About Contact Help us

Join us ! Publish !

Interaction Design Foundation

Free educational materials - made by the world's technology elite

About sponsorships

References

Stan Riddersma

iPad and tablet version

Publication statistics

Pub. period:1994-1994
Pub. count:4
Number of co-authors:6

Co-authors

Number of publications with 3 favourite co-authors:

I. Scott MacKenzie:4
Malcolm Meltz:3
Craig McQueen:2

Productive colleagues

Stan Riddersma's 3 most productive colleagues in number of publications:

I. Scott MacKenzie:67
Blair Nonnecke:10
Malcolm Meltz:3

Calendar

May 20

CTS 2013 - The 2013 Intl. Conf. on Collaboration Techn. and Systems

May 22

Knowing (by) Designing 2013

May 27

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

May 18

“ It's really hard to design products by focus groups. A lot of times, people don't know what they want until you show it to them. ”

-- Steve Jobs, 1998

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

Stan Riddersma

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 Stan Riddersma (bibliography)

1994

Edit | Del

MacKenzie, I. Scott and Riddersma, Stan (1994): Effects of Output Display and Control-Display Gain on Human Performance in Interactive Systems. In Behaviour and Information Technology, 13 (5) pp. 328-337.

“Human performance comparisons on interactive systems were drawn between output displays (CRT and LCD) across settings of control-display gain. Empirical evidence was sought in light of the common feeling in the user community that motor-sensory tasks are more difficult on a system equipped with an LCD display vs. a CRT display. In a routine target acquisition task using a mouse, movement times were 34% longer and motor-sensory bandwidth was 25% less when the output display was an LCD vs. a CRT. No significant difference in error rates was found. Control-display (C-D) gain was tested as a possible confounding factor; however, no interaction effect was found. There was a significant, opposing main effect for C-D gain on movement time and error rates, illustrating the difficulty in optimizing C-D gain on the basis of movement time alone.”

Edit | Del

MacKenzie, I. Scott, Nonnecke, Blair, Riddersma, Stan, McQueen, Craig and Meltz, Malcolm (1994): Alphanumeric Entry on Pen-Based Computers. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 41 (5) pp. 775-792.

“Two experiments were conducted to compare several methods of numeric and text entry for pen-based computers. For numeric entry, the conditions were hand printing, tapping on a soft keypad, stroking a moving pie menu, and stroking a pie pad. For the pie conditions, strokes are made in the direction that numbers appear on a clock face. For the moving pie menu, strokes were made directly in the application, as with hand printing. For the pie pad, strokes were made on top of one another on a separate pie pad, with the results sent to the application. Based on speed and accuracy, the entry methods from best to worst were soft keypad (30 wpm, 1.2% errors), hand printing (18.5 wpm, 10.4% errors), pie pad (15.1 wpm, 14.6% errors), and moving pie menu (12.4 wpm, 16.4% errors). For text entry, the conditions were hand printing, tapping on a soft keyboard with a QWERTY layout, and tapping on a soft keyboard with an ABC layout (two rows of sequential characters). Tapping on the soft QWERTY keyboard was the quickest (23 wpm) and most accurate (1.1% errors) entry method. Hand printing was slower (16 wpm) and more error prone (8.1% errors). Tapping on the soft ABC keyboard was very accurate (0.6% errors) but was slower (13 wpm) than the other methods. These results represent the first empirical tests of entry speed and accuracy using a stylus to tap on a soft keyboard. Although handwriting (with recognition) is touted as the entry method of choice for pen-based computers, the much simpler technique of tapping on a soft keyboard is faster and more accurate.”

Edit | Del

McQueen, Craig, MacKenzie, I. Scott, Nonnecke, Blair, Riddersma, Stan and Meltz, Malcolm (1994): A comparison of four methods of numeric entry on pen--based computers. In: Graphics Interface 94 May 18-20, 1994, Banff, Alberta, Canada. pp. 75-82.

Edit | Del

MacKenzie, I. Scott, Nonnecke, R. Blair, McQueen, J. Craig, Riddersma, Stan and Meltz, Malcolm (1994): A Comparison of Three Methods of Character Entry on Pen-Based Computers. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 38th Annual Meeting 1994. pp. 330-334.

“Methods for entering text on pen-based computers were compared with respect to speed, accuracy, and user preference. Fifteen subjects entered text on a digitizing display tablet using three methods: hand printing, QWERTY-tapping, and ABC-tapping. The tapping methods used display-based keyboards, one with a QWERTY layout, the other with two alphabetic rows of 13 characters.”

Add publication