Number of co-authors:3
Number of publications with 3 favourite co-authors:Joanna Helga:Shawn X. Zhang:I. Scott MacKenzie:
R. William Soukoreff's 3 most productive colleagues in number of publications:I. Scott MacKenzie:67Shawn X. Zhang:5Joanna Helga:1
go to course
Gestalt Psychology and Web Design: The Ultimate Guide
go to course
Become a UX Designer from scratch
Starts tomorrow LAST CALL!
Marc Hassenzahl explains the fascinating concept of User Experience and Experience Design. Commentaries by Don Norman, Eric Reiss, Mark Blythe, and Whitney Hess
User Experience and Experience Design !
Our Latest Books
The Glossary of Human Computer Interaction
by Mads Soegaard and Rikke Friis Dam
The Social Design of Technical Systems: Building technologies for communities. 2nd Edition
by Brian Whitworth and Adnan Ahmad
Gamification at Work: Designing Engaging Business Software
by Janaki Mythily Kumar and Mario Herger
The Social Design of Technical Systems: Building technologies for communities
by Brian Whitworth and Adnan Ahmad
The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd Ed.
by Mads Soegaard and Rikke Friis Dam
R. William Soukoreff
Publications by R. William Soukoreff (bibliography)
MacKenzie, I. Scott, Soukoreff, R. William and Helga, Joanna (2011): 1 thumb, 4 buttons, 20 words per minute: design and evaluation of H4-writer. In: Proceedings of the 2011 ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology 2011. pp. 471-480. http://dx.doi.org/10.1145/2047196.2047258
We present what we believe is the most efficient and quickest four-key text entry method available. H4-Writer uses Huffman coding to assign minimized key sequences to letters, with full access to error correction, punctuation, digits, modes, etc. The key sequences are learned quickly, and support eyes-free entry. With KSPC = 2.321, the effort to enter text is comparable to multitap on a mobile phone keypad; yet multitap requires nine keys. In a longitudinal study with six participants, an average text entry speed of 20.4
© All rights reserved MacKenzie et al. and/or ACM Press
Soukoreff, R. William and MacKenzie, I. Scott (2004): Towards a standard for pointing device evaluation, perspectives on 27 years of Fitts' law research in HCI. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 61 (6) pp. 751-789. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2004.09.001
This paper makes seven recommendations to HCI researchers wishing to construct Fitts' law models for either movement time prediction, or for the comparison of conditions in an experiment. These seven recommendations support (and in some cases supplement) the methods described in the recent ISO 9241-9 standard on the evaluation of pointing devices. In addition to improving the robustness of Fitts' law models, these recommendations (if widely employed) will improve the comparability and consistency of forthcoming publications. Arguments to support these recommendations are presented, as are concise reviews of 24 published Fitts' law models of the mouse, and 9 studies that used the new ISO standard.
© All rights reserved Soukoreff and MacKenzie and/or Academic Press
Soukoreff, R. William and MacKenzie, I. Scott (2003): Metrics for text entry research: an evaluation of MSD and KSPC, and a new unified error metric. In: Cockton, Gilbert and Korhonen, Panu (eds.) Proceedings of the ACM CHI 2003 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference April 5-10, 2003, Ft. Lauderdale, Florida, USA. pp. 113-120.
Soukoreff, R. William and MacKenzie, I. Scott (2003): Input-Based Language Modelling in the Design of High Performance Text Input Techniques. In: Graphics Interface 2003 June 11-13, 2003, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada. pp. 89-96.
MacKenzie, I. Scott and Soukoreff, R. William (2002): Text Entry for Mobile Computing: Models and Methods, Theory and Practice. In Human-Computer Interaction, 17 (2) pp. 147-198.
Text input for mobile or handheld devices is a flourishing research area.
This article begins with a brief history of the emergence and impact of mobile
computers and mobile communications devices. Key factors in conducting sound
evaluations of new technologies for mobile text entry are presented, including
methodology and experiment design. Important factors to consider are identified
and elaborated, such as focus of attention, text creation versus text copy
tasks, novice versus expert performance, quantitative versus qualitative
measures, and the speed-accuracy trade-off. An exciting area within mobile text
entry is the combined use of Fitts' law and a language corpus to model, and
subsequently optimize, a text entry technique. The model is described, along
with examples for a variety of soft keyboards as well as the telephone keypad.
A survey of mobile text entry techniques, both in research papers and in
commercial products, is presented.
© All rights reserved MacKenzie and Soukoreff and/or Taylor and Francis
MacKenzie, I. Scott and Soukoreff, R. William (2002): A Model of Two-Thumb Text Entry. In: Graphics Interface 2002 May 27-29, 2002, Calgary, Alberta, Canada. pp. 117-124.
MacKenzie, I. Scott and Soukoreff, R. William (2002): A character-level error analysis technique for evaluating text entry methods. In: Proceedings of the Second Nordic Conference on Human-Computer Interaction October 19-23, 2002, Aarhus, Denmark. pp. 243-246. http://portal.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=572020.572056
We describe a technique to analyse character-level errors in evaluations of text entry methods. Using an algorithm for sequence comparisons, we generate the set of optimal alignments between the presented and transcribed text. Percharacter errors, categorized as insertions, substitutions, or deletions, are obtained by analysing the alignments and applying a weighting factor. A detailed example using a real data set is given.
© All rights reserved MacKenzie and Soukoreff and/or ACM Press
MacKenzie, I. Scott, Zhang, Shawn X. and Soukoreff, R. William (1999): Text Entry Using Soft Keyboards. In Behaviour and Information Technology, 18 (4) pp. 235-244.
Text entry rates are explored for several variations of soft keyboards. We present a model to predict novice and expert entry rates and present an empirical test with 24 subjects. Six keyboards were examined: the Qwerty, ABC, Dvorak, Fitaly, JustType, and telephone. At 8-10 wpm, novice predictions are low for all layouts because the dominant factor is the visual scan time, rather than the movement time. Expert predictions are in the range of 22-56 wpm, although these were not tested empirically. In a quick, novice test with a representative phrase of text, subjects achieved rates of 20.2 wpm (Qwerty), 10.7 wpm (ABC), 8.5 wpm (Dvorak), 8.0 wpm (Fitaly), 7.0 wpm (JustType), and 8.0 wpm (telephone). The Qwerty rate of 20.2 wpm is consistent with observations in other studies. The relatively high rate for Qwerty suggests that there is skill transfer from users' familiarity with desktop computers to the stylus tapping task.
© All rights reserved MacKenzie et al. and/or Taylor and Francis
Soukoreff, R. William and MacKenzie, I. Scott (1995): Theoretical Upper and Lower Bounds on Typing Speed using a Stylus and a Soft Keyboard. In Behaviour and Information Technology, 14 (6) pp. 370-379.
A theoretical model is presented to predict upper- and lower-bound text-entry rates using a stylus to tap on a soft QWERTY keyboard. The model is based on the Hick-Hyman law for choice reaction time, Fitts' law for rapid aimed movements, and linguistic tables for the relative frequencies of letter-pairs, or digrams, in common English. The model's importance lies not only in the predictions provided, but in its characterization of text-entry tasks using keyboards. Whereas previous studies only use frequency probabilities of the 26 x 26 digrams in the Roman alphabet, our model accommodates the space bar -- the most common character in typing tasks. Using a very large linguistic table that decomposes digrams by position-within-words, we established start-of-word (space-letter) and end-of-word (letter-space) probabilities and worked from a 27 x 27 digram table. The model predicts a typing rate of 8.9wpm for novices unfamiliar with the QWERTY keyboard, and 30.1 wpm for experts. Comparisons are drawn with empirical studies using a stylus and other forms of text entry.
© All rights reserved Soukoreff and MacKenzie and/or Taylor and Francis
Join our community and advance:
Page maintainer: The Editorial Team