Supporting interface customization using a mixed-initiative approach

ABSTRACT

We describe a mixed-initiative framework designed to support the customization of complex graphical user interfaces. The framework uses an innovative form of online GOMS analysis to provide the user with tailored customization suggestions aimed at maximizing the user's performance with the interface. The suggestions are presented non-intrusively, minimizing disruption and allowing the user to maintain full control. The framework has been applied to a general user-productivity application. A formal user evaluation of the system provides encouraging evidence that this mixed-initiative approach is preferred to a purely adaptable alternative and that the system's suggestions help improve task performance.

References

1. Bunt, A., Conati, C., and McGrenere, J. What Role Can Adaptive Support Play in an Adaptable System? In Proc. of IUI, 2004, pp. 117--124.
2. Carberry, S. Techniques for plan recognition. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 11, 1-2 (2001), 31--48.
3. Card, S. K., Newell, A., and Moran, T. P. The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, NJ 1983.
4. Cohen, J. Eta-squared and partial eta-squared in communication science. Human Communication Research, 28, (1973), 473--490.
5. Cypher, A. EAGER: Programming Repetitive Tasks by Example. In Proc. of CHI, 1991, pp. 33--39.
6. Czarkowski, M. and Kay, J. How to Give the User a Sense of Control Over the Personalization of Adaptive Hypertext? In Proc. of Adaptive Hypermedia and Adaptive Web-Based Systems (in conjunction with UM'03), 2003, pp. 121--131.
7. Debevc, M., Meyer, B., Donlagic, D., and Svecko, R. Design and evaluation of an adaptive icon toolbar. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 6, 1 (1996), 1--21.
8. Findlater, L. and McGrenere, J. A Comparison of Static, Adaptive, and Adaptable Menus. In Proc. of CHI, 2004, pp. 89--96.
9. Gajos, K., Czerwinski, M., Tan, D. S., and Weld, D. S. Exploring the Design Space for Adaptive Graphical User Interfaces. In Proc of AVI, 2006, pp. 201--208.
10. Gajos, K., D. Christianson, R. Hoffmann, T. Shaked, Henning, K., Long, J. J., and Weld, D. S. Fast and Robust Interface Generation for Ubiquitous Applications. In Proc. of Ubicomp, 2005, pp. 37--55.
11. Gong, R. and Kieras, D. A Validation of the GOMS Model Methodology in the Development of a Specialized, Commercial Software Application. In Proc. of CHI, 1994, pp. 351--357.
12. Greenberg, S. and Witten, I. H. Adaptive personalized interfaces - a question of viability. Behaviour and Information Technology, 4, 1 (1985), 31--45.
13. Greenberg, S. and Witten, I. H. How Users Repeat Their Actions on Computers: Principles for Design of History Mechanisms. In Proc. of CHI, 1988, pp. 171--178.
14. Hook, K. Steps to take before intelligent user interfaces become real. Interacting with Computers, 12, (2000), 409--426.
15. Horvitz, E. Principles of Mixed-Initiative User Interfaces. In Proc. of CHI, 1999, pp. 159--166.
16. Horvitz, E., Herckerman, D., Hovel, D., and Rommelse, R. The Lumiere Project: Bayesian User Modeling for Inferring the Goals and Needs of Software Users. In Proc. of UAI, 1998, pp. 256--265.
17. Jameson, A. and Schwarzkopf, E. Pros and Cons of Controllability: An Empirical Study. In Proc. of AH, 2002, pp. 193--202.
18. Kieras, D. E., Wood, S. D., Abotel, K., and Hornof, A. J. GLEAN: A Computer-Based Tool for Rapid GOMS Model Usability Evaluation of User Interface Designs. In Proc. of UIST, 1995, pp. 91--100.
19. Linton, F. and Schaefer, H. Recommender systems for learning: building user and expert models through long-term observation of application use. User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction, 10, 2-3 (2000), 181--207.
20. Mackay, W. E. Triggers and Barriers to Customizing Software. In Proc. of CHI, 1991, pp. 153--160.
21. McGrenere, J., Baecker, R. M., and Booth, K. S. An Evaluation of a Multiple Interface Design Solution for Bloated Software. In Proc. of CHI, 2002, pp. 163--170.
22. McGrenere, J. and Moore, G. Are We All in the Same "Bloat"? In Proc. of GI, 2000, pp. 187--196.
23. Mitchell, J. and Shneiderman, B. Dynamic versus static menus: an exploratory comparison. SIGCHI Bull., 20, 4 (1989), 33--37.
24. Oppermann, R. Adaptively supported adaptability. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 40, (1994), 455--472.
25. Shneiderman, B. and Maes, P. Direct manipulation vs. interface agents. interactions, 4, 6 (1997), 42--61.
26. St. Amant, R. and Cohen, P. R. Interaction with a Mixed-Initiative System for Exploratory Data Analysis. In Proc. of IUI, 1997, pp. 15--22.
27. kThomas, C. G. and Krogsoeter, M. An Adaptive Environment for the User Interface of Excel. In Proc. of IUI, 1993, pp. 123--130.

Index Terms

• Human-centered computing

  • Human computer interaction (HCI)

    • HCI design and evaluation methods

    • Interaction paradigms

      • Graphical user interfaces