Institute for Hygiene and Applied PhysiologyProf.Dr. Dr. Helmut KruegerClausiusstr. 25, CH-8092 Zürich

Swiss Federal Institute of TechnologyZürich

Introduction into Human-Computer Interaction

Matthias Rauterberg

1998

user

's p

ersp

ectiv

ede

velo

per's

per

spec

tive

op

erat

or

op

erat

ion

fun

ctio

n

view

fr

om

outs

ide

view

fr

om

insi

de

DIN

66

234

par

t 8

(198

8)

EC

dir

ecti

ve90

/270

/EE

C(1

990)

ISO

924

1p

art

10(1

996)

Ulic

h

(199

1)

suita

bilit

y fo

r th

e ta

sk

self-

desc

riptiv

enes

s

conf

orm

ity w

ith u

ser

expe

ctat

ions

cont

rolla

bilit

y

erro

r ro

bust

ness

suita

bilit

y (a

ctiv

ity a

dapt

ed)

feeb

ack

abou

t sys

tem

sta

tes

appr

opria

te fo

rmat

and

pac

e of

info

rmat

ion

pres

enta

tion

info

rmat

ion

and

inst

ruct

ion

of

user

ease

of u

se a

pplic

able

to

skill

leve

l

hear

ing

and

part

icip

atio

n of

us

ers

suita

bilit

y fo

r th

e ta

sk

self-

desc

riptiv

enes

s

conf

orm

itity

with

use

r ex

pect

atio

ns

suita

bilit

y fo

r le

arni

ng

suita

bilit

y fo

r in

divi

dual

izat

ion

cont

rolla

bilit

y

erro

r to

lera

nce

task

orie

ntat

ion

tran

spar

ency

feed

back

com

patib

ility

cons

iste

ncy

supp

ort

sele

ctio

n po

ssib

ilitie

sus

er d

efin

abili

ty

part

icip

atio

n

flexi

bilit

y

transparency

compatibility consistency feedback help support

individualisation

individualadaptation(programming)

individual selection

flexibility

actual degree of freedom

potential degree of freedom(meta-dialog task)

Differences between the visual and the auditory sense

The two most important constrains in interface design

• the control of user's attention

• the physical size of the screen

feedback modalities

pros cons

visual

acoustic

haptic

parallel in space

large information transfer

active eye contact neccessary

enforces attention allocation

enables the perception of background activities

important for visually impaired people

force perception

object recognition

textur and surface perception

noise through environment

linear in time

exists only for a short time span

linear in time

contact with objects

neccessary

internal memory external memory

100%

80%

60%

40%

20%

0 3 6 9 12 15 18

remember rate

time interval until remember items (in sec)

human memory

input-handler output-handler (DC)

long term memory

actioncomponent

output-handler (AC)

EingabeOperation

visual"memory"

visual output

representation

dialog-component (DC)

dialog-states

(DCS)

applicationstates (ACS)

transformationapplication-objects (AO)

application component (AC)

dialog-objects (DO)

application-Funktionen (AF)

dialogfunctions (DF)

auditory"memory"

acoustic output

haptic"memory"

tactile output

perception componentmotoricmemory

goalsproblem solving

componentshort term memory

storage component

expectationsplan user

user

inte

rfac

e

user computer

task(s)

training

usability

task

des

ign

automation

functionalityqual

ifica

tion

user-oriented requirement analysis

• know the user

• describe the context of use

• analyse the user‘s tasks

• decide for man-machine function allocation

physical operation

feedback control of action

goal-, subgoal-setting

mental operation

1

2

3a

3b

4

task(s)

planning of execution

selection of means

the complete action cycle

usability specification map (USM)

global design principles

criteria = metric + extent

high level goals

measuring concepts

control

flexibility

fan degree

customization

user's involvement

formal modelling inquieries, interview,mock-ups

usability testexpert evaluation

virtual real

virtual

real

computer's involvement

effort and costs

interaction-oriented view:product-oriented view:

user-oriented view:formal view:ec

olog

ical

val

idity

Methods to Measure Usability Quality

scale type examples in the context of HCI

nominal classification of interfaces(e.g. command, menu, desktop etc.)

ordinal summative evaluation studies(e.g. CUI versus GUI)

interval checklist evaluation(e.g. expert's opinion)

rational quantitative metrics

the advanced Seeheim-model:

useri/o

inter-face

dialog

application

applicationmanager

dialog manageri / o manager

am

dm

organisation organisation

socio-technical system

function space FS

perceptible functionsPF

hidden functionsHF

perceptible dialog functions

PDFIP

perceptible application functions

PAFIP

[hidden] dialog functions

HDFIP

[hidden] application functions

HAFIP

δ

α

An abstract concept to describe usability aspects

main menu

14 14 0 0

modul: calculation

10 10 0 0

modul: information

10 10 0 0

function: file

3 3 0 0

HDFIP PDFIP HAFIP PAFIP

function: switch

11 10 0 0

filter: data

2 2 46 1

program: data

2 2 56 9

schema of the dialog structure

HDFIP PDFIP HAFIP PAFIP

HDFIP PDFIP HAFIP PAFIP

HDFIP PDFIP HAFIP PAFIPHDFIP PDFIP HAFIP PAFIP

HDFIP PDFIP HAFIP PAFIP

HDFIP PDFIP HAFIP PAFIP

A.function-1

A.function-2

A.function-3

A.function-4

A.function-5

A.function-6

dialog-component

applicationcomponent

D.F1 D.F2 D.F3 D.F4

HAFIPactualdialog context

PDFIP

i/o-interface

HDFIP

object space

PAFIP

schematic diagram

C:>

_

MS

-DO

S V

ers.

3.0

1

PAFI

P

DC

PAO

a co

mm

and

lang

uage

inte

rfac

e

actualdialog-context

perceptiblefunctionpoint(PF)

A.Function-1

A.Function-2

A.Function-3

A.Function-4

A.Function-5

A.Function-6

A.Function-7

application

manager

application specificinteraction point(HAFIP)

dialog manager

D.F1 D.F2

dialogspecificinteraction point (HDFIP)

...

i/o interface

command language interface (CUI)

the normal view on a text document

MsWORD 4.0

[.........1.........2.........3.........4.........5.........6..]..

Edit document or press Esc to use menu

Pg1 Ro1 Co1 {} ? Microsoft Word

TEXT.DOC

1

COMMAND: Copy Delete Format Gallery Help Insert Jump Library

Options Print Quit Replace Search Transfer Undo Window

PAFI

P

PDFI

P

DC

PAO

PDO

PAFI

P

a m

enu-

driv

en in

terf

ace

(CU

I)

D.F1 D.F2

representa-tion of an applicationspecificinteraction point(RAFIP)

representa-tion of a dialog specificinteraction point(RDFIP)

...

menu driven interface (CUI)

actualdialog-context

application specificinteraction point(AFIP)

i/o interface

dialogspecificinteraction point (DFIP)

A.Function-1

A.Function-2

A.Function-3

A.Function-4

A.Function-5

A.Function-6

A.Function-7

application

manager

dialog manager

PAFI

P

DC

PAO

PDFI

P

JOIN

.Cus

tom

er-N

o

F1 Inpu

tF2 D

elet

eF3 U

pdat

eF4 Se

arch

F5 Brow

seF6 Fi

leF7 Ke

yF8 So

rt.F1

0Q

uit

Des

kFi

leSe

lect

ion

Calc

ulat

ion

Switc

hes

Opt

ion

Edit

Prog

ram

Join

supp

lies

cust

omer

artic

le

contracts

500010 1001 250

Customer-No Article-No Quantity

JOIN.Customer-No ( )

500010 1002 10

604650 1001 500

604650 1002 100

604650 2004 50

im/e

xpor

tso

rtboa

rd

prin

ter

mix

boar

dcl

ipbo

ard

disc

ette

trash he

ap 1

00m

emor

y 2

PDFI

P

PDO

GU

I: a

des

ktop

inte

rfac

e

A.Function-1

A.Function-2

A.Function-3

A.Function-4

A.Function-5

A.Function-6

application

manager

application specificinteraction point(AFIP)

actualdialog-context

representa-tion of anapplicationspecificinteractionpoint(RAFIP)

dialog manager

D.F1 D.F2

dialogspecificinteraction point (DFIP)

...

representationof a dialogspecificinteraction point(RDFIP)

i/o interface

direct manipulative interface (GUI)

DFB = 1/D ∑ (#PFd / #HFd) * 100% d=1

quantitative measure of "functional feedback":

DDFl = 1/D ∑ #HDFIPd d=1

quantitative measure of "dialog flexibility":

DAFl = 1/D ∑ #HAFIPd d=1

quantitative measure of "application flexibility":

quantitative measure of "fan degree":

DFD = 1/D ∑ ∑ Post(Dd,f) d=1 f ∈ HAFIP

DFB = 1/D ∑ (#PFd / #HFd) * 100% d=1

quantitative measure of "feedback":

PID = {1/P ∑ min[lng(PATHp)] }-1 * 100% p=1

quantitative measure of "interactive directness":

[visual] feedback (FB)

batchmenu

interface

MI

direct manipulation

DI

command

language

CI

low high

low

high

interactivedirectness(ID)

desktop style

The outcomes of nine (9) different comparison studies between command (CI) and menu (MI) interfaces.

"CI < MI" means that the average usage/preference with/for MI is better than with/for CI; "CI = MI" means that there are no published data to decide; "CI > MI" means that the average usage/preference with/for CI is better than with/for MI; "sig." means that p ≤ 0.05; "not sig." means that p > 0.05

Reference interface skill level usability metric outcome result

Streitz et al. (1987) CI, MI beginner task solving time CI < MI sig.

Chin et al. (1988) CI, MI beginner subjective rating CI < MI sig.

Ogden & Boyle (1982) CI, MI, HY beginner preferences CI < MI sig.

Roy (1992) CI, MI advanced error rate CI < MI sig.

Roberts & Moran (1983) CI, MI, DI experts task solving time CI < MI sig.

Chin et al. (1988) CI, MI experts subjective rating CI < MI sig.

Peters et al. (1990) CI, MI, DI experts slips CI < MI sig.

Peters et al. (1990) CI, MI, DI experts recognition errors CI < MI sig.

Peters et al. (1990) CI, MI, DI experts efficiency CI < MI sig.

Ogden & Boyle (1982) CI, MI, HY beginner task time CI < MI not sig.

Roy (1992) CI, MI advanced task solving time CI < MI not sig.

Antin (1988) CI, MI, KMI advanced subjective rating CI < MI not sig.

Hauptmann & Green (1983) CI, MI, NO beginner task solving time CI = MI not sig.

Hauptmann & Green (1983) CI, MI, NO beginner number of errors CI = MI not sig.

Hauptmann & Green (1983) CI, MI, NO beginner subjective rating CI = MI not sig.

Whiteside et al. (1985) CI, MI, IO beginner task completion rate CI > MI not sig.

Antin (1988) CI, MI, KMI advanced preferences CI > MI not sig.

Roberts & Moran (1983) CI, MI, DI experts error-free task time CI > MI not sig.

Whiteside et al. (1985) CI, MI, IO advanced task completion rate CI > MI sig.

Streitz et al. (1987) CI, MI advanced task solving time CI > MI sig.

Antin (1988) CI, MI, KMI advanced task completion rate CI > MI sig.

Whiteside et al. (1985) CI, MI, IO experts task completion rate CI > MI sig.

Reference interface skill level usability metric outcome result

Altmann (1987) CI, DI beginner task solving time CI < DI sig.

Karat et al. (1987) CI, DI beginner task solving time CI < DI sig.

Streitz et al. (1989) CI, DI beginner task solving time CI < DI sig.

Sengupta & Te'eni (1991) CI, DI beginner task solving time CI < DI sig.

Margono et al. (1987) CI, DI beginner number of errors CI < DI sig.

Morgan et al. (1991) CI, DI beginner number of errors CI < DI sig.

Morgan et al. (1991) CI, DI beginner time between errors CI < DI sig.

Karat et al. (1987) CI, DI beginner error correction time CI < DI sig.

Morgan et al. (1991) CI, DI beginner error-free time CI < DI sig.

Margono et al. (1987) CI, DI beginner subjective rating CI < DI sig.

Morgan et al. (1991) CI, DI beginner subjective rating CI < DI sig.

Torres-Chazaro et al.(1992) CI, DI beginner subjective rating CI < DI sig.

Sengupta & Te'eni (1991) CI, DI beginner efficient usage CI < DI sig.

Tombaugh et al. (1989) CI, DI advanced subjective rating CI < DI sig.

Torres-Chazaro et al.(1992) CI, DI advanced subjective rating CI < DI sig.

Roberts & Moran (1983) CI, MI, DI experts task solving time CI < DI sig.

Peters et al. (1990) CI, MI, DI experts oblivion's errors CI < DI sig.

Peters et al. (1990) CI, MI, DI experts recognition error CI < DI sig.

Peters et al. (1990) CI, MI, DI experts efficiency CI < DI sig.

Margono et al. (1987) CI, DI beginner task solving time CI < DI not sig.

Morgan et al. (1991) CI, DI beginner task solving time CI < DI not sig.

Tombaugh et al. (1989) CI, DI advanced task solving time CI < DI not sig.

Roberts & Moran (1983) CI, MI, DI experts error correction time CI < DI not sig.

Altmann (1987) CI, DI beginner subjective rating CI > DI not sig.

Masson et al. (1988) CI, DI advanced task solving time CI > DI sig.

The outcomes of twelve (12) different comparison studies between command (CI) and direct manipulative (DI) interfaces.

"CI < DI" means that the average usage/preference with/for DI is better than with/for CI; "CI = DI" means that there are no published data to decide; "CI > DI" means that the average usage/preference with/for CI is better than with/for DI; "sig." means that p ≤ 0.05; "not sig." means that p > 0.05

distance between perception and action space

perception space

action space

PRIN

TER

TRAS

H

CLI

PBO

ARD

MER

GE

SOR

TBO

ARD

IM/E

XPO

RT

JOIN

FILE

ADDRESS

DIS

CET

TE

sele

ctio

nca

lcul

atio

ncl

ipbo

ard

coun

tm

ask

attri

bute

sso

rting

Inpu

t...

Del

ete.

..U

pdat

e...

Edit.

..Br

owse

...

GR

OU

P

GROUP.primary_key

CH..8092 Ackermann David

CH..8092 Greutmann Thomas

CH..8092 Ulich Eberhard

CH..8092 Spinas Philipp

Primy_key Last_name First_name

USA.20742 Shneiderman Ben

D...8024 Hacker Winfried

PDFI

P

PDO

=PA

FIP

PAFI

P

DC

PAO

PDFI

PPD

O

CH..8057 Bauknecht Kurt

0

5 0

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

450

500

Cel

l M

ean

for

time

of u

ser

(s)

Cell Line Chart for "playing time"Grouping Variable(s): Interface typeError Bars: ± 1 Standard Deviation(s)

CI MI TI DPDp≤.001p≤.01p≤.001

p≤.001p≤.001

p≤.001

Playing time per game

Winning chance per dialog technique

computer win

remis

user win Cell Line Chart for "winning chance"Grouping Variable(s): Interface typeError Bars: ± 1 Standard Deviation(s)

CI MI TI DPDp≤.001p≤.080p≤.020

p≤.802p≤.001

p≤.007

Architecture of a Natural User Interface (NUI)

Working Area

Communication & Working Area

Paperdocument

Electronic documents

Tognazzini B:Tog on Software Design. (1996).

Wellner P, Mackay W, Gold R:Computer-Augmented Environments: Back to the Real World. (1993)

Fitzmaurice G, Ishii H, Buxton W:Bricks: Laying the Foundations for Graspable User Interfaces. (1995)

List of relevant books:

About HCI in general:

L. Barfield: The user interface - concepts & design. Addison Wesley, 1993.P. Booth: An introduction to Human-Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum, 1990.A. Dix, J. Finlay, G. Abowd, R. Beale: Human-Computer Interaction. Prentice, 1993.L. Macaulay: Human-Computer Interaction for Software Designers. Thomson, 1995.D. Norman, S. Draper: User centered system design. Lawrence Erlbaum, 1986.J. Preece, Y. Rogers, H. Sharp, D. Benyon, S. Holland, T. Carey: Human-Computer Interaction. Addison Wesley, 1994.B. Shneiderman: Designing the user interface. Addison Wesley, 1997, 3rd edition.

About design principles:

C. Brown: Human-Computer Interface design guidelines. Ablex, 1989.W. Galitz: Handbook of screen format design. QED, 1989.C. Gram, G. Cockton (eds.): Design priniples for interactive software. Capman & Hall, 1996.D. Hix, R. Hartson: Developing user interfaces. Wiley, 1993.ISO 9241 (Part 10: Dialogue principles, Part 12: Presentation of information, Part 14: Menu dialogues, Part 15: Command dialogues, Part 16: Direct manipulation dialogues, Part 17: Form fill-in dialogues)D. Mayhew: Priniples and guidelines in software user interface design. Prentice, 1992.

About usability evaluation methods:

J. Dumas, J. Redish: A practical guide to usability testing. Ablex, 1993.D. Freedman, G. Weinberg: Walkthroughs, Inspections, and technical reviews. Dorset, 1990.ISO 9241 (Part 11: Guidance on usability, Part 13: User guidance)A. Monk, P. Wright, J. Haber, L. Davenport: Improving your Human-Computer Interface: a practical technique. Prentice Hall, 1993.J. Nielsen, R. Mack (ed.): Usability inspection methods. Wiley, 1994.

About Design:

D. Norman: The psychology of everyday things. Basic Books, 1988.