The papers in this post describe research on user interfaces. Most papers have multiple authors, although I've credited by name only the author(s) who presented the paper. Entire papers are available in the conference proceedings; let me know if you'd like to see one.
Helping Students with Information Fragmentation, Assimilation and Notetaking
Melissa Bubnash, et al
Session 1
This research attempts to address the problem of information fragmentation - scattered data formats, locations, etc. Because of this fragmentation, users are required to devote more resources to reassembling data into something meaningful. This is a particular challenge for students. The team's goal was to develop a software tool that collects fragmented information into one user interface. The prototype tool is called GIG - Global Information Gatherer - and its interface allows a user to navigate the directory structures of local and remote computers, open most file types within GIG, access Web content via an embedded browser, and annotate work with a notepad feature. The prototype demonstration sparked lots of comments and suggestions from attendees.
Generalized Formal Models for Faceted User Interfaces
Edward C. Clarkson, et al
Session 5
This research surveyed 8 existing faceted navigation structures to compare those structures with some themes identified by the research team. These themes included:
* Visual Design - includes the look of the system, vertical vs. horizontal appearance of facets
* Interaction Design - includes the interplay between the user interface and the back end, and also the question of how choices cascade to other choices - only forward? or backward, too?
* Structural Design - includes the structure of the underlying data and database(s)
The researchers found some differences in the way facets were conceptualized in the systems. Some displayed a facet hierarchy, while others used only flat facets. Some systems also included indirect facets, or facets of facets, which a user could use to refocus their results set. For example, if the focus of a search is a particular building, a facet of that result could be the architect's name. An indirect facet would then be the architect's birthplace.
Given the complexity of the systems they surveyed, the researchers wondered if it would be possible to model all these treatments of facets as data and queries. The researchers were able to develop several data models that accounted for direct, indirect, basic, and extended facets. They are looking to apply their modeling experience to other kinds of facets and other kinds of systems.
Designing the Reading Experience for Scanned Multi-Lingual Picture Books on Mobile Phones
Benjamin B. Bederson, et al
Session 11
The researchers have developed a prototype iPhone application that displays the full text and images of four children's books from the International Children's Digital Library. The free app, ICDL, has been available for 7 months; with no marketing it has achieved a usage rate of approximately 5000 uses per month. The speaker stressed that the team's goal is to support kids reading wherever they are, whatever device they are using. They are not trying to push kids into reading books on cell phones.
What Do Exploratory Searchers Look at in a Faceted Search Interface?
Bill Kules, et al
Session 11
Some research has been conducted on how and why facets work. Literature suggests that facets support exploratory tasks, help flesh out vague or ill-defined needs, and help users feel less lost. However, these benefits aren't realized unless the facets are based on very good metadata. Since facets appear to affect search actions and tactics, the research team formulated a goal of understanding how facets affect user behavior. They recruited a mix of graduate and undergraduate students and asked 2 investigatory questions, 4 exploratory questions, and 2 known-item question. Test subjects completed the tasks in a version of NSCU's Endeca catalog that had been simplified to only include three of the available facets. This modification was made so that eye-tracking software could better distinguish where/when users were looking at the interface. The content of the exploratory tasks had been drawn from NCSU catalog search log data. From 21 recruits, the team was able to obtain 18 result sets.
Subjects spent different amounts of time looking at the facets vs looking at the results depending on where they were in their searches. Subjects' commented on using facets, indicating that they liked them when the subject was not well-known, when "shopping around" (actual comment) to see available information, when deciding on how to narrow a topic, and when looking for ideas to flesh out a search. Some limitations of the study included the fact that it took place in a controlled lab setting, that facets were closely matched to the tasks, that some training was provided to the subjects, and that the team only measured gaze duration. This last limitation may have the effect of conflating importance and difficulty, since the study combined the frequency and duration measurements provided by the eye-tracking software. The team emphasized that there is a lot of future research to conduct on facets, including more rigorous measures of gaze frequency, comparing gaze frequency and timing to click frequency and timing, and evaluating the effectiveness of an interface with facets to an interface without facets.
Comments