Unit 1:Humans in HCI

Perceptual-Motor Interaction: Some Implications for Human–Computer

Interaction, Human Information Processing: An Overview for Human–
Computer Interaction, Mental Models in Human–Computer Interaction, Task
Loading and Stress in Human–Computer Interaction, Choices and Decisions of
Computer Users.
 Unit 1:Humans in HCI

Perceptual-Motor Interaction: Some Implications for Human–Computer

Interaction, Human Information Processing: An Overview for Human–
Computer Interaction, Mental Models in Human–Computer Interaction, Task
Loading and Stress in Human–Computer Interaction, Choices and Decisions of
Computer Users.
 Task Loading and Stress in Human.

It is evident that many computer systems have to support people operating in stressful

circumstances and, of course, there are important design issues concerning how to present

information in these very demanding circumstances.

Traditionally, stress has been considered to result from exposure to some adverse

environmental circumstances such as excessive heat, cold, noise, or vibration

It is one of the clearest paradoxes of modern work that computer-based systems designed to

reduce task complexity and cognitive workload actually often impose even greater demands

and stresses on the very individuals they are supposed to be helping.

 Task Loading and Stress in Human- Mitigation of stress

• approaches to mitigate the negative effects of stress and workload on the performance of
HCI tasks.
• These strategies include skill development, specific display design changes, as well as
technologies employing adaptive automation and decision aids
• Developing skills so that they are relatively automatic as opposed to the alternative
controlled processing and developing expertise can mitigate some of the negative effects
of stress.
• Regarding display design, simple, easily perceivable graphics can permit quick, direct
extraction of information when cognitive resources are reduced by stress and workload
• Adaptive automation can be employed by adjusting the level of automation and the
management of that automation according to stress state
 Task Loading and Stress in Human- Mitigation of stress

1. Changing the person

1. training/skill development
2. Personnel selection
2. Changing the task
1. display design
2. adaptive automation
3. Hedonomics: promoting enjoyable human–computer interaction
-branch of science that facilitates the pleasant or enjoyable aspects of human–
technology interaction.
-In short, the goal of hedonomics is to design with happiness in mind.
-Hedonomics is a fairly new research area, but during the last decade there has been a
rapid growth in research concerning affect and pleasure
 Affective aspects

• HCI has traditionally been about designing efficient and effective systems

• Now more about how to design interactive systems that make people respond in
certain ways
• e.g. to be happy, to be trusting, to learn, to be motivated

8/4/2020 RMSP
Expressive interfaces

1. Colour, icons, sounds, graphical elements and animations are used to make the ‘look and feel’ of
an interface appealing

-Conveys an emotional state

2. In turn this can affect the usability of an interface

-People are prepared to put up with certain aspects of an interface (e.g. slow download rate) if
the end result is appealing and aesthetic

8/4/2020 RMSP
 User-created expressiveness
• Users have created a range of emotions - compensate for lack of expressiveness in
text communication:
Happy :)
Sad :<
Sick :X
Mad >:
Very angry >:-(

• Also use of icons and shorthand in texting and instant messaging has emotional
connotations, e.g.
I 12 CU 2NITE

8/4/2020 RMSP
 Would you use any of these? What for?

8/4/2020 RMSP
Friendly interfaces

• Microsoft pioneered friendly interfaces for technophobes - ‘At home with Bob’
software

• 3D metaphors based on familiar places (e.g. living rooms)

• Agents in the guise of pets (e.g. bunny, dog) were included to talk to the user

Make users feel more at ease and comfortable

8/4/2020 RMSP
Bob

8/4/2020 RMSP
Clippy

• Why was Clippy disliked by so many?

• Was it annoying, distracting, patronising or other?

• What sort of user liked Clippy?

8/4/2020 RMSP
 User frustration

Many causes:
• When an application doesn’t work properly or crashes
• When a system doesn’t do what the user wants it to do
• When a user’s expectations are not met
• When a system does not provide sufficient information to enable the user to know what to do
• When error messages pop up that are vague, obtuse or condemning
• When the appearance of an interface is garish, noisy, gimmicky or patronizing
• When a system requires users to carry out too many steps to perform a task, only to discover a
mistake was made earlier and they need to start all over again

8/4/2020 RMSP
Gimmicks
Amusing to the designer but not the user, e.g.,
-Clicking on a link to a website only to discover that it is still ‘under
construction’

8/4/2020 RMSP
Error messages
“The application Word Wonder has unexpectedly quit due to a type 2 error.”
Why not instead:
“the application has expectedly quit due to poor coding in the operating system”
guidelines for error messages include:
• avoid using terms like FATAL, INVALID, BAD

• Audio warnings

• Avoid UPPERCASE and long code numbers

• Messages should be precise rather than vague

• Provide context-sensitive help

8/4/2020 RMSP
 Choices and Decisions of Computer Users.

Computer users are constantly making small choices and larger decisions about how to use

their computing technology, such as the following:

 Which of the available photo management apps shall I use on my smartphone?

 Shall I dictate this e-mail message using speech recognition or tap in the text with a

stylus?

 How should I configure my privacy settings?

 Choices and Decisions of Computer Users.

• This chapter focuses on cases, like these, in which a user can choose among two or more

options, none of which is correct or incorrect but one of which can be preferred to the others.

The term preferential choice will be used to distinguish this situation from non preferential

choices that concern the correct way to operate a system, such as “Which of these unfamiliar

icons do I have to click on to send off my e-mail message?”

• We will use the terms choice and decision, together and in alternation, to do justice to the

variety of forms that the processes in question can take.

• Decision suggests a thorough, effortful process, whereas choice suggests a quick selection

that may be based, for example, on habit

 General preferential choice problems

Decision about whether to use a given system - technology acceptance

• Unified theory of acceptance and use of technology (UTAUT)
• The four main variables in the UTAUT model and typical questionnaire items used to measure
them
1. performance expectancy :using the system in my job would enable me to accomplish tasks more
quickly.
2. Effort expectancy: learning to operate the system would be easy for me.
3. Social influence: people who influence my behavior think that I should use the system.
4. Facilitating conditions: I have control over using the system.

8/4/2020
 Learning from experience
• The model of action introduced by Norman (1986), which is well known in the HCI field, is worth
bearing in mind in this context, even though it was not specifically intended to illuminate processes
of preferential choice.

• Each of these phases can be seen as a way in which a chooser may have difficulty in learning from
experience in making a certain type of choice.

• In cases like these, in which individual learning from experience faces serious obstacles, sources of
guidance such as norms, policies, and the behavior of similar other persons play an especially
important role.

• These cases also offer opportunities for interaction designers to improve choice and decision
making noticeably by identifying the learning difficulty and taking steps to compensate for it.

8/4/2020
 Models of interaction

We would discuss the interaction between human and computer, and, in particular,
how we can ensure that the interaction is effective to allow the user to get the
required job done.

We would see how we can use Norman’s execution– evaluation model, and the
interaction framework that extends it, to analyze the interaction in terms of how easy
or difficult it is for the user to express what he wants and determine whether it has
been done.

8/4/2020
 Norman’s execution–evaluation cycle
• Norman’s model of interaction is perhaps the most influential in Human–
Computer Interaction
• The user formulates a plan of action, which is then executed at the computer interface.

• When the plan, or part of the plan, has been executed, the user observes the computer
interface to evaluate the result of the executed plan, and to determine further actions.

• interactive cycle can be divided into two major phases: execution and
evaluation.

• These can then be subdivided into further stages, seven in all.

8/4/2020
 Norman’s execution–evaluation cycle

The stages in Norman’s model of interaction are as follows:

1) Establishing the goal.
2) Forming the intention.
3) Specifying the action sequence.
4) Executing the action.
5) Perceiving the system state.
6) Interpreting the system state.
7) Evaluating the system state with respect to the goals and intentions.
8/4/2020
 Norman’s execution–evaluation cycle
Norman uses a simple example of switching on a light to illustrate this cycle. Imagine you are sitting reading as
evening falls. You decide you need more light; that is you establish the goal to get more light. From there you form
an intention to switch on the desk lamp, and you specify the actions required, to reach over and press the lamp
switch.

If someone else is closer the intention may be different – you may ask them to switch on the light for you. Your
goal is the same but the intention and actions are different. When you have executed the action you perceive the
result, either the light is on or it isn’t and you interpret this, based on your knowledge of the world.

For example, if the light does not come on you may interpret this as indicating the bulb has blown or the lamp is
not plugged into the mains, and you will formulate new goals to deal with this.

If the light does come on, you will evaluate the new state according to the original goals – is there now enough
light? If so, the cycle is complete. If not, you may formulate a new intention to switch on the main ceiling light as
well.

8/4/2020
 Norman’s execution–evaluation cycle
• Norman uses this model of interaction to demonstrate why some interfaces cause problems to their users.

• Gulfs of execution and the Gulfs of evaluation

• As we noted earlier, the user and the system do not use the same terms to describe the domain and goals –

remember that we called the language of the system the core language and the language of the user the task

language.

• The gulf of execution difference between the user’s formulation of the actions to reach the goal and the actions

allowed by the system. If the actions allowed by the system correspond to those intended by the user, the

interaction will be effective. The interface should therefore aim to reduce this gulf.

• The gulf of evaluation is the distance between the physical presentation of the system state and the expectation of

the user. If the user can readily evaluate the presentation in terms of his goal, the gulf of evaluation is small. The

more effort that is required on the part of the user to interpret the presentation, the less effective the interaction.
8/4/2020
 Norman’s execution–evaluation cycle

• Norman’s model is a useful means of understanding the interaction

• It concentrates wholly on the user’s view of the interaction.

• It does not attempt to deal with the system’s communication through the
interface.

• An extension of Norman’s model, proposed by Abowd and Beale, addresses this

problem

8/4/2020