[go: up one dir, main page]
More Web Proxy on the site http://driver.im/ skip to main content
10.5555/2377916.2377947guideproceedingsArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PagesConference Proceedingsacm-pubtype
research-article
Free access

Snookered by an interruption?: use a cue

Published: 10 September 2012 Publication History

Abstract

When routine tasks are interrupted, erroneous slips become more likely. Expertise is no defence against these kinds of errors but visual hints can alleviate such negative effects in computer interfaces. We compared previous-action cueing with next-action cueing, measuring the effects on error rate, and found that both approaches were statistically equivalent in helping to mitigate the disruptive effects of interruptions. Following an interruption, a cue should be displayed highlighting the last action performed by the user -- a trivial operation for software applications.

References

[1]
Altmann, E. M., & Trafton, J. G. (2004). Task Interruption: Resumption Lag and the Role of Cues. Proceedings of the 26th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Chicago, IL, 05/08/2004, 42--47. Austin, TX.
[2]
Ament, M. G. A., Cox, A. L., Blandford, A., & Brumby, D. (2010). Working Memory Load Affects Device-Specific but Not Task-Specific Error Rates. Proceedings of the 32nd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Portland, OR, 11/08/2010, 91--96. Austin, TX.
[3]
Ament, M. G. A., Lai, A. Y. T. and Cox, A. L. (2011). The Effect of Repeated Cue Exposure on Post-Completion Errors. Proceedings of the 33rd Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Boston, MA, 20/07/2011, 850--855. Austin, TX.
[4]
Back, J., Cheng, W., Dann, R., Curzon, P., & Blandford, A. (2006). Does being motivated to avoid procedural errors influence their systematicity? People and Computers XX---Engage: Proceedings of HCI 2006, London, 15/09/2006, 151--157. Swindon, UK.
[5]
Back, J., Brumby, D. P., & Cox, A. L. (2010). Locked-out: investigating the effectiveness of system lockouts to reduce errors in routine tasks. Proceedings of the 28th of the international conference extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, Atlanta, GA, 10/04/2010, 3775--3780. New York, NY.
[6]
Bailey, B. P., & Konstan, J. A. (2006). On the need for attention-aware systems: Measuring effects of interruption on task performance, error rate, and affective state. Computers in Human Behavior, 22(4), 685--708.
[7]
Burmistrov I. and Leonova A. (1997). Interruptions in the computer aided office work: Implications to user interface design. Proceedings of the 13th Triennial Congress of the International Ergonomics Association 1997, Tampere, Finland, 29/07/1997, 77--79. Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Finland.
[8]
BPS. (2009). Code of Ethics and Conduct: Guidance Published by the Ethics Committee of the British Psychological Society. British Psychological Society, Leicester.
[9]
Byrne, M. D. (2008). Preventing Postcompletion Errors: How Much Cue Is Enough? Proceedings of the 30th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, Austin, TX, 23/07/2008, 351--356. Austin, TX.
[10]
Byrne, M. D., & Bovair, S. (1997). A working memory model of a common procedural error. Cognitive Science, 21(1), 31--61.
[11]
Byrne, M. D., & Davis, E. M. (2006). Task structure and postcompletion error in the execution of a routine procedure. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 48(4), 627.
[12]
Chung, P. H., & Byrne, M. D. (2008). Cue effectiveness in mitigating postcompletion errors in a routine procedural task. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 66(4), 217--232.
[13]
Hiltz, K., Back, J., & Blandford, A. (2010). The roles of conceptual device models and user goals in avoiding device initialization errors. Interacting with Computers, 22(5), 363--374.
[14]
Kool, W., McGuire, J. T., Rosen, Z. B., & Botvinick, M. M. (2010). Decision making and the avoidance of cognitive demand. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 139(4), 665.
[15]
Latorella, K. A. (1999). Investigating interruptions: Implications for flightdeck performance (NASA/TM-1999-209707). NASA Langley Research Center, Hampton, VA.
[16]
Li, S. Y. W., Blandford, A., Cairns, P., & Young, R. M. (2008). The effect of interruptions on postcompletion and other procedural errors: An account based on the activation-based goal memory model. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 14(4), 314.
[17]
Norman, D. A. (2010). Living with Complexity. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA.
[18]
Ratwani, R. M., McCurry, J. M., & Trafton, J. G. (2008). Predicting postcompletion errors using eye movements. Proceeding of the 26th annual SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, where, where, when, 539--542. ACM, New York, NY.
[19]
Trafton, J. G., Altmann, E. M., & Brock, D. P. (2005). Huh, what was I doing? How people use environmental cues after an interruption. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Annual Meeting Proceedings, 49, 468--472.
[20]
Trafton, J. G., Altmann, E. M., & Ratwani, R. M. (2011). A memory for goals model of sequence errors. Cognitive Systems Research, 12, 134--143.
[21]
Wickens, C. D., & McCarley, J. S. (2008). Applied attention theory. CRC Press, Boca-Raton, FL.

Cited By

View all
  • (2015)Interruptibility prediction for ubiquitous systemsProceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing10.1145/2750858.2807514(801-812)Online publication date: 7-Sep-2015

Recommendations

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

cover image Guide Proceedings
BCS-HCI '12: Proceedings of the 26th Annual BCS Interaction Specialist Group Conference on People and Computers
September 2012
401 pages

Publisher

BCS Learning & Development Ltd.

Swindon, United Kingdom

Publication History

Published: 10 September 2012

Author Tags

  1. cueing
  2. disruption mitigation
  3. interruptions

Qualifiers

  • Research-article

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

  • Downloads (Last 12 months)43
  • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)3
Reflects downloads up to 18 Dec 2024

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all
  • (2015)Interruptibility prediction for ubiquitous systemsProceedings of the 2015 ACM International Joint Conference on Pervasive and Ubiquitous Computing10.1145/2750858.2807514(801-812)Online publication date: 7-Sep-2015

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Login options

Media

Figures

Other

Tables

Share

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media