HUMAN-COMPUTER INTERACTION SECOND EDITION
Dix, Finlay, Abowd and Beale


Search Results


Search results for familiarity
Showing 1 to 10 of 13 [next >>] [new search]


Chapter 1 The human Perceiving size and depth. Page 17

One of these factors is our perception of depth. If we return to the hilltop scene there are a number of cues which we can use to determine the relative positions and distances of the objects which we see. If objects overlap, the object which is partially covered is perceived to be in the background, and therefore further away. Similarly, the size and height of the object in our field of view provides a cue to its distance. A third cue is familiarity: if we expect an object to be of a certain size then we can judge its distance accordingly. This has been exploited for humour in advertising: a drinks advertisement shows a man apparently walking away from a bottle in the foreground. As he walks, he bumps into the bottle, which is in fact a giant one in the background!


Chapter 1 The human Reading Page 22

The speed at which text can be read is a measure of its legibility. Experiments have shown that standard font sizes of 9 to 12 points are equally legible, given proportional spacing between lines [239]. Similarly line lengths of between 2.3 and 5.2 inches (58 and 132 mm) are equally legible. However, there is evidence that reading from a computer screen is slower than from a book [166]. This is thought to be due to a number of factors including a longer line length, fewer words to a page, orientation and the familiarity of the medium of the page. These factors can of course be reduced by careful design of textual interfaces.


Chapter 1 The human Long-term memory processes Page 35

So if learning information is aided by structure, familiarity and concreteness, what causes us to lose this information, to forget? There are two main theories of forgetting: decay and interference. The first theory suggests that the information held in long-term memory may eventually be forgotten. Ebbinghaus concluded from his experiments with nonsense syllables that information in memory decayed logarithmically, that is that it was lost rapidly to begin with, and then more slowly. Jost's law, which follows from this, states that if two memory traces are equally strong at a given time the older one will be more durable.


Chapter 2 The computer Joystick Page 65

The joystick is an indirect input device, taking up very little space. Consisting of a small palm-sized box with a stick or shaped grip sticking up from it, the joystick is a simple device with which movements of the stick cause a corresponding movement of the screen cursor. There are two types of joystick, the absolute and the isometric. In the absolute joystick, movement is the important characteristic, since the position of the joystick in the base corresponds to the position of the cursor on the screen. In the isometric joystick, the pressure on the stick corresponds to the velocity of the cursor, and when released, the stick returns to its usual upright centred position. This type of joystick is also called the velocity-controlled joystick, for obvious reasons. The buttons are usually placed on the top of the stick, or on the front like a trigger. Joysticks are inexpensive and fairly robust, and for this reason they are often found in computer games. Another reason for their dominance of the games market is their relative familiarity to users, and their likeness to aircraft joysticks: aircraft are a favourite basis for games, leading to familiarity with the joystick that can be used for more obscure entertainment ideas.


Chapter 4 Usability paradigms and principles 4.2.6 The metaphor Page 148

In developing the LOGO language to teach children, Papert used the metaphor of a turtle dragging its tail in the dirt. Children could quickly identify with the real-world phenomenon and that instant familiarity gave them an understanding of how they could create pictures. Metaphors are used quite successfully to teach new concepts in terms of ones which are already understood, as we saw when looking at analogy in Chapter 1. It is no surprise that this general teaching mechanism has been successful in introducing computer novices to relatively foreign interaction techniques. We have already seen how metaphors are used to describe the functionality of many interaction widgets, such as windows, menus, buttons and palettes. Tremendous commercial successes in computing have arisen directly from a judicious choice of metaphor. The Xerox Alto and Star were the first workstations based on the metaphor of the office desktop. The majority of the management tasks on a workstation have to do with file manipulation. Linking the set of tasks associated with file manipulation to the filing tasks in a typical office environment makes the actual computerized tasks easier to understand at first. And the success of the desktop metaphor is unquestionable. Another good example in the personal computing domain is the widespread use of the spreadsheet metaphor for accounting and financial modelling.


Chapter 4 Usability paradigms and principles 4.2.6 The metaphor Page 149

Very few will debate the value of a good metaphor for increasing the initial familiarity between user and computer application. The danger of a metaphor is usually realized after the initial honeymoon period. When word processors were first introduced, they relied heavily on the typewriter metaphor. The keyboard of a computer closely resembles that of a standard typewriter, so it seems like a good metaphor from which to start. However, the behaviour of a word processor is different from any typewriter. For example, the space key on a typewriter is passive, producing nothing on the piece of paper and just moving the guide further along the current line. For a typewriter, a space is not a character. However, for a word processor, the blank space is a character which must be inserted within a text just as any other character is inserted. So an experienced typist is not going to be able to predict correctly the behaviour of pressing the spacebar on the keyboard by appealing to her experience with a typewriter. Whereas the typewriter metaphor is beneficial for providing a preliminary understanding of a word processor, the analogy is inadequate for promoting a full understanding of how the word processor works. In fact, the metaphor gets in the way of the user understanding the computer.


Chapter 4 Usability paradigms and principles Familiarity Page 165

Familiarity


Chapter 4 Usability paradigms and principles Familiarity Page 165

New users of a system bring with them a wealth of experience across a wide number of application domains. This experience is obtained both through interaction in the real world and also through interaction with other computer systems. For a new user, the familiarity of an interactive system measures the correlation between the user's existing knowledge and the knowledge required for effective interaction. For example, when word processors were originally introduced, the analogy between the word processor and a typewriter was intended to make the new technology more immediately accessible to those who had little experience with the former but quite a bit of experience with the latter. Familiarity has to do with a user's first impression of the system. In this case, we are interested in how the system is first perceived and whether the user can determine how to initiate any interaction. An advantage of a metaphor, such as the typewriter metaphor for word processing described above, is precisely captured by familiarity. Jordan et al. refer to this familiarity as the guessability of the system [126].


Chapter 4 Usability paradigms and principles Familiarity Page 166

Some psychologists argue that there are intrinsic properties, or affordances, of any visual object that suggest to us how they can be manipulated. The appearance of the object stimulates a familiarity with its behaviour. For example, the shape of a door handle can suggest how it should be manipulated to open a door, and a key on a keyboard suggests to us that it can be pushed. In the design of a graphical user interface, it is implied that a soft button used in a form's interface suggests it should be pushed (though it does not suggest how it is to be pushed via the mouse). Effective use of the affordances which exist for interface objects can enhance the familiarity of the interactive system.


Chapter 4 Usability paradigms and principles Consistency Page 167

Another consequence of consistency having to be defined with respect to some other feature of the interaction is that many other principles can be 'reduced' to qualified instances of consistency. Hence, familiarity can be considered as consistency with respect to past real-world experience and generalizability as consistency with respect to experience with the same system or set of applications on the same platform. Because of this pervasive quality of consistency, it might be argued that consistency should be a separate category of usability principles, on the same level as learnability, flexibility and robustness. Rather than do that, we will here discuss different ways in which consistency can be manifested.


Search results for familiarity
Showing 1 to 10 of 13 [next >>] [new search]

processed in 0.005 seconds


feedback to feedback@hcibook.com hosted by hiraeth mixed media