Apple Inc. v. Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd. et al
Filing
165
Declaration of BENJAMIN B. BEDERSON IN SUPPORT OF SAMSUNG'S OPPOSITION TO APPLE'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION filed bySamsung Electronics America, Inc., Samsung Electronics Co. Ltd., Samsung Telecommunications America, LLC. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A, #2 Exhibit B, #3 Exhibit C, #4 Exhibit D, #5 Exhibit E, #6 Exhibit F, #7 Exhibit G, #8 Exhibit H, #9 Exhibit I, #10 Exhibit J, #11 Exhibit K, #12 Exhibit L, #13 Exhibit M)(Maroulis, Victoria) (Filed on 8/22/2011) Modified on 8/29/2011 cannot link entry-opposition has not been efiled (dhm, COURT STAFF).
<![CDATA[
EXHIBIT C
Subject: FW:
CHI
2005
Papers
notification
-‐
#288
Date: Monday,
December
13,
2004
6:52:44
PM
ET
From:
To:
Amy
Karlson
Bederson,
Ben
Yeah!
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐Original
Message-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
From:
chi2005-‐papers@acm.org
[mailto:chi2005-‐papers@acm.org]
Sent:
Monday,
December
13,
2004
5:48
PM
To:
akk@cs.umd.edu
Cc:
chi2005-‐papers@acm.org
Subject:
CHI
2005
Papers
notification
-‐
#288
Dear
Amy
Karlson
We
are
pleased
to
inform
you
that
your
paper
288
-‐
AppLens
and
LaunchTile:
Two
Designs
for
One-‐Handed
Thumb
Use
on
Small
Devices
has
been
accepted
as
a
full
paper
to
the
CHI
2005
conference.
CHI
2005
accepted
only
93
papers
as
full
papers
out
of
371
submissions.
This
year
acceptances
to
the
CHI
2005
papers
program
are
considered
conditional
upon
a
revision
of
the
paper
by
the
author
and
final
review
and
recommendation
by
the
Associate
Chair
handling
your
submission.
A
CHI
long
paper
represents
a
significant
contribution
to
the
HCI
field,
and
this
year
we
took
strides
to
obtain
an
expert
and
thorough
set
of
reviews
for
each
submission.
Most
papers
received
at
least
some
suggestions
for
improvement;
guidelines
that
reflect
the
most
pressing
issues
from
the
set
of
reviews
and
the
discussion
at
the
program
committee
meeting
are
summarized
in
your
meta-‐review
below.
We
encourage
you
further
improve
your
paper
based
on
this
input.
In
your
final
revision,
you
should
address
the
problems
and
improvements
the
Associate
Chair
has
outlined
in
the
meta-‐review,
and
prepare
a
short
revision
letter
outlining
the
changes
you've
made
in
response
to
the
points
raised.
You
will
need
to
upload
your
final
revision
to
the
"PCS"
system
along
with
your
revision
letter.
The
Associate
Chair
will
review
the
final
revision
and
make
a
recommendation
to
the
Papers
Chairs;
final
decisions
will
be
made
by
the
Chairs.
Papers
failing
to
satisfactorily
address
the
issues
outlined
in
the
meta-‐review
may
not
be
included
in
the
papers
program.
Your
revision
is
due
on
Jan
10,
2005
and
must
be
uploaded
into
the
PCS
system
by
5:00PM
Pacific
Standard
Time
(+8:00
GMT).
Congratulations
for
making
it
this
far.
We
look
forward
to
receiving
your
revised
version
and
hearing
your
work
at
the
conference.
Sincerely,
Wendy
A.
Kellogg
&
Shumin
Zhai
CHI
2005
Papers
Co-‐Chairs
The
PCS
system:
www.precisionconference.com/~sigchi
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
Paper
288,
Review
4
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
Title:
AppLens
and
LaunchTile:
Two
Designs
for
One-‐Handed
Thumb
Use
on
Small
Devices
Reviewer
AC
Overall
rating
4
(scale
is
1..5;
5
is
best)
Contribution
to
HCI
Presents
two
new
interfaces,
based
on
zooming,
for
switching
between
applications
on
a
small
platform
with
a
small
screen,
using
one
hand,
along
with
a
user
study
evaluating
it.
The
Meta-‐Review
The
paper
presents
a
nice
blend
of
innovative
new
technology/UI
design
with
user
evaluation.
The
new
interfaces
use
different
forms
of
zooming
to
switch
between
applications,
to
make
effective
use
of
the
very
small
screen
space
available.
The
work
falls
into
the
category
of
scalable
user
interfaces,
which
is
an
important
area
for
the
wide
range
of
current
small
platforms.
In
addition,
explicity
thinking
about
one-‐hand
usage
of
the
input
device
on
a
small
platform
is
relatively
novel.
The
reviewers
seem
to
feel
that
this
is
a
good
paper,
but
not
perfect,
they
noted
some
flaws
and
problems,
also
complained
that
its
contribution
could
have
been
a
little
more
focused,
but
they
generally
liked
the
work.
Associate
Chair's
Additional
Comments
Overall
Associate
Chair
Rating
4
(Probably
accept:
I
would
argue
for
accepting
this
pape)
Comments
on
Overall
Recommendation
While
this
is
a
good
contribution,
there
are
enough
flaws
in
the
paper
noted
by
the
reviewers
to
indicate
a
"4"
rather
than
a
"5"
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
Paper
288,
Review
1
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
Title:
AppLens
and
LaunchTile:
Two
Designs
for
One-‐Handed
Thumb
Use
on
Small
Devices
Overall
rating
4
(scale
is
1..5;
5
is
best)
Expertise
Rating
3
(Knowledgeable:
I
have
some
expertise
in
this
area:
I've
worked
in
the
area
and
have
followed
its
literature
reasonably
recently)
Contribution
to
HCI
Contribution
to
HCI:
Proposes
two
designs
for
displaying
and
navigating
between
multiple
applications
on
a
small
display.
The
application
shells
can
be
controlled
single-‐handedly
with
thumb
gestures.
Assesses
usability
of
the
systems
in
two
ways:
a
controlled
study
of
the
gestures
used
in
one
design,
and
a
qualitative
comparison
of
the
two
designs.
The
Review
Relevant
previous
work:
The
most
direct
predecessor
is
DateLens
(Bederson
et
al.,
2003)
,
although
the
growing
body
of
work
on
small
screen
displays
is
also
relevant.
Previous
work
focused
on
single
applications.
This
paper
extends
these
ideas
to
inter-‐application
navigation
and
display.
The
two
designs
presented
are
nice
engineering
applications
of
well-‐established
HCI
methods
such
as
focus+context
and
zooming
interfaces.
Significance
of
the
contribution
and
benefit:
I
am
impressed
by
the
ambition
and
completeness
of
these
designs.
The
designs
clearly
show
a
lot
of
work
on
detailed
design
and
implementation.
These
details
provide
excellent
food
for
thought
for
designers
working
in
small
screen
displays.
The
two
studies
at
the
end
seem
weaker.
They
are
sketchily
described
and
rather
narrow
in
focus.
They
do
not
provide
a
more
general
comparison
between
the
designs.
Overall,
the
contribution
suffers
from
the
paper's
deliberately
diffuse
focus.
Presented
with
two
designs
and
two
studies,
I
found
it
hard
to
specify
an
exact
contribution.
Granted,
the
common
theme
is
one-‐handed
control
of
designs
for
navigation
shells.
However,
within
that
broad
theme,
the
paper
aims
at
several
different
targets.
For
example,
the
Conclusion
section
mentions
one-‐handed,
notification-‐based,
and
scalable
designs.
To
my
reading,
the
issue
of
notification-‐based
designs
was
not
meaningfully
addressed,
as
the
notification
processes
are
more
alluded
to
than
described
and
the
participants
in
both
studies
did
not
work
with
applications
receiving
live
data
from
external
sources.
With
respect
to
one-‐handedness,
the
first
study
addresses
one-‐handed
gestures,
but
its
results
are
not
integrated
into
any
general
discussion.
The
second
study
merely
reports
that
users
thought
they
would
prefer
a
one-‐handed
interface,
based
upon
only
brief
exposure
to
the
authors'
systems.
Validity
of
the
work
presented:
The
design
was
completely
described,
although
in
a
few
places
I
wanted
more
details.
However,
the
first
study
has
insufficient
detail
to
be
replicated
(task
incompletely
described,
layout
of
screen
unclear).
The
second
study
is
formative
and
local,
more
likely
to
provide
guidance
to
the
authors
than
insight
to
the
readers.
Originality
of
the
work:
I
like
the
creativity
of
these
designs,
and
I
particularly
appreciate
the
authors
giving
us
two
rather
different
points
in
the
design
space.
Areas
for
Improvement
1.
Provide
a
screen
shot
of
the
first
study
configuration.
It
is
not
clear
to
me
just
how
many
layers
of
navigation
were
presented
(2?).
Provide
more
description
of
the
task.
2.
Remove
the
forward
reference
to
LaunchTile
on
p.
3,
within
the
description
of
the
AppLens
gestures.
Since
LaunchTile
had
not
been
described
at
that
point,
I
became
quite
confused.
3.
Give
average
session
lengths
for
both
studies.
4.
On
p.
7,
you
state
"...the
gaps
were
wider
on
the
task
the
first
third
had
trouble
with".
This
doesn't
seem
to
be
the
case
in
Fig
5,
where
the
gap
on
A_2
is
in
fact
wider
than
N_5,
despite
the
latter
being
the
second
most-‐difficult
task.
Rating
4
(Probably
accept:
I
would
argue
for
accepting
this
paper.)
Additional
Comments
Copyediting:
p.
4:
"Two
gestures
defined
by...
common
commands":
Remove
the
inverted
syntax
and
break
into
multiple
sentences.
p.
4:
First
two
sentences
of
"Using
command
gestures
within
AppLens"
are
complex
and
awkward.
p.
5:
First
few
sentences
of
"Zoom
Control"
were
confusing,
although
I
can't
put
my
finger
on
the
problem.
p.
7:
I
suggest
"Participants
rated
their
experience
using
five
9-‐point
Likert
scales:"
Also
remove
the
numbers
before
the
scale
descriptions-‐-‐-‐at
first
reading,
I
thought
they
were
scale
*values*
instead.
p.
8:
Reword
the
sentence
so
that
it
doesn't
begin
with
a
figure
(3
participants...)
p.
8:
Again,
don't
introduce
AppLens
in
the
description
of
the
LaunchTile
results.
Also,
present
the
results
of
the
second
study
in
the
same
order
as
you
introduce
the
two
systems
earlier
in
the
paper.
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
Paper
288,
Review
2
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
Title:
AppLens
and
LaunchTile:
Two
Designs
for
One-‐Handed
Thumb
Use
on
Small
Devices
Overall
rating
4
(scale
is
1..5;
5
is
best)
Expertise
Rating
4
(
Expert:
I
am
an
expert
in
this
area:
I
have
published
or
worked
in
the
area
and
follow
the
literature
closely)
Contribution
to
HCI
This
paper
presents
two
interfaces
for
navigating
and
browsing
a
set
of
applications
on
a
PDA
or
Smartphone
that
support
one-‐handed
thumb
interaction.
User
studies
show
that
the
techniques
have
some
promise,
at
least
for
PDAs.
The
Review
This
paper
contributes
two
interesting
designs
for
combining
one-‐handed
thumb
based
interaction
with
Scalable-‐UI
techniques
for
mobile
devices.
One-‐handed
interaction
on
mobile-‐devices
is
an
important
area
for
current
research,
as
I
believe
people
want
to
use
one
hand
to
interface
with
their
devices
but
there
are
few,
if
any,
popular
methods
in
the
commercial
or
research
spaces.
The
only
one
of
note
might
be
the
iPod,
but
that
isn't
as
general
purpose
a
device
as
the
PDAs
and
phones
that
the
interfaces
in
this
paper
target.
The
two
presented
interfaces
are
called
AppLens
and
LaunchTile.
The
AppLens
interface
is
interesting
because
it
combines
three
different
levels
of
a
tabular
fisheye
view
with
a
gesture-‐based
interface
for
navigation.
The
gesture
design
seems
to
be
well
thought
out
for
use
with
the
thumb.
The
LaunchTile
interface,
by
comparison,
does
not
seem
nearly
as
original.
Its
somewhat
reminiscent
of
the
Zone
Zoom
technique
developed
at
Microsoft
(Robbins,
D.,
Cutrell,
E.,
Sarin,
R.,
Horvitz,
E.,
ZoneZoom:
Map
Navigation
for
Smartphones
with
Recursive
View
Segmentation,
Proceedings
of
Advanced
Visual
Interfaces,
Gallipoli,
Italy).
The
only
organization
of
apps
is
tiling
and
the
design
of
the
blue
button
(as
discovered
in
the
second
study)
does
not
seem
well
thought
out.
Having
access
to
36
applications
also
seems
a
little
unnecessary.
I
think
I
use
only
about
10
apps
regularly
on
my
Smartphone,
and
even
the
example
screenshot
in
the
paper
does
not
show
36
convincing
apps.
I
also
have
a
hard
time
imagining
that
this
interface
would
scale
well
to
the
smaller
screen
of
a
Smartphone.
This
paper
cites
most
of
the
relevant
work
that
I
am
aware
of.
The
iPod
is
probably
worthy
of
a
mention.
There
was
also
a
short
paper
at
CHI'03
about
thumb
input
on
mobile
phones
that
the
authors
might
wish
to
mention
(Hirotaka,
N.
Reassessing
current
cell
phone
designs:
Using
thumb
input
effectively.
Extended
Abstracts
of
ACM
CHI
'03.
Ft.
Lauderdale,
Florida,
April
2003,
938-‐939).
The
EdgeWrite
text
entry
method
(Wobbrock,
J.O.,
Myers,
B.A.
and
Kembel,
J.A.
EdgeWrite:
A
stylus-‐based
text
entry
method
designed
for
high
accuracy
and
stability
of
motion.
Proceedings
of
ACM
UIST
'03.
Vancouver,
B.C.,
November
2003,
61-‐70)
is
more
conducive
to
use
of
the
thumb
than
the
methods
this
paper
mentions...
It
might
be
interesting
to
think
about
some
of
these
interaction
concepts
within
the
constraints
of
the
physical
edges
used
by
Edgewrite.
In
general,
it
seems
like
more
iteration
is
needed
with
these
interfaces.
The
user
studies
presented
at
the
end
of
the
paper
discover
problems
that
are
interesting
but
should
have
been
fixed.
I
would
particulary
like
to
know
how
the
LaunchTile
interface
fares
compared
to
AppLens
when
the
Blue
button
is
updated
to
deal
with
the
overloading
problem.
I
think
that
there
also
needs
to
be
some
validation
of
these
interfaces
against
other
existing
interfaces.
Most
phones
allow
one-‐handed
interaction
already,
so
I
think
there
is
some
opportunity
to
do
comparisons
with
other
designs.
I
would
also
like
to
see
some
follow-‐on
studies
to
show
that
these
interfaces
are
viable
and
usable
designs
for
the
Smartphone
in
addition
to
the
PDA.
Areas
for
Improvement
The
writing
was
clear.
The
only
improvement
I
can
suggest
would
be
to
make
the
description
of
the
LaunchTile
interface
clearer.
Until
watching
the
video,
I
didn't
completely
understand
some
aspects
of
this
technique.
In
particular
the
part
about
blue
snapping
zones
to
the
center
in
Panning
Techniques
was
confusing
to
me.
The
discussion
of
the
studies
could
also
be
tightened
up.
They
don't
contribute
much
to
the
overall
paper...
It
would
almost
be
better
to
spend
some
more
effort
talking
about
the
design
decisions
made
in
creating
the
interfaces
rather
than
showing
some
limited
validation.
Rating
4
(Probably
accept:
I
would
argue
for
accepting
this
paper.)
Additional
Comments
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
Paper
288,
Review
3
-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐-‐
Title:
AppLens
and
LaunchTile:
Two
Designs
for
One-‐Handed
Thumb
Use
on
Small
Devices
Overall
rating
3
(scale
is
1..5;
5
is
best)
Expertise
Rating
3
(Knowledgeable:
I
have
some
expertise
in
this
area:
I've
worked
in
the
area
and
have
followed
its
literature
reasonably
recently)
Contribution
to
HCI
This
paper
shows
two
zooming
interfaces
for
application
finders,
which
primarily
address
the
problem
of
switching
between
applications
on
a
PDA
or
mobile
phone.
The
Review
This
paper
is
tackling
an
important
problem:
navigating
between
applications
on
a
small
device
takes
time
and
attention,
and
finding
ways
to
do
these
operations
one-‐handed
is
clearly
valuable
to
users.
The
paper
has
good
coverage
of
related
work;
I
don't
have
anything
to
add.
The
two
designs
presented
are
interesting
points
in
the
design
space,
and
I
enjoyed
reading
about
them
as
case
studies.
But
it
isn't
clear
what
contribution
or
design
lessons
can
be
taken
away
from
them.
One
possible
contribution
is
command
gestures:
single-‐thumb
strokes
that
move
an
object
cursor
around
the
screen.
But
I
don't
understand
the
advantage
of
this
idea
over
simple
directional
hardware
(i.e.
an
arrow
diamond
or
joystick).
Hardware
buttons
are
already
built
into
PDAs
and
cellphones,
and
don't
have
any
of
the
disadvantages
seen
in
the
user
study
of
command
gestures.
Another
possible
contribution
is
applying
the
tabular
fisheye
design
to
applications,
so
that
one
application
occupies
most
of
the
screen,
and
other
applications
are
tiled
at
much
smaller
sizes,
presenting
only
high-‐value
information.
One
truly
novel
idea
is
the
"Blue"
button,
a
central
component
of
the
display
which
serves
a
variety
of
purposes:
navigation
landmark,
navigation
button,
and
selection
toolglass.
Although
the
user
studies
were
mixed
on
the
effectiveness
of
Blue,
it's
thought-‐provoking.
Overall
then,
it's
good
work
in
an
important
area
that's
certainly
relevant
to
CHI,
but
the
take-‐home
message
and
significance
is
a
little
fuzzy.
Areas
for
Improvement
The
paper
was
for
the
most
part
very
clear
and
accessible,
but
a
few
parts
were
confusing:
(1)
What
do
FORWARD
and
BACKWARD
do?
The
paper
said
they
were
equivalent
to
Tab
and
Alt-‐Tab
on
Windows,
but
that
doesn't
make
sense:
Tab
steps
between
form
fields,
and
Alt-‐Tab
steps
between
applications.
(2)
This
sentence
was
perplexing:
"If
the
current
target
is
an
internal
target
in
an
activated
state,
the
CANCEL
button
deactivates
the
target."
(3)
"the
directional
gestures
are
semantic
in
design"
was
vague;
after
all,
every
interface
element
is
designed
with
some
kind
of
semantics.
Perhaps
what
was
meant
is
that
the
directional
gestures
are
directly
mapped
to
their
function
(up,
down,
left,
right)?
Rating
3
(Borderline:
Overall
I
would
not
argue
for
accepting
this
paper.)
Additional
Comments
]]>
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?
