Exploring the Design Space for Adaptive Graphical User Interfaces - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

▶
exploring the design space for adaptive graphical user
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

Exploring the Design Space for Adaptive Graphical User Interfaces - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Aug 19, 2022 207 likes •688 views

Exploring the Design Space for Adaptive Graphical User Interfaces Krzysztof Gajos (University of Washington) Mary Czerwinski (Microsoft Research) Desney Tan (Microsoft Research) Daniel S. Weld (University of Washington) Scope Graphical

slide-1
SLIDE 1

Exploring the Design Space for Adaptive Graphical User Interfaces

Krzysztof Gajos Mary Czerwinski Desney Tan Daniel S. Weld (University of Washington) (Microsoft Research) (Microsoft Research) (University of Washington)

slide-2
SLIDE 2

Scope

Graphical User Interfaces where the system automatically adapts the presentation of the functionality The Split Interface The Moving Interface The Visual Popout Interface

slide-3
SLIDE 3

Motivation

They disorient the user!

They optimize the UI for the individual!

slide-4
SLIDE 4

Prior Work

↑ Greenberg and Witten [1985] ↕

Trevellyan and Browne [1987]

↓ Mitchell and Shneiderman [1989] ↑ Sears and Shneiderman [1994] ?

McGrenere, Baecker and Booth [2002]

↓ Findlater and McGrenere [2004] ↔ Tsandilas and shraefel [2005]

slide-5
SLIDE 5

Commercial Deployments

slide-6
SLIDE 6

Our Goal

Uncover the factors and relationships that influence users’ satisfaction and actual performance when using adaptive UIs

slide-7
SLIDE 7

Road Map

Introduce and motivate the problem Video Experiment 1: qualitative results Experiment 2: quantitative results Synthesis Conclusions

slide-8
SLIDE 8
slide-9
SLIDE 9

Potential Benefit Potential Disorientation

Medium Low High Medium Low Low

The Split Interface The Moving Interface The Visual Popout Interface

slide-10
SLIDE 10

Experiment 1

Goal: collect informative subjective data

slide-11
SLIDE 11

Participants

  • 26 volunteers (10 female)
  • aged 25 to 55 (mean=46)
  • moderate to high experience using computers (as

indicated by a validated screener)

  • intermediate to expert users of MS Office (as

indicated by a validated screener)

  • participants received software gratuity
slide-12
SLIDE 12

Tasks

  • Three classes of editing tasks:
  • Flow chart edits
  • Text edits
  • Combined text and graphical edits
slide-13
SLIDE 13

Procedures

Training Start Flow Chart task Quotes task Poster task Questionnaire Done 4 conditions? Change Interface Final Questionnaire End

slide-14
SLIDE 14

Results: Ranking

Users ranked the Split Interface the highest (p<0.001)

slide-15
SLIDE 15

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

E a s e

  • f

U s e S a t i s f a c t i

  • n

Unchanging Split Moving Visual Popout

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

E a s e

  • f

U s e S a t i s f a c t i

  • n

Unchanging Split Moving Visual Popout

General Satisfaction

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

E a s e

  • f

U s e S a t i s f a c t i

  • n

Unchanging Split Moving Visual Popout

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

E a s e

  • f

U s e S a t i s f a c t i

  • n

Unchanging Split Moving Visual Popout

slide-16
SLIDE 16

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

E a s e

  • f

U s e S a t i s f a c t i

  • n

Unchanging Split Moving Visual Popout

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

E a s e

  • f

U s e S a t i s f a c t i

  • n

Unchanging Split Moving Visual Popout

General Satisfaction

slide-17
SLIDE 17

Usability

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

D i s c

  • v

e r a b i l i t y S e n s e

  • f

C

  • n

t r

  • l

P r e d i c t a b i l i t y

  • f

a d a p t a t i

  • n

Unchanging Split Moving Visual Popout

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

D i s c

  • v

e r a b i l i t y S e n s e

  • f

C

  • n

t r

  • l

P r e d i c t a b i l i t y

  • f

a d a p t a t i

  • n

Unchanging Split Moving Visual Popout

1 2 3 4 5 6 7

D i s c

  • v

e r a b i l i t y S e n s e

  • f

C

  • n

t r

  • l

P r e d i c t a b i l i t y

  • f

a d a p t a t i

  • n

Unchanging Split Moving Visual Popout

slide-18
SLIDE 18
  • Subjective cost

based on:

  • Mental demand
  • Physical Demand
  • Frustration
  • Confusion due to

adaptation

  • Subjective benefit

based on:

  • Performance
  • Efficiency due to

adaptation

Subjective Cost and Benefit

slide-19
SLIDE 19
  • Subjective cost

based on:

  • Mental demand
  • Physical Demand
  • Frustration
  • Confusion due to

adaptation

  • Subjective benefit

based on:

  • Performance
  • Efficiency due to

adaptation

Subjective Cost and Benefit

Subjective cost Subjective benefit

Non-adaptive baseline Visual Popout Interface Split Interface Moving Interface

slide-20
SLIDE 20

User Comments

Split Interface Moving Interface Visual Popout Interface

  • stability
  • semantic

grouping

  • discoverability
  • poor

discoverability

  • instability
  • anti-salience
slide-21
SLIDE 21

Road Map

Introduce and motivate the problem Video Experiment 1: qualitative results Experiment 2: quantitative results Synthesis Conclusions

slide-22
SLIDE 22

Experiment 2

Investigate how the accuracy of the adaptive algorithm affects how adaptation is used Collect accurate performance data Goals:

slide-23
SLIDE 23

Participants

  • 8 research colleagues (2 female)
  • aged 25 to 58 (mean=36)
  • high experience using computers
  • expert users of MS Office
  • participants received two meal vouchers as

gratuity

slide-24
SLIDE 24

Tasks

slide-25
SLIDE 25

Procedures

  • Introduction and a brief training on a non-

adaptive version of the interface

  • Each participant used each of the three

interfaces (Unchanging, Split and Moving) at two different accuracy levels (30% and 70%)

slide-26
SLIDE 26

Performance Vs. Adaptation Type

70 75 80 85 90 95 None Split Moving

Completion time (seconds)

slide-27
SLIDE 27

Performance Vs. Adaptation Type

  • Participants were

significantly faster using Split Interface than Non- adaptive baseline (p<0.003)

70 75 80 85 90 95 None Split Moving

Completion time (seconds)

slide-28
SLIDE 28

Performance Vs. Adaptation Type

  • Participants were

significantly faster using Split Interface than Non- adaptive baseline (p<0.003)

  • Participants were

marginally faster using Moving Interface than Non-adaptive baseline (p<0.073)

70 75 80 85 90 95 None Split Moving

Completion time (seconds)

slide-29
SLIDE 29

Performance Vs. Accuracy

  • Both adaptive

interfaces resulted in faster performance at the higher (70%) accuracy level than at the lower (30%) level (p<0.001)

70 75 80 85 90 95 Split Moving 30% 70% 30% 70%

slide-30
SLIDE 30

Frequency of Use

  • Vs. Accuracy

?

7% 93% 70% accuracy 19% 81% 30% accuracy

slide-31
SLIDE 31

User Comments

Split Interface Moving Interface

  • discoverability
  • poor discoverability
  • instability
slide-32
SLIDE 32

Exploring the Design Space for Adaptive Graphical User Interfaces

slide-33
SLIDE 33

Exploring the Design Space for Adaptive Graphical User Interfaces

slide-34
SLIDE 34

Putting It All Together

Context interaction frequency task complexity Algorithm Behavior frequency of adaptation accuracy predictability Interaction Mechanics stability locality

slide-35
SLIDE 35

Context interaction frequency task complexity Algorithm Behavior frequency of adaptation accuracy predictability Interaction Mechanics stability locality

Stability

Split Interfaces Moving Interface MS Smart Menus Visual Popout High stability Low stability User satisfaction

slide-36
SLIDE 36

Locality

  • User comments indicate that, especially for

manual tasks, high locality improves discoverability of adaptation.

Context interaction frequency task complexity Algorithm Behavior frequency of adaptation accuracy predictability Interaction Mechanics stability locality

slide-37
SLIDE 37

Context interaction frequency task complexity Algorithm Behavior frequency of adaptation accuracy predictability Interaction Mechanics stability locality

Adaptation Frequency

↑ Sears and Shneiderman [1994] ↓ Findlater and McGrenere [2004]

adaptation once per user/session adaptation once per interaction Two studies of Split Menus:

slide-38
SLIDE 38

Context interaction frequency task complexity Algorithm Behavior frequency of adaptation accuracy predictability Interaction Mechanics stability locality

Accuracy

  • Participants performed faster at higher accuracy

levels

(also in [ Tsandilas and schraefel CHI’05])

  • Participants were more likely to take advantage
  • f adaptation at higher accuracy levels
slide-39
SLIDE 39

Predictability

A study in progress!

Context interaction frequency task complexity Algorithm Behavior frequency of adaptation accuracy predictability Interaction Mechanics stability locality

slide-40
SLIDE 40

Context interaction frequency task complexity Algorithm Behavior frequency of adaptation accuracy predictability Interaction Mechanics stability locality

Interaction Frequency

↑ Greenberg and Witten [1985] ↕ Trevellyan and Browne [1987]

30 interactions per trial 100 interactions per trial:

  • - first 30 positive
  • - last 30 neutral or negative

Two studies of adaptive deep hierarchical menus:

slide-41
SLIDE 41

Task Complexity

Split Interface Moving Interface

  • stability
  • semantic

grouping

  • discoverability
  • poor

discoverability

  • instability

Split Interface Moving Interface

  • discoverability
  • poor

discoverability

  • instability

Experiment 1 Experiment 2

Context interaction frequency task complexity Algorithm Behavior frequency of adaptation accuracy predictability Interaction Mechanics stability locality

slide-42
SLIDE 42

Conclusions

Moving Interface Split Interface Visual Popout

slide-43
SLIDE 43

Conclusions

Moving Interface Split Interface Visual Popout Preferred Disliked [Experiment 1]

slide-44
SLIDE 44

Conclusions

Moving Interface Split Interface Visual Popout Preferred Disliked Faster [Experiment 2]

slide-45
SLIDE 45

Conclusions

Context interaction frequency task complexity Algorithm Behavior frequency of adaptation accuracy predictability Interaction Mechanics stability locality

slide-46
SLIDE 46

Acknowledgments

  • Andrea Bunt, Leah Findlater and Joanna

McGrenere at UBC

  • Members of the

VIBE Group at MSR

  • DUB group at University of Washington
slide-47
SLIDE 47

Contact Information

  • Krzysztof Gajos:

kgajos@cs.washington.edu

  • Mary Czerwinski:

marycz@microsoft.com

  • Desney Tan:

desney@microsoft.com

  • Daniel Weld:

weld@cs.washington.edu