Andrea Bunt
ABSTRACT
As computer applications become larger with every new version, there is a growing need to provide some way for users to manage the interface complexity. There are three different potential solutions to this problem: 1) an adaptable interface that allows users to customize the application to suit their needs; 2) an adaptive interface that performs the adaptation for the users; or 3) a combination of the adaptive and adaptable solutions, an approach that would be suitable in situations where users are not customizing effectively on their own. In this paper we examine what it means for users to engage in effective customization of a menu-based graphical user interface. We examine one aspect of effective customization, which is how characteristics of the users' tasks and customization behaviour affect their performance on those tasks. We do so by using a process model simulation based on cognitive modelling that generates quantitative predictions of user performance. Our results show that users can engage in customization behaviours that vary in efficiency. We use these results to suggest how adaptive support could be added to an adaptable interface to improve the effectiveness of the users' customization.
- S. Card, A. Newell, and T. P. Moran. The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., 1983. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- G. Fischer. Shared knowledge in cooperative problem-solving systems - integrating adaptive and adaptable components. In Adaptive User Interfaces, pages 49--68. Elsevier Science Publishers, 1993.Google Scholar
- K. Hook. Steps to take before intelligent user interfaces become real. Interacting with Computers, 12:409--426, 2000.Google ScholarCross Ref
- A. Jameson. Adaptive interfaces and agents. In Human-Computer Interaction Handbook, pages 305--330. Erlbaum, 2003. Google Scholar
- A. Jameson and E. Schwarzkopf. Pros and cons of controllability: An empirical study. In Adaptive Hypermedia and Adaptive Web-Based Systems: Proceedings of AH 2002, pages 193--202, 2002. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. E. John and D. Kieras. Using GOMS for user interface design and evaluation: which technique? ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 3(4):287--319, 1996. Google ScholarDigital Library
- D. E. Kieras, S. D. Wood, K. Abotel, and A. J. Hornof. GLEAN: A computer-based tool for rapid GOMS model usability evaluation of user interface designs. In Proceedings of ACM UIST'95, pages 91--100, 1995. Google ScholarDigital Library
- T. Landauer and D. Nachbar. Selection from alphabetic and numeric menu trees using a touch screen: Breadth, depth, and the width. In Proceedings of ACM CHI'85, pages 73--78, 1985. Google ScholarDigital Library
- E. Lee and J. MacGregor. Minimizing user search time in menu retrieval systems. Human Factors, 27:157--162, 1985.Google ScholarCross Ref
- W. Mackay. Triggers and barriers to customizing software. In Proceedings of ACM CHI'91, pages 153--160, 1991. Google ScholarDigital Library
- I. S. MacKenzie. Movement time prediction in human-computer interfaces. In Human-Computer Interaction: Toward the Year 2000, pages 483--492. Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., 1995. Google Scholar
- J. McGrenere. The Design and Evaluation of Multiple Interfaces: A Solution for Complex Software. PhD thesis, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada, 2002. Google ScholarDigital Library
- J. McGrenere, R. Baecker, and K. Booth. An evaluation of a multiple interface design solution for bloated software. In Proceedings ACM CHI 2002, pages 163--170, 2002. Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Norman. The Psychology of Menu Selection. Ablex Publishing Corporation, 1991. Google ScholarDigital Library
- R. Oppermann. Adaptively supported adaptability. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40:455--472, 1994. Google ScholarDigital Library
- K. Papanikolaou, M. Grigoriadou, H. Kornilakis, and G. Magoulas. Personalizing the interaction in a web-based educational hypermedia system: the case of inspire. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 13(3):213--267, 2003. Google ScholarDigital Library
- B. Shneiderman and P. Maes. Direct manipulation vs. interface agents. Interactions, 4(6):42--61, 1997. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- What role can adaptive support play in an adaptable system?
Recommendations
Exploring the design space for adaptive graphical user interfaces
AVI '06: Proceedings of the working conference on Advanced visual interfacesFor decades, researchers have presented different adaptive user interfaces and discussed the pros and cons of adaptation on task performance and satisfaction. Little research, however, has been directed at isolating and understanding those aspects of ...
A comparison of static, adaptive, and adaptable menus
CHI '04: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsSoftware applications continue to grow in terms of the number of features they offer, making personalization increasingly important. Research has shown that most users prefer the control afforded by an adaptable approach to personalization rather than a ...
A field evaluation of an adaptable two-interface design for feature-rich software
Two approaches for supporting personalization in complex software are system-controlled adaptive menus and user-controlled adaptable menus. We evaluate a novel interface design for feature-rich productivity software based on adaptable menus. The design ...
Comments