section3 ;;Quote: arrow-jump keys 15% faster and 90% preferred; for small number of targets

QuoteRef: shneB8_1987 ;;section3 "In the study comparing the arrow keys (maybe better termed "jump" keys because the cursor would jump to the closes target in the direction pressed) to the mouse, the arrow-jump keys proved to be an average of 15% faster and preferred by almost 90% of the subjects (Ewing et al 1986). We conjecture that when there are a small number of targets on the screen and when arrow-jump keys can be implemented, they provide a rapid, predictable, and appealing mechanism for selection.

QuoteRef: shneB8_1987 ;;section3 "In the study comparing the arrow keys (maybe better termed "jump" keys because the cursor would jump to the closes target in the direction pressed) to the mouse, the arrow-jump keys proved to be an average of 15% faster and preferred by almost 90% of the subjects (Ewing et al 1986). We conjecture that when there are a small number of targets on the screen and when arrow-jump keys can be implemented, they provide a rapid, predictable, and appealing mechanism for selection.

section4.1 ;;Quote: embedded links produced better performance and higher satisfaction over menus at end of article

QuoteRef: shneB8_1987 ;;section4.1 "The results indicate about 25% improved performance speed in answering simple queries using the embedded [hypertext like] vs. the explicit menus. Subjective preference was strongly in favor of the embedded menus version. Apparently subjects found it rapid and convenient to recognize a vital highlighted word and to immediately jump to the related article, as opposed to turning screens until they reached the explicit menus at the end of articles.

QuoteRef: shneB8_1987 ;;section4.1 "The results indicate about 25% improved performance speed in answering simple queries using the embedded [hypertext like] vs. the explicit menus. Subjective preference was strongly in favor of the embedded menus version. Apparently subjects found it rapid and convenient to recognize a vital highlighted word and to immediately jump to the related article, as opposed to turning screens until they reached the explicit menus at the end of articles.

section4.2 ;;Quote: paper better than TIES for simple information retrieval tasks but about the same for complicated ones

QuoteRef: shneB8_1987 ;;section4.2 "The database on "The Holocaust and its Origin: The Case for Austria" (written by Dr. Marsha Rozenblit and Darla Courtney) containing 106 articles ... was used. ... Subjects were given a practice task for 5-8 minutes on either the TIES or Paper versions and then worked on the questions without assistance. Answers had to be written on a paper form. ... Subjects worked through the questions easily in both forms. The timing data indicated that paper was statistically significantly faster than TIES for the simple tasks [about twice as fast], but that for Tasks 2 [fact in body of article] and 3 [facts in two articles] there was no significant difference

QuoteRef: shneB8_1987 ;;section4.2 "The database on "The Holocaust and its Origin: The Case for Austria" (written by Dr. Marsha Rozenblit and Darla Courtney) containing 106 articles ... was used. ... Subjects were given a practice task for 5-8 minutes on either the TIES or Paper versions and then worked on the questions without assistance. Answers had to be written on a paper form. ... Subjects worked through the questions easily in both forms. The timing data indicated that paper was statistically significantly faster than TIES for the simple tasks [about twice as fast], but that for Tasks 2 [fact in body of article] and 3 [facts in two articles] there was no significant difference

section4.2 ;;Quote: subjects preferred working with TIES and thought it was faster and less tiring than paper

QuoteRef: shneB8_1987 ;;section4.2 "The post-test questionnaire revealed a positive attitude toward TIES. Sixteen expressed a preference for using TIES, two for paper, and two neutral. Even though the time was longer with TIES or equivalent, eight subjects perceived that TIES was faster, while only four thought paper was faster. Thirteen found paper more tiring, while only two found TIES more tiring. All twenty selected "interesting" as opposed to "boring" or "tiring" when questioned about TIES.

QuoteRef: shneB8_1987 ;;section4.2 "The post-test questionnaire revealed a positive attitude toward TIES. Sixteen expressed a preference for using TIES, two for paper, and two neutral. Even though the time was longer with TIES or equivalent, eight subjects perceived that TIES was faster, while only four thought paper was faster. Thirteen found paper more tiring, while only two found TIES more tiring. All twenty selected "interesting" as opposed to "boring" or "tiring" when questioned about TIES.