Anonymous Responses

This appendix shows the responses given by users in the anonymous questionnaire that they filled out after testing my system. Duplicate answers have been removed, or noted where appropriate. Annotations to answers in square brackets are comments made by me that weren't part of the original answers.

Have you used or seen this system before?

• No (5 participants)
• Seen (2 participants)
• Used (1 participant)

How much do you normally use computers? (0 to 5 scale)

• 4, 5, 4, 5, 5, 4, 5, 4, 3

What is your occupation?

• Student. (5 participants)
• Atomic Physicist.
• Analytic Mathematician.
• Maths Postgrad Student.

[Two of the ``Student'' responses were high school students (4th to 6th form), the others were university students (Year 3 or above).]

What is your overall impression of this system?

• Concept great.

• Interesting and potentially useful, but it will have to handle significantly more complex formulae for it to become useful to the average physicist or mathematician.

• Good, with a lot of potential.

• Useful - needs a few small tweaks to make it really nice $\rightarrow$though so do most programs.

• Once tricks are mastered, the system is quite easy to use.

• Good. Fun to play with. Can see how it would be useful.

• Good. Easy to learn and almost no learning curve.

• Seems potentially useful, problem with speed, really need to be able to write it in faster than can type i.e.: TEX for it to be useful.

What did you find to be the best parts of the system?

• Recognition.

• The fact that it works. The ``organising the equation'' graphics [formula display window] was fun to watch.

• Not having to use L^ATEX.

• Flexibility - able to write reasonable scribbly without problems $\rightarrow$ also not written perfectly straight.

• Drop-drown list for wrong recognition of characters, quick re-recognition of groups.

• Simple modification system.

• Drawing rather than typing. I also like the modify stroke groups bit. Plus pretty formula at the end.

• The interface.

• Doing super/subscripts it recognised very well, and the ease at which you can modify the input.

What did you find to be the worst parts of the system?

• Parsing.

• Handwriting recognition. Some slight differences between the way the computer sees the equation and the way the human does.

• Character recognition and speed.

• Fiddly with formulae to get them right without feedback as to where to change.

• Getting spacings/relative locations right, [character recognition] interrupting drawing.

• Bad symbol recognition.

• Waiting for it to find a correct solution, and how the strokes keep losing bits. [character recognition interrupting drawing.]

• Occasional crashes.

• The ``4'' fixation, the aforementioned slowness, and the understandable limited vocabulary - e.g. Greek letters, etc.

Have you ever used any other formula entry systems before?

• Yes (7 participants)
• No (2 participants)

Which other systems have you used?

• L^ATEX, LyX, MSEE
• L^ATEX, MSEE, Texturer
• L^ATEX, MSEE
• L^ATEX, MSEE (eughh!)
• MS Equation Editor.
• L^ATEX, Mathematica

How regularly do you use the other systems? (0 to 5 scale)

• 0,3,1,1,1,3
• 1, unless I'm writing up.

How would you rate the style of interaction of this system against others you have used? (0 to 5 scale)

• 5,3,5,3,5,4
• Basically neutral because I know L^ATEX. versus MSEE, its a 5. anything is.

Which aspects of this system made it better than others you have used?

• The use of a writing tablet against a keyboard as the preferred type of input.

• Not having to remember symbol names or syntax.

• More natural - writing rather than typing w[sic] abnormal strokes.

• More intuitive - easily written - less restrictive.

• More intuitive, less need to remember tags.

• More visual representation of equation.

• It is easier to visualise what you want by putting it in the right place, rather than learning all the commands, etc.

Which aspects of this system made it worse than others you have used?

• It uses equipment that is not common in the public.

• The character recognition system wasn't too hot.

• Not being able to write at full speed and having the system miss characters.

• Slower than L^ATEX - if you know what you want.

• Tolerance to lazy [writing]. I'm sure the user would improve over time :).

• Slow at generating with L^ATEX.

• Simplicity of maths available.

Are there any other comments that you wish to make?

• The formulae will still need tweaking to look good.

• A bigger tablet would be good. Hot keys for mode swap. [the participant possibly didn't find the mode changing option on the menu with the hot keys beside them.]

• It should automatically go into draw mode when starting an new screen.

• Seems like it should be real good, allows intuitive feel and to actually try and do solutions as you work.