CS295J/Literature

From VrlWiki
< CS295J
Revision as of 20:08, 1 February 2009 by Steven Ellis (talk | contribs)
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Perception

  • Colin Ware: Information Visualization: Perception for Design
Insight into some of the theory of perception as it pertains to building visual interfaces (David)
  • Some unindentified paper(s)/book(s) about Gestalt theories of perception and cognition wikipedia page
These theories, from the 40's inform visual design and may provide an analogy for integration of theory and practice. They describe some characteristics of perception that have been used as evaluative rules in UI design. (David)
A cool technique on "hacking" human perception by modifying the control/display ratio of visible elements to simulate haptic feedback for the user. Strong analysis of which parts of haptic feedback are useful (e.g., vertical elements can be discarded). Pseudo-haptic feedback is implemented by combining the use of visible feedback with the changing sensitivity of a passive input device (e.g., a mouse). E J Kalafarski 16:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
"The authors focus at on three things: presentation of information to best match human cognitive and perceptual capabilities, interactive tools and systems to facilitate creation and navigation of visualizations, and software system features to improve visualization tools." First and third points sound relevant. E J Kalafarski 16:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Focuses on the commonalities of perception. Rough overview of sensory mechanisms, and strong anecdotal support of not adapting completely to the user, but rather requiring the user to adapt as well. Identifies some common perceptual problems with particular groups of EUs (e.g., blind people). E J Kalafarski 16:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
A theory of visual search that builds on the distinction between visual targets that you need to search for in a field of distractors and those that "pop out" at you. (Adam) 16:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Discusses some of the automatic interpretation in our perception, focusing on inferring causal relations and animacy. (Adam) 16:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC) (Adam - owner; Andrew Bragdon - discussant; Gideon - discussant)
Provides some Gestalt-like descriptive analysis of perceptual behavior; not clear if it can be incorporated into a predictive model, but some rules for interfaces might be derive from it. May connect low-level perceptual behavior to higher level cognitive constructs. Could this imply some cognitive computational module in our model? (David)
The theoretical value of this paper is that it makes two points that are often neglected in HCI. One point is the amount of automatic interpretation that goes into even the sparsest visual displays. The second point is the importance of motion and temporal cues for how we interpret visual displays. Interface designers often think they are designing 2D interfaces, but people are sensitive to the temporal nature of the interface. For example, it's easier to reorient after minimizing a window if the window shrinks instead of disappearing. The practical value of this paper is that it points to the fact that some of the limits on causal perception have been quantified. If you want people to perceive one event as an effect or continuation of another, you have limits on how distant in space or time those two events can be. (Adam)
Affordances are actions that are appropriate for an object and that come to mind when perceiving the object. (Adam) 16:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
How the original concept of affordances differs from how it has been used in HCI. (Adam) 16:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

Cognition

  • Colin Ware: Visual Thinking: For Design
Insight into some of the theory of cognition as it pertains to building visual interfaces (David)
A clear description of one part of human thinking; will probably provide pointers to other things to read (David)
Describes a computer program that predicts response time to a query from assumptions from eye-tracking, short-term memory capacity, and the amount of information that can be absorbed from the query in each "glance." Attempts to lay the foundation for explaining several steps of human cognition, including input, memory, and processing. E J Kalafarski 16:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Older article but referenced in a lot of newer ones; looks at how conventional problem-solving is ineffective as a learning device. (lisajane)
People are more effective at a task when the stimulus and response representations are compatible and they don't require "translation". (Adam) 16:22, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
This paper discusses the neurological basis for the ImPact test given to athletes after they've suffered a concussion. It provides testing and quantitative measures for verbal memory, visual memory, and reaction times. These simple measures of cognition may be useful to incorporate in an HCI study. (Trevor)

A Framework of Interaction Costs in Information Visualization

ABSTRACT: Interaction cost is an important but poorly understood factor in visualization design. We propose a framework of interaction costs inspired by Norman’s Seven Stages of Action to facilitate study. From 484 papers, we collected 61 interaction-related usability problems reported in 32 user studies and placed them into our framework of seven costs: (1) Decision costs to form goals; (2) System-power costs to form system operations; (3) Multiple input mode costs to form physical sequences; (4) Physical-motion costs to execute sequences; (5) Visual-cluttering costs to perceive state; (6) View-change costs to interpret perception; (7) State-change costs to evaluate interpretation. We also suggested ways to narrow the gulfs of execution (2–4) and evaluation (5–7) based on collected reports. Our framework suggests a need to consider decision costs (1) as the gulf of goal formation.
Includes some ideas for quantitatively evaluating information visualization interfaces (David)


  • Distributed Cognition as a Theoretical Framework for HCI (1994) Christine A. Halverson [1]
Cognition can be thought to be distributable across mediums (outside of the skull). How might we off-load "cognitive" processes to computer systems? (Gideon - Owner)
I think that Ware gets into this in some of his writing about information visualization (or in his second book, thinking with visualization). We can build in external "caches" or other constructs to be part of our cognitive model. It seems like most of an analytical user interface is part of the external cognitive process. (David)
Our use of language serves as a higher-order cognitive system which can be utilized as "scaffolding" in human thought, supporting goal-driven tasks. (Gideon)
It is hypothesized that there are two distinct systems of reasoning in the mind. System 1 is innate and fast, system 2 is controlled and slow. Knowledge of this might help us determine which tasks are candidates for one system or another. (Gideon)

HCI

  • John M. Carroll: HCI Models, Theories, and Frameworks: Toward a Multidisciplinary Science
A gargantuan book with chapters by many folks describing some of the models and theories from HCI that may relate back to cognition; may need to create individual (David)
A study in which the GOMS method is used to correctly predict the performance of call center operators using a new workstation. Might be interesting because of the methodology used to decompose the task into basic cognitive and perceptual actions, and then measuring these actions to evaluate the new interface. (Eric)

Marking menus naturally facillitate the transition from novice to expert performance for command invocation, and have been quite influential over the years to research into menu techniques. (Andrew Bragdon)

This is a system which combines gaze input (coarse-grained) and mouse input (fine-grained) to quickly target items. This is important because it "kind of" gets around Fitt's law by using gaze input to "warp" the cursor to the general vicinity of what the user wants to work on. (Andrew Bragdon)

Presents task models of user attention. (Andrew Bragdon) (Adam - owner; Gideon - discussant) DISCUSSANT: E J Kalafarski 22:58, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

Other than how not to design an experiment and how not to present data, I don't think we have anything to learn from this paper. They interrupt participants at either the best or worst moments during a task according to a model of task memory structure with the idea that it will be easier to return to the task at more memorable points. They find no differences in measures of time, only in several subjective measures of inconvenience. Even those differences are mostly between conditions with interruptions and the condition with no interruptions. (Adam)

Empirical study of how information workers spend their time. Puts forward a theory of how users organize small individual tasks into "working spheres." (Andrew Bragdon - OWNER; Adam Darlow - Discussant; Steven Ellis - Discussant)

250-word summary and relevance statement (Andrew Bragdon)

Any visualization which is used extensively by a user over a period of time will be used in the context of that user's daily workflow. It is therefore essential to understand this larger workflow context to design the visualization application appropriately to fit the needs of real world users. This paper studies in detail the daily workflow tasks and patterns of work of analysts, managers and software developers in a medium-sized software company. This paper provides strong empirical evidence that users, rather than working on discrete and well-defined tasks, in reality, switch tasks on average every two to three minutes, and instead, work on larger thematically connected units of work (working spheres). In addition, the study found that users switched between these larger working spheres on average every 12 minutes. Thus, it is strongly indicated by this paper that many information workers are in a constant state of rapid fire multi-tasking. This suggests that for a visualization to be relevant to any of these information workers, it would need to fit into, and support, this workflow. This is just a first step towards understanding how users interact with visualizations in particular, however; future work that studies how users interact with visualizations as part of their larger daily work patterns is warranted, and would be an important component of a broad theory of visualization.


Presents a new taxonomy for automating usability analysis. Advantages of automated evaluation are purported to be advantages linked to efficiency, such as comparing alternate designs, uncovering more errors more consistently, and predicting time/error costs across an entire design. Breaks down a taxonomy with individual benefits and drawbacks of each method, and checks observations against existing guidelines (e.g. Smith and Mosier guidelines, Motif style guidelines, etc). Introduces several visual tools. Looks extremely relevant as a comprehensive survey of existing techniques. OWNER: E J Kalafarski 16:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC) Discussant: --- Trevor O'Brien 23:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC) Discussant: Steven Ellis
Overview of the four major UI evaluation methods: heuristic evaluation, usability testing, guidelines, and cognitive walkthrough, followed by a comparison in their application to a case study. E J Kalafarski 16:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Presents the concept of performing a hand walkthrough of the cognitive process, based on another theory of "learning by exploration." Strong results for a limited evaluation timeframe and little or no time for formal instruction of the interface for the user. The reviewer considers each behavior of the interface and its resultant effect on the user, attempting to identify actions that would be difficult for the "average" user. Claims that a given step will not be difficult must be supported with empirical data or theory. The application of cognitive theory early in the design process seems useful in avoiding costly redesigns when problems are identified later. E J Kalafarski 16:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Emphasis on heuristic evaluation. Shockingly, usability experts are found to be better at performing this type of evaluation. Usability problems relating to elements that are completely missing from the interface are difficult to identify with this method when evaluating unimplemented designs. E J Kalafarski 16:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
One of the first research papers to introduce eye tracking as a viable HCI technique. (Trevor)
Technical details about the implementation of a recent real-time eye-tracking system. (Trevor)
A workshop discussion from CHI 2007 discussing the idea of a "semantic internet" and its relevance to the HCI community. Discusses things like adaptive web interfaces, mashups, dynamic interactions, etc. (Trevor)
A highly cited paper discussing the notion of implicit HCI, including semantic grouping of interactions, and some perceptual rules. (Trevor - OWNER; Andrew Bragdon - discussant; DISCUSSANT: E J Kalafarski 22:57, 28 January 2009 (UTC))
This article investigates the cognitive strategies that people use to search computer displays. Several different visual layouts are examined. (lisajane)
This article reviews basic and applied research documenting failures of visual awareness and the related metacognitive failure and then discuss misplaced beliefs that could accentuate both in the context of the human-computer interface. (lisajane)
  • Shneiderman, Plaisant: Designing the User Interface
My textbook for an HCI class, has many good lists of guidelines. Especially Ch.2 pp 59-102. (lisajane)
  • Robert Mack, Jakob Nielsen: Usability Inspection Methods (Ch. 1 Executive Summary)
Provides an overview of main usability inspection methods, a fair introduction to the industrial applications, as well as certain costs and benefits, of the methods as well as suggestions for expansive research. (Steven)

5(2):110-141, 1986. (Jian)

The first paper talked about how to automatically generate *good* graphs.
Extend their previous paper to analytics tasks.
discuss vis from a variety of angles as for art, science and technology and question and quantify the utility of visualization.
Extend Fitts' to trajectory based tasks.
an application-specific comparison of visualization method. a cool paper.
quantify visual complexity from a statistics point of view.
This paper offers an analysis of four types of GOMS (Goals, Objects, Methods and Selection) based interaction techniques. GOMS is a widely used UI paradigm, made popular by Card et al in The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction (1983).
Using advanced computer vision/AI techniques, this work aims to discern and make use of users' emotions in UI design.
Discusses some techniques and design decisions for constructing adaptable and customizable user interfaces. There are some useful references in the paper on using HMMs and RMMs (Relational Markov Models) for interaction prediction.
This paper presents comparative evaluations of three methods for implementing adaptable user interfaces. The evaluation methodology gives rise to three key concepts that affect the performance of adaptable UIs: frequency of adaptation, accuracy of adaptation, and the impact of predictability.
  • Conceptual Modeling for User Interface Development - David Benyon, Diana Bental, and Thomas Green
Proposes a new set of terminology for describing and comparing existing and future cognitive models of HCI. (Steven)

Entity-Relationship Models of Information Artefacts] T. R. G. Green, D. R. Benyon

A paper in form of prelude to the above, gives a good overview of the ERMIA method. (Steven)

Cognitive Modeling

Discusses the notion of Activity Theory as the basis for HCI research. The most interesting part of this paper for me was the introduction which expressed the need for a Theory of HCI.
Creates a compelling argument for why distributed cognition research fits in with HCI, and what types of impacts it may have on the HCI community.
Defines the task of the HCI specialist as the application of psychological and anthropological principles to specific design problems. It posits an inherent feud between the accurate study of relative contexts and the necessary, but more general, development of comparative models and results. Gives a coherent overview of activity theory, situated action models, and distributed cognition; finds that activity theory presents the best overall framework. There is little reason given for this ranking, however, and the description of activity theory is the most theoretical and least developed of the three.
Having spent quite a bit of time studying Soviet psychology (from which came activity theory) last semester, I question the validity of the paper’s claim, as its description of activity theory bears the artifacts of the oppressive regulations which the Soviet government imposed on psychologists. Although the theory may sound more practical, it seems fairly weak as a basis for empirical design analysis.
The paper’s strongest point is the criticisms which follow descriptions, in which theoretical shortcomings of each perspective are discussed. (Owner: Steven, Discussant: --- Trevor O'Brien 23:22, 28 January 2009 (UTC))

High-level theory of human-computer dialogues. (Andrew Bragdon)

  • Polson, P. and Lewis, C. Theory-Based Design for Easily Learned Interfaces. Human-Computer Interaction, 5, 2 (June 1990), 191-220.

This is a cognitive model of how users find and learn commands in an unfamiliar user interface. This could potentially be adapted to be a piece of a theory of visualization. (Andrew Bragdon)

Design

see summary for Alexander below (David)
  • UI Design principles (feedback, etc -- find ref)
  • Alexander: A Pattern Language: Towns, Buildings, Construction
The original design pattern source; what makes a human space work, ineffable best practices, ~250 rules is enough to do communities and house-sized artifacts; could be a good metaphor for making; could be a good metaphor for making human virtual space work? (David)
A specific UI proposal, but has nice relevant discussion on how we perceive "foreground" items and "background" items and their relationship, taking advantage of this "parallel" processing of perception. Includes the use of visual metaphors, phicons, and a notion they invent called "digital shadows," in which the shadow projected by an object conveys some information on its contents. E J Kalafarski 16:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Design method with emphasis on discouraging undesirable behavior, by perhaps forcing the user to adapt to the interface, giving equal weight to user goals, user "non-goals," and wider goals of stakeholders besides the immediate user. The important insight seems to be that these wider goals can enhance the user's experience with the larger system in the long run, if not in the immediate timeframe. Five major design steps. E J Kalafarski 16:02, 26 January 2009 (UTC)
Really awesome book on the evolution of interactions with technology. (Trevor)
Another great book on the practices of interaction design. (Trevor)
An interesting work on the efficiency of minimalist design. Quick read for those interested. (Steven)
A set of design guidelines some of which we may be able to build on in automating interface evaluation; will certainly apply to manual evaluations David Laidlaw
the paper talks about visualization mantra.

Thinking, analysis, decision making

  • Morgan D. Jones: The Thinker's Toolkit: Fourteen Powerful Techniques for Problem Solving
Set of methods for solving problems that might be incorporated into tools for thinking (David)
  • Keim, Shazeer, Littman: Proverb: The Probabilistic Cruciverbalist
An automatic crossword-puzzle solver; the software framework for building this program may be a metaphor for some thinking groupware with plug-in modules. (David)
  • Thomas, Cook: Illuminating the Path
a research agenda for tools for intelligence analysts; not sure of relevance (David)
  • Richard Thaler, Cass Sunstein: Nudge - Improving Decisions About Wealth, Health, and Happiness
A great, easy read for someone who isn't familiar with the psychological perspective. Focuses mainly on public policy issues, but certain sections (on developing a better social security website, for example) relate specifically to digital design. (Steven)

Visualization

  • Min Chen, David Ebert, Hans Hagen, Robert S. Laramee, Robert van Liere, Kwan-Liu Ma, William Ribarsky, Gerik Scheuermann, Deborah Silver, "Data, Information, and Knowledge in Visualization," IEEE Computer Graphics and Applications, vol. 29, no. 1, pp. 12-19, Jan./Feb. 2009, doi:10.1109/MCG.2009.6
Retrieved from "http://vrl.cs.brown.edu/wiki/index.php?title=CS295J/Literature&oldid=1710"