skip to main content
10.1145/1978942.1979348acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Dips and ceilings: understanding and supporting transitions to expertise in user interfaces

Authors Info & Claims
Published:07 May 2011Publication History

ABSTRACT

Interface guidelines encourage designers to include shortcut mechanisms that enable high levels of expert performance, but prior research has demonstrated that few users switch to using them. To help understand how interfaces can better support a transition to expert performance we develop a framework of the interface and human factors influencing expertise development. We then present a system called Blur that addresses three main problems in promoting the transition: prompting an initial switch to expert techniques, minimising the performance dip arising from the switch, and enabling a high performance ceiling. Blur observes the user's interaction with unaltered desktop applications and uses calm notification to support learning and promote awareness of an alternative hot command interface. An empirical study validates Blur's design, showing that users make an early and sustained switch to hot commands, and that doing so improves their performance and satisfaction.

Skip Supplemental Material Section

Supplemental Material

paper377.mp4

mp4

4.3 MB

References

  1. Anderson, J. Learning and Memory. Wiley, NY, 1995.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. Barrett, R., Kandogan, E., Maglio, P., Haber, E., Takayama, L. and Prabaker, M. Field studies of computer system administrators. in Proc. CSCW'04, ACM, (2004), 388--395. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Bhavnani, S. and John, B. The Strategic Use of Complex Computer Systems. HCIJ 15 (2000), 107--137. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Bunt, A., Conati, C. and McGrenere, J. Supporting Interface Customization using a Mixed-Initiative Approach. in Proc. IUI '07, ACM, (2007), 92--101. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Card, S.K., Moran, T.P. and Newell, A. The Psychology of HCI. Lawrence Erlbaum, 1983.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  6. Carroll, J. and Carrithers, C. Training Wheels in a User Interface. Comms. ACM 27, 8 (1984), 800--806. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Carroll, J. and Rossen, M. Paradox of the active user. in Carroll, J. ed. Interfacing Thought: Cognitive Aspects of HCI, MIT Press, 1987, 80--111. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. Cockburn, A., Kristensson, P., Alexander, J. and Zhai, S. Hard Lessons: Effort-Inducing Interfaces Benefit Spatial Learning. in Proc. CHI, (2007), 1571--1580. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Cockburn, A. and McKenzie, B. Evaluating the Effectiveness of Spatial Memory in 2D and 3D Physical and Virtual Environments. in Proc. CHI'02, ACM, (2002), 203--210. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Craik, F. and Lockhart, R. Levels of processing: A framework for memory research. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior 11 (1972), 671--684.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  11. Cypher, A., Dontcheva, M., Lau, T. and Nichols, J. No Code Required. Morgan Kaufmann, 2010.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  12. Czerwinski, M., Horvitz, E. and Cuttrell, E. Subjective Duration Assessment: An Impicit Probe for Software Usability. in Proc. IHM-HCI, (2001).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  13. Dix, A., Finlay, J., Abowd, G. and Beale, R. Human-Computer Interaction, Prentice Hall. (1993). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Dyck, J., Pienelle, D., Brown, B. and Gutwin, C. Learning from Games: HCI Innovations in Entertainment Software. in Proc. GI, (2003).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. Furnas, G.W., Landauer, T.K., Gomez, L.M. and Dumais, S.T. The vocabulary problem in human-system communication. CACM 30, 11 (1987), 964--971. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Greenberg, S. and Witten, I. Supporting Command Reuse. IJMMS. 39 (1993), 353--390. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Grossman, T., Dragicevic, P. and Balakrishnan, R. Strategies for Accelearating On-line Learning of Hotkeys. in Proc. CHI'07, ACM, (2007). 1591--1600. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  18. Grossman, T., Fitzmaurice, G. and Attar, R. A survey of software learnability. in Proc. CHI, (2009). 649--658. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  19. Gutwin, C. and Cockburn, A. Improving List Revistation with ListMaps. in Proc. AVI'06, ACM, (2006), 396--403. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  20. Hart, S. and Staveland, L. Development of NASA-TLX. in Hancock, P. and Meshkati, N. eds. Human Mental Workload, 1988, 139--183.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  21. Hendy, J., Booth, K. and McGrenere, J. Graphically Enhanced Keyboard Accelerators for GUIs. in Proc. Graphics Interface, (2010). Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  22. Jones, T. Incidental learning during information retrieval: a hypertext experiment. in Maurer, H. ed. Computer Assisted Learning, Springer, 1989, 235--251. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  23. Karat, J., Karat, C. and Ukelson, J. Affordances, motivation and the design of user interfaces. CACM 43, 8 (2000), 49--51. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  24. Ko, A., Myers, B. and Aung, H. Six Learning Barriers in End-User Programming Systems. in Proc. VL HCC'04, IEEE, (2004), 199--206. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  25. Kurtenbach, G. and Buxton, B. The Limits of Expert Performance Using Hierarchic Marking Menus. in Proc. InterCHI'93, (1993), 482--487. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  26. Landauer, T.K., Galotti, K.M. and Hartwell, S. Natural command names and initial learning: a study of text-editing terms. Comms. ACM 26, 7 (1983), 495--503. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  27. Lane, D.M., Napier, H.A., Peres, S.C. and Sandor, A. Hidden costs of graphical user interfaces. I. J. HCI 18, 2 (2005), 133--144.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  28. Mackay, W. Triggers and barriers to customizing software. in Proc. CHI'91, ACM, (1991), 153--160. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  29. Maslow, A. The Psychology of Science: A Reconnaissance. Harper & Row, New York, 1966.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  30. Newell, A. and Rosenbloom, P.S. Mechanisms of Skill Acquisition and the Law of Practice. in Anderson, J. ed. Cog. Skills & Acquisition, Erlbaum,, 1981, 1--55.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  31. Nielsen, J. Usability Engineering. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco, 1993. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  32. Norman, D. Design principles for Human-Computer Interfaces. in Proc. 'CHI 83, 1983, 1--10. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  33. Norman, D. The Psych. of Everyday Things (1988).Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  34. Odell, D., L., Davis, R., C., Smith, A. and Wright, P., K. Toolglasses, marking menus, and hotkeys: a comparison of one and two-handed command selection techniques. in Proc. Graphics Interface, (2004), 17--24. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  35. Schmidt, R. and Bjork, R. The Conceptualizations of Practice. Psychological Science 3, 4 (1992), 207--217.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  36. Shelton, D. and Newhouse, R.C. Incidental Learning in a Paired-Associate Task. Journal of Experimental Education 50, 1 (1981), 36--38.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  37. Shneiderman, B. Designing the User Interface, Addison Wesley, 1992. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  38. Shneiderman, B. Direct Manipulation: A Step Beyond Programming Languages (excerpt). in Baecker, et al.. Readings in HCI, 1987, 461--467. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  39. Shneiderman, B. Promoting universal usability with multi-layer interface design. in Proc. Universal Usability, ACM, (2003), 1--8. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  40. Simon, H. Theories of Decision-Making in Economics and Behavioral Science. American Economic Review 49, 3 (1959), 252--283.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  41. Tauscher, L. and Greenberg, S. How People Revisit Web Pages. IJHCS. 47, 1 (1997), 97--138. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  42. Whiteside, J., Jones, S., Levy, P. and Wixon, D. User Performance with Command, Menu, and Iconic Interfaces. in Proc. CHI'85, ACM, (1985), 185--191.. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library

Index Terms

  1. Dips and ceilings: understanding and supporting transitions to expertise in user interfaces
    Index terms have been assigned to the content through auto-classification.

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '11: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 2011
      3530 pages
      ISBN:9781450302289
      DOI:10.1145/1978942

      Copyright © 2011 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 7 May 2011

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • research-article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '11 Paper Acceptance Rate410of1,532submissions,27%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader