The authors address the inability of traditional paint programs to render with the freedom and control of existing artistic media. They point out discontinuities, both cognitive and physical, that slow or thwart the artist’s control over the path of a stroke.

Charcoal and pencil are used as examples of implements controlled by the artist to vary the texture, value, and width of a line. The paper also references studies in the development of devices that return control to the artist or offer opportunities to capture more of the artist’s gesture in the rendered stroke.

This paper describes a technique employing a tilt- and pressure-sensitive stylus used with a graphics tablet. The authors feel this method provides a more natural physical relationship between action (gesture) and result (drawing). They then describe ways that the user may manipulate the stylus to produce varied results. The description is not specific enough to be clearly understood by someone who has not used this technique; therefore, the original intention of the paper is not fulfilled. I am left with the impression that the authors wrote from a bias toward the superiority of their technique, but they do not provide enough information and comparison to be convincing. The document could be improved by including more background details about the artists who tested the technique. What might seem like an impressive development toward returning control to the artist could prove disappointing if the test group was already skilled with this technique.

The paper is frank, however, in its admission of the limitations of the technique, and the authors imply that they intend to continue their research. In summary, the paper could be more demanding in the communication of the research and development of this rendering process, but is an interesting outline of one research project being carried out in this area.