File Download

There are no files associated with this item.

  • Find it @ UNIST can give you direct access to the published full text of this article. (UNISTARs only)
Related Researcher

허성국

Heo, Seongkook
Read More

Views & Downloads

Detailed Information

Cited time in webofscience Cited time in scopus
Metadata Downloads

Full metadata record

DC Field Value Language
dc.citation.endPage 825 -
dc.citation.number 6 -
dc.citation.startPage 811 -
dc.citation.title INTERACTING WITH COMPUTERS -
dc.citation.volume 28 -
dc.contributor.author Hong, Joggi -
dc.contributor.author Heo, Seongkook -
dc.contributor.author Isokoski, Poika -
dc.contributor.author Lee, Geehyuk -
dc.date.accessioned 2026-04-06T17:23:00Z -
dc.date.available 2026-04-06T17:23:00Z -
dc.date.created 2026-03-31 -
dc.date.issued 2016-11 -
dc.description.abstract The QWERTY keyboard has been a de facto standard for computer text entry and continues to be one for mobile text entry such as for smartphones. It is not clear, however, that it will continue to be an option for text entry for much smaller devices such as smartwatches. In a series of user experiments, we examined the performance of the QWERTY keyboard when it is reduced to fit a small smartwatch screen. At the same time, we examined whether the ZoomBoard and the SplitBoard, which are QWERTY keyboards augmented by zooming and panning strategies, respectively, would be effective in comparison with a plain QWERTY keyboard. In Experiment 1, we evaluated the text entry performance of new users on the three QWERTY keyboards. In Experiment 2, we evaluated the relative performance of the three keyboards for three different screen sizes. In Experiment 3, we further observed how the keyboard performance changed when used in a mobile situation. Main results are: (i) users could adapt to a plain QWERTY keyboard even in the smallest screen cases. (ii) The SplitBoard consistently showed a better performance than other keyboards in all tested sizes. (iii) The SplitBoard showed a better performance than other keyboards in a mobile condition (treadmill) and was preferred most by participants. -
dc.identifier.bibliographicCitation INTERACTING WITH COMPUTERS, v.28, no.6, pp.811 - 825 -
dc.identifier.doi 10.1093/iwc/iww003 -
dc.identifier.issn 0953-5438 -
dc.identifier.scopusid 2-s2.0-84999288554 -
dc.identifier.uri https://scholarworks.unist.ac.kr/handle/201301/91217 -
dc.identifier.wosid 000388596300006 -
dc.language 영어 -
dc.publisher OXFORD UNIV PRESS -
dc.title Comparison of Three QWERTY Keyboards for a Smartwatch -
dc.type Article -
dc.description.isOpenAccess FALSE -
dc.relation.journalWebOfScienceCategory Computer Science, Cybernetics; Ergonomics -
dc.relation.journalResearchArea Computer Science; Engineering -
dc.type.docType Article -
dc.description.journalRegisteredClass scie -
dc.description.journalRegisteredClass ssci -
dc.description.journalRegisteredClass scopus -
dc.subject.keywordAuthor QWERTY keyboards -
dc.subject.keywordAuthor ZoomBoard -
dc.subject.keywordAuthor SplitBoard -
dc.subject.keywordAuthor smartwatch text entry -

qrcode

Items in Repository are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.