Fitts' Law as a Research and Design Tool in Human-Computer Interaction¶
MacKenzie, I. S. (1992). Fitts' Law as a Research and Design Tool in Human-Computer Interaction. Human–Computer Interaction.
Cited by¶
1 citation across 1 artifact.
Each citation links to the sentence it supports in the citing article.
Domain-specific¶
- Fitts's Law
- The law has been validated across effectors (finger, hand, arm, head, foot, and gaze used as a pointing device — the eye material behind the usual citation is a gaze-as-cursor study, not saccade kinematics, and the fit for saccadic eye movement itself is contested), modalities (mouse, touchscreen, stylus, VR controller, eye tracker), and populations with small adjustments to a and b
This sourceThe canonical HCI review of Fitts's law, surveying replications across limb, head and foot effectors and across input devices (mouse, trackball, joystick, touchpad, helmet-mounted sight, eye tracker) with the constants re-fit per device, and treating the eye evidence as gaze-driven pointing rather than saccade kinematics; a 1992 review does not cover touchscreens, VR controllers or population-level validation. MacKenzie's HCI survey, the source for the breadth of the validation -- finger, wrist and arm movement, head pointing, foot control, and gaze used as a cursor, across mouse, trackball, joystick and touchpad; it does not carry the 'founding' priority, which is Fitts 1954's.
Supported in partVerified against the source
- The law has been validated across effectors (finger, hand, arm, head, foot, and gaze used as a pointing device — the eye material behind the usual citation is a gaze-as-cursor study, not saccade kinematics, and the fit for saccadic eye movement itself is contested), modalities (mouse, touchscreen, stylus, VR controller, eye tracker), and populations with small adjustments to a and b
Verification¶
Does it exist? Confirmed. This work's DOI resolves to a registered record, which fixes its identity. That is all it fixes.
Does it back the claim? Read against the text for 1 of 1 citation: 1 supported in part. Each verdict is shown under its citation below, with what in the work backs the sentence.
Support is checked per citation rather than per work — the same source can be cited soundly in one article and wrongly in another. Per-citation recording began recently, so a citation with no recorded check is a gap in the record rather than evidence it went unchecked.
See how references were verified.
Registry ID ref:fb5e0b1d1793 · see in the full table