ABSTRACT
Different interfaces allow a user to achieve the same end goal through different action sequences, e.g., command lines vs. drop down menus. Interface efficiency can be described in terms of a cost incurred, e.g., time taken, by the user in typical tasks. Realistic users arrive at evaluations of efficiency, hence making choices about which interface to use, over time, based on trial and error experience. Their choices are also determined by prior experience, which determines how much learning time is required. These factors have substantial effect on the adoption of new interfaces. In this paper, we aim at understanding how users adapt under interface change, how much time it takes them to learn to interact optimally with an interface, and how this learning could be expedited through intermediate interfaces. We present results from a series of experiments that make four main points: (a) different interfaces for accomplishing the same task can elicit significant variability in performance, (b) switching interfaces can result in adverse sharp shifts in performance, (c) subject to some variability, there are individual thresholds on tolerance to this kind of performance degradation with an interface, causing users to potentially abandon what may be a pretty good interface, and (d) our main result -- shaping user learning through the presentation of intermediate interfaces can mitigate the adverse shifts in performance while still enabling the eventual improved performance with the complex interface upon the user becoming suitably accustomed. In our experiments, human users use keyboard based interfaces to navigate a simulated ball through a maze. Our results are a first step towards interface adaptation algorithms that architect choice to accommodate personality traits of realistic users.
- Anderson, C. R., Domingos, P., and Weld, D. S. Adaptive web navigation for wireless devices. In Proceedings of the Seventeenth International Joint Conference on Artificial Intelligence (2001). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Beaudry, A., and Pinsonneault, A. Understanding user responses to information technology: a coping model of user adaption. MIS Quarterly 29(3) (2005), 493--524. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Dessart, C.-E., Genaro Motti, V., and Vanderdonckt, J. Showing user interface adaptivity by animated transitions. In Proceedings of the 3rd ACM SIGCHI symposium on Engineering interactive computing systems, ACM (2011), 95--104. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gajos, K. Z., Czerwinski, M., Tan, D. S., and Weld, D. S. Exploring the design space for adaptive graphical interfaces. In Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced visual interfaces (2006). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Gajos, K. Z., Wobbrock, J. O., and Weld, D. S. Improving the performance of motor-impaired users with automatically-generated, ability-based interfaces. In CHI '08: Proceeding of the twenty-sixth annual SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, ACM (New York, NY, USA, 2008), 1257--1266. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Hartmann, M., and Schreiber, D. Proactively adapting interfaces to individual users for mobile devices. In Adaptive Hypermedia and Adaptive Web-Based Systems (2008). Google ScholarDigital Library
- James, W. Habit. 1890.Google Scholar
- Kohli, P., Nickisch, H., Rother, C., and Rhemann, C. User-centric learning and evaluation of interactive segmentation systems. International Journal of Computer Vision 100(3) (2012), 261--274. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Lavie, T., and Meyer, J. Benefits and costs of adaptive user interfaces. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 68, 8 (2010), 508--524. Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mourlas, C., and Germanakos, P. Intelligent User Interfaces: Adaptation and Personalization Systems and Technologies. Information Science Reference, 2008.Google Scholar
- Ram, S., and Sheth, J. N. Consumer resistance to innovations. Journal of Consumer Marketing 6(2) (1989).Google ScholarCross Ref
- Sedley, A., and M fiuller, H. Minimizing change aversion for the google drive launch. In CHI'13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems (2013). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Sinofsky, S. Creating the windows 8 user experience. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/b8/archive/2012/05/18/creating-the-windows-8-user-experience.aspx, 2012.Google Scholar
- Smith, C. L., and Kantor, P. B. User adaptation: good results from poor systems. In Proceedings of the 31 st Annual International ACM SIGIR conference on Research and Development In Information Retrieval (2008). Google ScholarDigital Library
- Zajonc, R. B. Attitudinal effects of mere exposure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 9 (1968).Google Scholar
Index Terms
- On user behaviour adaptation under interface change
Recommendations
The University of Alberta user interface management system
In this paper the design and implementation of the University of Alberta user interface management system (UIMS) is discussed. This UIMS is based on the Seeheim model of user interfaces, which divides the user interface into three separate components. ...
The University of Alberta user interface management system
SIGGRAPH '85: Proceedings of the 12th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniquesIn this paper the design and implementation of the University of Alberta user interface management system (UIMS) is discussed. This UIMS is based on the Seeheim model of user interfaces, which divides the user interface into three separate components. ...
A Dialog-Oriented User Interface Generation Mechanism
APSEC '96: Proceedings of the Third Asia-Pacific Software Engineering ConferenceNowadays, for GUI application development, there are a number of interface builders, which make it possible for the user to create user interfaces easily, and UIMSs, which help to specify and design user interfaces. However, interface builders lack the ...
Comments