Consonant-Vowel-Consonants for Error-Free Code Entry Nikola K. - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
consonant vowel consonants for error free code entry
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Consonant-Vowel-Consonants for Error-Free Code Entry Nikola K. - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Apr 29, 2023 160 likes •442 views

Consonant-Vowel-Consonants for Error-Free Code Entry Nikola K. Blanchard 1 , 2 , Leila Gabasova 3 , Ted Selker 4 1 Institut de Recherche en Informatique Fondamentale, Universit Paris Diderot 2 Digitrust, Loria, Universit de Lorraine 3 Institut de

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Consonant-Vowel-Consonants for Error-Free Code Entry

Nikola K. Blanchard1,2, Leila Gabasova3, Ted Selker4

1Institut de Recherche en Informatique Fondamentale, Universit Paris Diderot 2Digitrust, Loria, Universit de Lorraine 3Institut de Plantologie et d’Astrophysique de Grenoble 4University of Maryland, Baltimore County

First International Conference on HCI for Cybersecurity, Privacy and Trust @ HCII July 29th, 2019

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Introduction: a voting experiment

Experiment design Transcription Choice Memory CVC6++ Conclusion 1/23

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Voting experiments in Strasbourg and San-Sebastian

Experiment design Transcription Choice Memory CVC6++ Conclusion 2/23

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Ballots at the Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy

Random-Sample Voting Ballot

QUESTION: Should voting in national elections be compulsory? VOTING TIME: 12:00PM CET Thursday 17 November 2016 through 9:30PM CET Friday 18 November 2016 INSTRUCTIONS: 1 Choose either half of this sheet randomly (ballot number and password are the same for both halves). 2 Use a web browser to visit the webpage: https://vbb.rsvoting.org/rsv/vbb/gfmdd2016-q1/ Your ballot number is your login ➊: 001 Your password ➋ is: vhbe-buhb-mrda-fwpz 3 When prompted, enter the vote code that is printed adjacent your vote. 4 You should discard or destroy at least the half of this sheet that you used to vote; it is recommended, however, that you keep the other half of this sheet and write down on it in the space provided your vote code for later use in the audit. Choice Vote-Code ➌ Yes 4457-1444-2131 No 6975-7435-2625

✂ ✂ Random-Sample Voting Ballot

QUESTION: Should voting in national elections be compulsory? VOTING TIME: 12:00PM CET Thursday 17 November 2016 through 9:30PM CET Friday 18 November 2016 INSTRUCTIONS: 1 Choose either half of this sheet randomly (ballot number and password are the same for both halves). 2 Use a web browser to visit the webpage: https://vbb.rsvoting.org/rsv/vbb/gfmdd2016-q1/ Your ballot number is your login ➊: 001 Your password ➋ is: vhbe-buhb-mrda-fwpz 3 When prompted, enter the vote code that is printed adjacent your vote. 4 You should discard or destroy at least the half of this sheet that you used to vote; it is recommended, however, that you keep the other half of this sheet and write down on it in the space provided your vote code for later use in the audit. Choice Vote-Code ➌ Yes 4134-9733-6914 No 1855-4750-4118

Experiment design Transcription Choice Memory CVC6++ Conclusion 3/23

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Ballots at the Global Forum on Modern Direct Democracy

Experiment design Transcription Choice Memory CVC6++ Conclusion 4/23

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Experiment design

Experiment design Transcription Choice Memory CVC6++ Conclusion 4/23

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Protocol

5 sections with layers of A/B testing on order and content

  • Welcome and basic information
  • Transcription: 9 codes – 3 structures and 3 lengths
  • Choice: 9 pairs of codes (alphanumeric vs alternative), choose one to transcribe
  • Memory: 7 codes, users asked whether they’d seen it before
  • Confirm and send data

Experiment design Transcription Choice Memory CVC6++ Conclusion 5/23

slide-8
SLIDE 8

Codes tested

Lengths from 9 to 22, with 4 main structures:

  • Numeric: 958905239
  • Alphabetic: lower-case Latin letters: ienkzeiwa
  • Alphanumeric: numbers and mixed-case characters: Ok9Kh51ml
  • CVCs: consonant-vowel-consonant alphabetic trigrams in lower-case: cofbujkilzaz

Experiment design Transcription Choice Memory CVC6++ Conclusion 6/23

slide-9
SLIDE 9

Interface: transcription

Experiment design Transcription Choice Memory CVC6++ Conclusion 7/23

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Interface: choice

Experiment design Transcription Choice Memory CVC6++ Conclusion 8/23

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Demographics

33 participants in pilot study, 267 participants in follow-up. 3 main groups (by recruitment method):

  • 115 respondents from online psychology portal, overwhelmingly from USA
  • 91 French in snowball sampling from tech networks
  • 61 international from general social networks (24 countries, 14 languages)

Experiment design Transcription Choice Memory CVC6++ Conclusion 9/23

slide-12
SLIDE 12

Objectives

Multiple questions:

  • How does structure and length affect error frequency?
  • How does structure and length affect typing speed?
  • How does structure and length affect memorability of the code?
  • Are alphanumeric codes optimal for some metrics?
  • What is the impact of chunking?

Experiment design Transcription Choice Memory CVC6++ Conclusion 10/23

slide-13
SLIDE 13

Error types

5 10 15 20 25 Error proportion (%) Similarity Capitalisation Adjacent key Missing/added char Autocorrect Transposition Other Transcription Choice

Experiment design Transcription Choice Memory CVC6++ Conclusion 11/23

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Transcription: error rates by structure and length

5 10 15 20 Error rate (%) 9 12 15 Code length CVC (all groups) Numeric (all groups) Alphanumeric (all groups) Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

Experiment design Transcription Choice Memory CVC6++ Conclusion 12/23

slide-15
SLIDE 15

Transcription: speed by structure and length

5 10 15 20 Time taken (s) 9 12 15 Code length CVC (all groups) Numeric (all groups) Alphanumeric (all groups) Group 1 Group 2 Group 3

Experiment design Transcription Choice Memory CVC6++ Conclusion 13/23

slide-16
SLIDE 16

Choice: alphanumeric speed

Experiment design Transcription Choice Memory CVC6++ Conclusion 14/23

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Choice: alternative code speed

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Number of characters 12.5 15.0 17.5 20.0 22.5 25.0 27.5 30.0 32.5 Time taken (s) Mean for 10-character alphanumeric CVC Numeric Alphabetic Experiment design Transcription Choice Memory CVC6++ Conclusion 15/23

slide-18
SLIDE 18

Code preference against alphanumeric

15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 Number of characters 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 % chosen over alphanumeric CVC Numeric Alphabetic Experiment design Transcription Choice Memory CVC6++ Conclusion 16/23

slide-19
SLIDE 19

Choice strategies

267 participants, 121 patterns, more than 35% of users choosing among these:

  • 31 always chose the alphanumeric
  • 24 chose the alphanumeric for all cases but one (either short or mid-length CVCs or

numeric)

  • 18 only chose the alphanumeric against numeric codes
  • 12 only chose the alphanumeric in one case
  • 11 never chose the alphanumeric

Experiment design Transcription Choice Memory CVC6++ Conclusion 17/23

slide-20
SLIDE 20

Code memorability

Proportion of errors recalling the code in the Memory section: Error type NUM9 CVC9 CVC12 CVC15 ANUM9 ANUM12 ANUM15 Type 1 28.6 39.0 6.5 19.0 40.1 18.4 25.7 Type 2 15.7 18.3 10.9 9.4 17.7 6.4 5.8 Total 22.5 28.8 8.6 14.4 29.2 12.0 16.7 25% of false positives, 13% of false negatives.

Experiment design Transcription Choice Memory CVC6++ Conclusion 18/23

slide-21
SLIDE 21

Making better codes:

Experiment design Transcription Choice Memory CVC6++ Conclusion 18/23

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Making a better code:

Lessons:

  • use a fixed length to detect length errors
  • avoid certain characters such as q or g
  • avoid alphanumeric and capitalisation
  • syllabic codes seem to have an advantage

CVCs seem to work well, one question is the length.

Experiment design Transcription Choice Memory CVC6++ Conclusion 19/23

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Error correction

Experiment design Transcription Choice Memory CVC6++ Conclusion 20/23

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Performance

Advantages of CVC6 :

  • More entropy than 10-character alphanumeric (66.5 vs 59.5 bits)
  • Faster by more than 10%
  • Preferred by at least 2/3 of users
  • Normal errors below 5%
  • Error correction can make it less than 0.2%

Experiment design Transcription Choice Memory CVC6++ Conclusion 21/23

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Summary

Contributions:

  • First systematic study of structure effect on transcription error and speed
  • Alphanumeric codes are bad on most metrics
  • The trade-off for syllabic codes is worth the length
  • CVC offers a good alternative with limited linguistic performance bias

Experiment design Transcription Choice Memory CVC6++ Conclusion 22/23

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Future work

Many open questions:

  • How does this transfer to speakers of non Indo-European languages?
  • How about different interfaces (transcribing from paper)?
  • What is the impact of font, colour, spacing and case?
  • Could different syllabic patterns offer viable alternatives?
  • Is removing some rare letters (like x) worth the entropy loss?
  • What is the effect of chunking when typing spaces is not an issue?
  • What makes codes memorable?

Experiment design Transcription Choice Memory CVC6++ Conclusion 23/23

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Thank you for your attention

Experiment design Transcription Choice Memory CVC6++ Conclusion 23/23