ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Some virtues and limitations of action inferring interfaces
Full text PdfPdf (1.09 MB)
Source Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology archive
Proceedings of the 5th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology table of contents
Monteray, California, United States
Pages: 79 - 88  
Year of Publication: 1992
ISBN:0-89791-549-6
Author
Sponsors
SIGGRAPH: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer Graphics and Interactive Techniques
SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 2,   Downloads (12 Months): 9,   Citation Count: 3
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues   peer to peer  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/142621.142631
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

An action inferring facility for a multimodal interface called Edward is described. Based on the actions the user performs, Edward anticipates future actions and offers to perform them automatically. The system uses inductive inference to anticipate actions. It generalizes over arguments and results, and detects patterns on the basis of a small sequence of user actions, e.g. “copy a lisp file; change extension of original file into .org; put the copy in the backup folder”. Multimodality (particularly the combination of natural language and simulated pointing gestures) and the reuse of patterns are important new features. Some possibilities and problems of action inferring interfaces in general are addressed. Action inferring interfaces are particularly useful for professional users of general-purpose applications. Such users are unable to program repetitive patterns because either the applications do not provide the facilities or the users lack the capabilities.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
 
2
Bos, E., Claassen, W., & Huls, C. (forthcoming). Edward: a multimodal interface. SPIN/MMC research report. Nijmegen: NICI.
 
3
 
4
Claassen, W., Bos, E., & Huls, C. (1990). The Pooh Way in human-computer interaction: towards multimodal interfaces. SPIN~MC Research report #5. Nijmegen: NICI.
 
5
Claassen, W., Bos, E., & Huls, C. (submitted). Automatic referent resolution in deictic and anaphoric expressions. Submitted to Computational Linguistics.
 
6
Claassen, W. & Huls, C. (1991). DoNaLD: A Dutch Natural Language Dialogue system. SPIN/MMC research report #11. Nijmegen: NICI.
 
7
8
 
9
Cypher, A. (1992). Personal communication.
 
10
Forsyth, R. (Ed.) (1989). Machine learning. London: Chapman and Hall.
 
11
Frohlich, D.M. (1991) The design space of interfaces. In: Kjelldahl, L. (Ed.) Multimedia: principles, systems and applications. Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
 
12
 
13
Lewis, C. & Norman, D. (1986). Designing for error. In: Norman, D.A. & Draper, S.W. (Eds.) User centered system design: new perspectives on human-computer interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
14
 
15
 
16
Myers, B.A. (1990). Demonstrational interfaces: a step beyond direct manipulation. In: Diaper, D. & Hammond, N. (Eds.) People and computers VI. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
17
 
18
Norman, D.A. (1986). Cognitive engineering. In: Norman, D.A. & Draper, S.W. (Eds.) User centered system design: new perspectives on human-computer interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
 
19



Peer to Peer - Readers of this Article have also read: