article

Free access

An experimental investigation of the interactive effects of interface style, instructions, and task familiarity on user performance

Editor: Dan R. Alsen, Jr. Authors:

Kai H. Lim,

Izak Benbasat,

Peter A. ToddAuthors Info & Claims

ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), Volume 3, Issue 1

Pages 1 - 37

https://doi.org/10.1145/226159.226160

Published: 01 March 1996 Publication History

PDF eReader

Abstract

Norman proposed a model describing the sequence of user activities involved in human-computer interaction. Through this model, Norman provides a rationale for why direct-manipulation interfaces may be preferred to other design alternatives. Based on action identification theory we developed several hypotheses about the operations of Norman's model and tested them in a laboratory experiment. The results show that users of a direct-manipulation interface and a menu-based interface did not differ in the total amount of time used to perform a task. However, with the direct-manipulation interface, more time is devoted to performing motor actions, but this is offset by shorter nonmotor time. Furthermore, there are significant interactions between task familiarity, instructions, and the type of interface, indicating that Norman's model may not hold under all conditions.

References

[1]

BENBASAT, I. AND TODD, P. 1993. An experimental investigation of interface design alternatives: Icon vs. text and direct manipulation vs. menus. Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 38, 3, 369-402.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[2]

CARD, S. K., MORAN, T. P., AND NEWELL, A. 1983. The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum, Associates, Hillsdale, N.J.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[3]

GRAY, W. D., JOHN, B. E., AND ATWOOD M.E. 1993. Project Ernestine: Validating a GOMS analysis for predicting and explaining real-world task performance. Hum. Comput. Interact. 8, 3, 237-309.

Google Scholar

[4]

HUTCHINS, E. L., HOLLAN, J. D., AND NORMAN, D.A. 1985. Direct manipulation interfaces. Hum. Comput. Interact. 1, 4, 311-338.

Google Scholar

[5]

JOHN, B. E. 1988. Contributions to engineering models of human-computer interaction. Ph.D. dissertation, Carnegie Mellon Univ., Pittsburgh, Pa.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[6]

JOHN, B.E. 1990. Extension of GOMS analysis to expert performance requiring perception of dynamic visual and auditory. In CHI '90 Proceedings. ACM, New York, 107-115.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[7]

KAHNEMAN, D. ~o TI~ZSMAN, A.M. 1984. Changing views of attention and automaticity. In Varieties of Attention, R. Parasuraman and R. Davies, Eds. Academic Press, New York, 29-61.

Google Scholar

[8]

KEEN, P. 1980. MIS research: Reference disciplines and a cumulative tradition. In Proceed. ings of the Ist International Conference on Information Systems (Philadelphia). Society of Information Management, 9-18.

Google Scholar

[9]

LABERGE, C. AND St~4UELS, S.J. 1974. Toward a theory of automatic information processing in reading. Cog. Psychol. 6, 2, 293-323.

Google Scholar

[10]

LOGAN, G.D. 1978. Attention in character classification: Evidence for the automaticity of component stages. J. Exp. Psychol. 107, 1, 32-63.

Google Scholar

[11]

LOGAN, G.D. 1980. Attention and automaticity in Stroop and priming tasks: Theory and data. Cog. Psychol. 12, 4, 523-553.

Google Scholar

[12]

LOGAN, G. D. 1988a. Toward an instance theory of automatization. Psychol. Rev. 95, 4, 492-527.

Google Scholar

[13]

LOGAN, G. D. 1988b. Automaticity, resources, and memory: Theoretical controversies and practical implications. Hum. Factors 30, 5, 583-598.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[14]

LOGAN, G.D. 1992. Attention and preattention in theories of automaticity. Am. J. PsychoL 105, 2, 317-339.

Google Scholar

[15]

LOGAN, G. D. AND KLAPP, S. T. 1991. Automatizing alphabet arithmetic: I. Is extended practice necessary to produce automaticity? J. Exp. Psychol. 17, 2, 175-195.

Google Scholar

[16]

MACKENIE I. S., SELLEr, A., ~,~D BUXTO~, W. 1991. A comparison of input devices in elemental pointing and dragging tasks. In CHI '91 Proceedings. ACM, New York, 161-166.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[17]

MARCEL, A.T. 1983. Conscious and unconscious perception: An approach to the relations between phenomenal experience and perceptual processes. Cog. Psychol. 15, 2, 238-300.

Google Scholar

[18]

MORRISON, D. 1992. The application of cognitive theory and science to HCI: A psychological perspective. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 4, 1, iii-v.

Google Scholar

[19]

NEELY, J.H. 1977. Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhihitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention. J. Exp. Psychol. 106, 3, 226 -254.

Google Scholar

[20]

NORMAN, D.A. 1986. Cognitive engineering. In User Centered Systems Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction, D. A. Norman and S. W. Draper, Eds. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hillsdale, N.J., 31-61.

Google Scholar

[21]

NORMAN, D.A. 1989. The Design of Everyday Things. Doubleday, New York.

Google Scholar

[22]

OLSON, J. R. ANn OLSON G. 1990. The growth of cognitive modeling in human-computer interaction since GOMS. Hum. Comput. Interact. 5, 2-3, 221-265.

Google Scholar

[23]

SCHANK, R.C. 1982. Dynamic Memory: A Theory of Reminding and Learning in Computers and People. Cambridge University Press, New York.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[24]

SCHNEIDER, W., DUMAIS, S. T., AND SHIFFRIN, g.M. 1984. Automatic and control processing and attention. In Varieties of Attention, R. Parasuraman and R. Davies, Eds. Academic Press, New York, 1-27.

Google Scholar

[25]

SCHNEIDER, W. ANI) FISK, A.D. 1982. Degree of consistent training: Improvements in research performance and automatic process and development. Perception Psychophys. 31, 2, 160-168.

Google Scholar

[26]

SCHNEIDER, W. AND S{{IFFRIN, R. M. 1977. Controlled and automatic human information processing: I. Detection, search and attention. Psychol. Rev. 84, 1, 1-66.

Google Scholar

[27]

SCHWEICKERT, R. 1978. A critical path generalization of additive factor method: Analysis of a Stroop task. J. Math. Psychol. 18, 2, 105-139.

Google Scholar

[28]

SHIFFRIN, R. M. AND SCHNEIDER, W. 1977. Controlled and automatic human information processing: II. Perceptual learning, automatic attending, and a general theory. Psychol. ReD. 84, 2, 127-190.

Google Scholar

[29]

SHNEWERMAN, B. 1983. Direct manipulation: A step beyond programming languages. IEEE Comput. 16, 8, 57-69.

Google Scholar

[30]

SHNEIDERMAN, B. 1993. Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human.Computer Interaction. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass.

Crossref

Google Scholar

[31]

SPELKE, E, HIRST, W., AND NEISSER, U. 1976. Skills of divided attention. Cognition 4, 3, 215-230.

Google Scholar

[32]

ULICH, E., RAUTERBERG, M., MOLL, T., GREUTMANN, T., AND STROHM, O. 1991. Task orientation and user-orientated dialogue design. Int. J. Hum. Comput. Interact. 3, 2, 117-144.

Google Scholar

[33]

VALLACHER, R. AND WEGNER, D. 1987. What do people think they're doing? Action identification and human behavior. Psychol. ReD. 94, 1, 3-15.

Google Scholar

Cited By

View all

Cipolla Ficarra F(2022)Reviewing the Components of Evaluation MethodsAssessment Methods and Success Factors for Digital Education and New Media10.4018/978-1-7998-8721-8.ch011(309-348)Online publication date: 16-Dec-2022
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-8721-8.ch011
Cárdenas-Sainz BBarrón-Estrada MZatarain-Cabada RRíos-Félix J(2022)Integration and acceptance of Natural User Interfaces for interactive learning environmentsInternational Journal of Child-Computer Interaction10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.10038131:COnline publication date: 1-Mar-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100381
Moons FVandervieren EColpaert J(2022)Atomic, reusable feedback: a semi-automated solution for assessing handwritten tasks? A crossover experiment with mathematics teachers.Computers and Education Open10.1016/j.caeo.2022.1000863(100086)Online publication date: Dec-2022
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100086
Show More Cited By

Index Terms

An experimental investigation of the interactive effects of interface style, instructions, and task familiarity on user performance

Recommendations

The University of Alberta user interface management system

In this paper the design and implementation of the University of Alberta user interface management system (UIMS) is discussed. This UIMS is based on the Seeheim model of user interfaces, which divides the user interface into three separate components. ...
The University of Alberta user interface management system
SIGGRAPH '85: Proceedings of the 12th annual conference on Computer graphics and interactive techniques

In this paper the design and implementation of the University of Alberta user interface management system (UIMS) is discussed. This UIMS is based on the Seeheim model of user interfaces, which divides the user interface into three separate components. ...
A Dialog-Oriented User Interface Generation Mechanism
APSEC '96: Proceedings of the Third Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference

Nowadays, for GUI application development, there are a number of interface builders, which make it possible for the user to create user interfaces easily, and UIMSs, which help to specify and design user interfaces. However, interface builders lack the ...

Reviews

Reviewer: William J. Hankley

Both qualitative reasoning about human-computer interaction and a simple experiment are presented. The authors explain a refinement of an earlier model by Norman . They review the concepts of action-identification (to distinguish between high-level and low-level actions and commands) and automaticity (the concept of learned automatic behaviors). They next present a simple 2×2×2 experiment observing motor performance time and total performance time for simple operations using either a direct manipulation interface (drag and drop) or a menu interface (in which the user clicks on the source and target objects). They show that the direct manipulation interface has a longer motor performance time, but typically a shorter mental time. They also show that familiar tasks are better presented using higher-level instructions, and less familiar tasks are better presented via lower-level instructions. The model and experimental results are such that, once they are presented and explained, it is easy to say that the model was intuitive and the results expected. Some of the statements about the semantic distance between commands and actions warrant further clarification of the model.

Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.

Comments

Please enable JavaScript to view thecomments powered by Disqus.

Information & Contributors

Information

Published In

ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction Volume 3, Issue 1

March 1996

106 pages

ISSN:1073-0516

EISSN:1557-7325

DOI:10.1145/226159

Editor:
Dan R. Alsen
Brigham Young Univ., Puora, UT

Issue’s Table of Contents

Publisher

Association for Computing Machinery

New York, NY, United States

Publication History

Published: 01 March 1996

Published in TOCHI Volume 3, Issue 1

Permissions

Request permissions for this article.

Request Permissions

Check for updates

Qualifiers

Article

Contributors

Other Metrics

View Article Metrics

Bibliometrics & Citations

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

45
Total Citations
View Citations
2,313
Total Downloads

Downloads (Last 12 months)187
Downloads (Last 6 weeks)30

Reflects downloads up to 08 Feb 2025

Other Metrics

View Author Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View all

Cipolla Ficarra F(2022)Reviewing the Components of Evaluation MethodsAssessment Methods and Success Factors for Digital Education and New Media10.4018/978-1-7998-8721-8.ch011(309-348)Online publication date: 16-Dec-2022
https://doi.org/10.4018/978-1-7998-8721-8.ch011
Cárdenas-Sainz BBarrón-Estrada MZatarain-Cabada RRíos-Félix J(2022)Integration and acceptance of Natural User Interfaces for interactive learning environmentsInternational Journal of Child-Computer Interaction10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.10038131:COnline publication date: 1-Mar-2022
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1016/j.ijcci.2021.100381
Moons FVandervieren EColpaert J(2022)Atomic, reusable feedback: a semi-automated solution for assessing handwritten tasks? A crossover experiment with mathematics teachers.Computers and Education Open10.1016/j.caeo.2022.1000863(100086)Online publication date: Dec-2022
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.caeo.2022.100086
Corrado J(2021)Human-Machine System Optimization in Nuclear Facility SystemsNuclear Engineering and Technology10.1016/j.net.2021.04.022Online publication date: Apr-2021
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.net.2021.04.022
Zhang HWu QMiao CShen ZLeung CArnedo JNacke LVanden Abeele VToups Dugas P(2019)Towards Age-friendly Exergame DesignProceedings of the Annual Symposium on Computer-Human Interaction in Play10.1145/3311350.3347191(45-57)Online publication date: 17-Oct-2019
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/3311350.3347191
Maunier BAlvarez JLéger PSénécal SLabonté-LeMoyne ÉChen SLachize SGagné J(2018)Keep Calm and Read the Instructions: Factors for Successful User Equipment SetupHCI in Business, Government, and Organizations10.1007/978-3-319-91716-0_29(372-381)Online publication date: 15-Jul-2018
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1007/978-3-319-91716-0_29
Ramayah T(2016)Interface Characteristics, Perceived Ease of Use and Intention to Use an Online Library in MalaysiaInformation Development10.1177/026666690606557522:2(123-133)Online publication date: 29-Jun-2016
https://doi.org/10.1177/0266666906065575
Vongjaturapat SChaveesuk SChotikakamthorn NTongkhambanchong S(2015)Analysis of Factor Influencing the Tablet Acceptance for Library Information Services: A Combination of UTAUT and TTF ModelJournal of Information & Knowledge Management10.1142/S021964921550023914:03(1550023)Online publication date: Sep-2015
https://doi.org/10.1142/S0219649215500239
Pan ZMiao CYu HLeung CChin J(2015)The Effects of Familiarity Design on the Adoption of Wellness Games by the ElderlyProceedings of the 2015 IEEE / WIC / ACM International Conference on Web Intelligence and Intelligent Agent Technology (WI-IAT) - Volume 0110.1109/WI-IAT.2015.198(387-390)Online publication date: 6-Dec-2015
https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1109/WI-IAT.2015.198
Jeong DJi SGreensmith TYu BChang R(2014)Understanding implicit and explicit interface tools to perform visual analytics tasksProceedings of the 2014 IEEE 15th International Conference on Information Reuse and Integration (IEEE IRI 2014)10.1109/IRI.2014.7051956(687-694)Online publication date: Aug-2014
https://doi.org/10.1109/IRI.2014.7051956
Show More Cited By

View Options

View options

PDF

View or Download as a PDF file.

PDF

eReader

View online with eReader.

eReader

Login options

Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

Abstract

References

Cited By

Index Terms

Recommendations

The University of Alberta user interface management system

The University of Alberta user interface management system

A Dialog-Oriented User Interface Generation Mechanism

Reviews

Access critical reviews of Computing literature here

Comments

Information

Published In

Publisher

Publication History

Permissions

Check for updates

Qualifiers

Contributors

Other Metrics

Bibliometrics

Article Metrics

Other Metrics

Citations

Cited By

View options

PDF

eReader

Login options

Full Access

Share

Share this Publication link

Share on social media

Affiliations