Sharon Oviatt
ABSTRACT
Historically, the development of computer systems has been primarily a technology-driven phenomenon, with technologists believing that "users can adapt" to whatever they build. Human-centered design advocates that a more promising and enduring approach is to model users' natural behavior to begin with so that interfaces can be designed that are more intuitive, easier to learn, and freer of performance errors. In this paper, we illustrate different user-centered design principles and specific strategies, as well as their advantages and the manner in which they enhance users' performance. We also summarize recent research findings from our lab comparing the performance characteristics of different educational interfaces that were based on user-centered design principles. One theme throughout our discussion is human-centered design that minimizes users' cognitive load, which effectively frees up mental resources for performing better while also remaining more attuned to the world around them.
- Abowd, G. Classroom 2000: An experiment with the instrumentation of a living educational environment. IBM Systems Journal, 1999. 38(4): 508--530.]] Google Scholar
Digital Library
- Alibali, M., Kita, S., and Young, A. Gesture and the process of speech production: We think, therefore we gesture. Language and Cognitive Processing, 2000. 15: 593--613.]]Google Scholar
- Anderson, R., Hoyer, C., Wolfman, S., and Anderson, R. A study of digital ink in lecture presentation. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'04). 2004. Vienna, Austria: ACM/SIGCHI: 567--574.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Anoto technology, http://www.anoto.com (2006).]]Google Scholar
- Baddeley, A. Working memory. 1986, New York: Oxford University Press.]]Google Scholar
- Baddeley, A. Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Neuroscience, 2003. 4: 829--839.]]Google Scholar
- Camp, G., Paas, F., Rikers, R., and van Merrienboer, J. Dynamic problem selection in air traffic control training: A comparison between performance, mental effort and mental efficiency. Computers in Human Behavior, 2001. 17:575--595.]]Google Scholar
- Cohen, P.R. and McGee, D.R. Tangible multimodal interfaces for safety critical applications. Communications of the ACM, 2004. 47(1): 41--46.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Farmer, E. and Brownson, A. Review of workload measurement, analysis and interpretation methods - physiological measures, performance-based measures, and self-assessment measures. CARE-Integra-TRS-130-02-WP2, 2003.]]Google Scholar
- Friedman, T. The age of interruption. New York Times. July 5, 2006.]]Google Scholar
- Goldin-Meadow, S., Nusbaum, H., Kelly, S.J., and Wagner, S. Explaining math: Gesturing lightens the load. Psychological Science, 2001. 12(6): 516--522.]]Google Scholar
- Ho, C. and Spence, C. Assessing the effectiveness of various auditory cues in capturing a driver's visual attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2005. 11: 157--174.]]Google Scholar
- John, M., Kobus, D., and Morrison, J. Augmented cognition technical integration experiment (TIE). Technical Report 1905, December 2003, DARPA.]]Google Scholar
- Leapfrog, http://www.leapfrog.com (2006).]]Google Scholar
- Liao, C., Guimbretiere, F., and Hinckley, K. Papiercraft: A system of interactive paper. In Proceedings of the Conference on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST'05). 2005. New York, NY: ACM/SIGCHI: 241--244.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Mayer, R.E. and Moreno, R. A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1998. 90(2): 312--320.]]Google Scholar
- Mousavi, S.Y., Low, R., and Sweller, J. Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1995. 87(2): 319--334.]]Google Scholar
- Müller, C., Großmann-Hutter, B., Jameson, A., Rummer, R., and Wittig, F. Recognizing time pressure and cognitive load on the basis of speech: An experimental study. In Proceedings of the 8 th International Conference on UserModeling (UM'2001). 2001: Springer: 24--33.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Oulasvirta, A., Tamminen, S., Roto, V., and Kuorelahti, J. Interaction in 4-second bursts: The fragmented nature of attentional resources in mobile HCI. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'05). 2005. New York, NY: ACM Press: 919--928.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Oviatt, S.L. Predicting spoken disfluencies during human-computer interaction. Computer Speech and Language, 1995. 9: 19--35.]]Google Scholar
- Oviatt, S.L. User-centered design of spoken language and multimodal interfaces. IEEE Multimedia, 1996. 3(4): 26--35.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Oviatt, S.L. Multimodal interactive maps: Designing for human performance. Human Computer Interaction, 1997. 12(1-2): 93--129.]]Google Scholar
- Oviatt, S.L. Mutual disambiguation of recognition errors in a multimodal architecture. In Proceedings of the Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (CHI'99). 1999. Pittsburgh, PA: ACM Press: 576--583.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Oviatt, S.L. Toward multimodal support for interpreted telephone dialogues. Structure of multimodal dialogue, M. Taylor, F. Neel, and D. Bouwhuis, Editors, 2000. John Benjamins: Amsterdam, Netherlands. 85--107.]]Google Scholar
- Oviatt, S.L. Breaking the robustness barrier: Recent progress on the design of robust multimodal systems, Advances in computers, M. Zelkowitz, Editor, 2002. Academic Press: 305--341.]]Google Scholar
- Oviatt, S.L., Arthur, A.M., and Cohen, J. Quiet interfaces that help students think. In Proceedings of the Nineteenth Annual ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology (UIST '06). 2006. New York, NY: ACM Press: in press.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Oviatt, S.L., Brock, Y., Cohen, J., and Arthur, A.M. Expressive pen-based interfaces for active learners, in submission.]]Google Scholar
- Oviatt, S.L., Coulston, R., and Lunsford, R. When do we interact multimodally? Cognitive load and multimodal communication patterns. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI'04). 2004. Pennsylvania, PA. ACM Press: 129--136.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Oviatt, S.L., Coulston, R., Shriver, S., Xiao, B., Wesson, R.M., Lunsford, L., and Carmichael, L. Toward a theory of organized multimodal integration patterns during human-computer interaction. In Proceedings of the 5th International Conference on Multimodal Interfaces (ICMI'03). 2003. Vancouver, B.C.: ACM Press: 265--272.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Oviatt, S.L., Darves, C., and Coulston, R. Toward adaptive conversational interfaces: Modeling speech convergence with animated personas. Transactions on Human Computer Interaction (TOCHI), 2004. 11(3): 300--328.]] Google ScholarDigital Library
- Paas, F., Tuovinen, J., Tabbers, H., and Van Gerven, P. Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 2003. 38(1): 63--71.]]Google Scholar
- Pea, R. and Maldonado, H. Wild for learning: Interacting through new computing devices anytime, anywhere., The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, R.K. Sawyer, Editor, 2005. Cambridge University Press, New York: 427--443.]]Google Scholar
- Sweller, J. Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 1988. 12: 257--285.]]Google Scholar
- Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., and Sweller, P. When two sensory modes are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1997. 3(3): 257--287.]]Google Scholar
- van Merrienboer, J. and Sweller, J. Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 2005. 17(2): 147--177.]]Google Scholar
- Wickens, C. Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science, 2002. 3(2): 159--177.]]Google Scholar
- Wickens, C., Sandry, D., and Vidulich, M. Compatibility and resource competition between modalities of input, central processing, and output. Human Factors, 1983. 25(2): 227--248.]]Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Human-centered design meets cognitive load theory: designing interfaces that help people think
Recommendations
Beyond human centered design?
DIS '04: Proceedings of the 5th conference on Designing interactive systems: processes, practices, methods, and techniquesThe concept of the user and user-centered design is central to the history of SIGCHI and the culture the Designing Interactive Systems conferences. The idea of the user and designing around user requirements and contexts of use were a radical ...
Ethics in Human-Centered Design
Human-Computer Interaction. Theory, Methods and ToolsAbstractIn recent years, ethical considerations have become a primary concern across all fields of research. Human-Centered Design (HCD) is no exception. When the subjects of an experiment are human beings, rigid ethical consideration is required. User ...
User-centered design, activity-centered design, and goal-directed design: a review of three methods for designing web applications
SIGDOC '09: Proceedings of the 27th ACM international conference on Design of communicationWhen conducting research with users in order to design web applications, the practitioner has a variety of methods from which to choose. This paper examines three such methods'User-Centered Design (UCD), Goal-Directed Design (GDD), and Activity-Centered ...
Reviews
Bernice T. Glenn
Oviatt advocates the position that a better approach to user interface design is one that is based on human performance, not that of the computer. This paper explains Oviatt's theory, and presents a study that supports it. The research Oviatt describes in her paper is based on an observation that technology and multitasking induce partial attention, which, in turn, has a negative effect on performance ability. For emphasis, Oviatt quotes Tom Friedman of The New York Times in her opening paragraph; he describes our time as "the age of interruption," and asks: "Who can think or write or innovate under such conditions__?__" Based on these observations, Oviatt seeks to design interfaces that allow people to perform, while remaining connected to "the web of life." Oviatt's study compares three different types of interfaces and how they are used by students to solve math problems. Integral to Oviatt's analysis is the design of interfaces based on cognitive load theory (CLT). CLT defines cognitive load as the mental resources for solving problems or completing tasks that are available to a person at a given time. CLT contends that it is easier to learn new ways of doing things, along with automating the new process, if the instruction methods used place minimal demands on a student's working memory. Another aspect of CLT on which Oviatt's study is based is that better performance results when information is distributed across modes that complement each other. Verbal plus visual mode is such a combination. The argument is based on multicomponent memory research. Oviatt relies on Baddeley's theory of working memory, which maintains that short-term memory consists of three independent processors, each associated with a separate modality, coordinated by a central executive. The fact that these processors function separately enables the effective size of working memory to expand when people use two or more complementary communication modes when performing a task. Based on this research, Oviatt's goal was to develop prototypes in order to evaluate how they supported students' ability to solve math problems. Her lab compared three different interface types, together with paper and pencil as used in mathematics education. Interfaces the students worked with included a digital stylus and paper, an interface closest to the traditional paper and pencil medium; a pen and tablet, an interface that used some of the traditional methodologies; and a graphical tablet interface with keyboard, mouse, and stylus, an interface furthest from the paper and pencil medium. CLT was used to provide the framework for predicting how each interface minimized student cognitive load and enhanced performance. Twenty students were subjects. They were classified as low or high performing, and were asked to complete problems that ranked from easy to very hard. The problems, whether two-dimensional (2D) or three-dimensional (3D), were presented in a text format. Students were required to translate the text description into diagrams, numerical data, and symbols in order to reach a solution. After completing this portion, students were tested on their ability to recall information from the problems they had just worked on. Evaluations involved attention focus, memory, speed, and solution correctness. Results (also shown in a number of data charts) showed that students using the digital stylus and paper interface completed the problems much faster than with the other tablet interfaces. They were also more attentive to the math and less distracted by the interface, and remembered the information better using this format. Both the stylus and pen-based interfaces supported more planning than the graphical tablet. The conclusion was that human-centered design that minimizes users' cognitive load frees up mental resources that allow the user to perform well. Based on these results, Oviatt specifies that interface design should leverage from the users' experience, behavior, and preferences; support natural, flexible multimodal interfaces; minimize cognitive load associated with user planning and extraneous system complexities; minimize distracting system features or interruptions; and support multiple representation formats (text, graphic and diagrammatic, numeric, and symbolic). This leading edge research is supported by a lengthy bibliography. Interface designers for all categories of software will benefit from learning about the basic concepts and results shown by Oviatt's explorations. Online Computing Reviews Service
Access critical reviews of Computing literature here
Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.
Comments