael S. (1992): On Handwriting Recognition System Performance: Some Experimental Results. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting 1992. pp. 283-287.

“Performance of a rule-based handwriting recognition system is considered. Performance limits of such systems are defined by the robustness of the character templates and the ability of the system to segment characters. Published performance figures, however, are typically based on pre-segmented characters. Six experiments are reported (using a total of 128 subjects) that tested a state-of-the-art recognition system under more realistic conditions. Variables investigated include display format (grid, lined, and blank), surface texture, feedback (location and time delay), amount of training, practice, and effects of use over an extended period. Results indicated that novice users writing on a lined display (the most preferred format) averaged 57% recognition performance. By giving subjects continuous feedback of results, training, and after about 10 minutes of use, the system averaged 90.6% character recognition. Following three hours of interrupted use and with performance incentives, subjects achieved an average 96.8% accuracy with the system. Future work should focus on improving the ability of the recognition algorithm to segment characters and on developing non-obtrusive interaction techniques to train users, to provide feedback and to correct mis-recognized characters.”

Add publication