To Scroll or Not to Scroll…
GROUP 1:
ABHISHEK TRIPATHY
AISHWARYA KRISHNA
ANUPMA JAYA SANGA
PREETI KUMARI
RASHMI HANSDA
SAURAV MUKHOPADHYAY
ABHISHEK SRIVASTAVA (FPM)
RAJ IV KUMAR (FPM)
Objectives Effect of scrolling on retention ( working Memory )
Horizontal vs Vertical scrolling
Effect of Background noise
Effect of complexity of Fonts (Disfluency )
Primacy and recency effect
Traditional Model of Memory
Atkinson & Shiffrin (1968) 3 Stage Model
Information Processing Model
StimuliSensory registers
Short Term Memory (STM)
Long Term Memory (LTM)
Literature review A recent study has reported that nearly 91% of Web pages now include a scroll bar (ClickTale, 2006)
scrolling enables more efficient skimming or scanning behaviors on visual search tasks (Bernard,Baker, & Fernandez, 2002; Duchnicky & Kolers, 1983; Monk, Walsh, & Dix, 1988; Spool, Scanlon, Schroeder, Snyder, & DeAngelo, 1999)
one study has provided some suggestion that scrolling
might harm learning. In Piolat, Roussey, and Thunin (1997),
Literature review contd… Much prior research has shown that those who have higher WMC are better able to focus their attention on relevant task information, maintain goals, and otherwise ignore irrelevant information (Conway, Kane, & Engle, 2003)
WMC has shown a positive relationship to successful performance on a myriad of complex tasks, including reading comprehension Conway et al., 2005).
scrolling negatively affects learning from text, and this effect is most pronounced in learners who have lower WMC (Sanchez et al., 2009)
Experimental setup Total 16 webpages were made
8 with horizontal text and 8 with vertical text
Each had 4 simple font and 4 complex
So each scenario was tested on- ◦ Blank Static
◦ Blank Scrolling◦ Blurred Background with scrolling ◦ Full Background noise with scrolling
Total 48 respondents ( IIM Ranchi students )
Each page was shown to 3 respondents to average out the Working memory capacity
Results
Exposure Type #1 #2 #3 Average
1 Static_left 6 7 4 5.67
2 Blank_left (moving) 4 3 6 4.33
3 Blur_Left (moving) 5 5 4 4.67
4 Full-Left (moving) 8 4 5 5.67
5 Complex_Static_Left 3 4 4 3.67
6 Complex_Blank_left 4 6 5 5
7 Complex_Blur_Left 3 5 3 3.67
8 Complex_Full_Left 5 3 5 4.33
Number of words recalled by each person -Horizontal Exposure
Results(Contd…)
Number of words recalled by each person –Vertical Exposure
Exposure Type #1 #2 #3 Average
1 Static_left 4 2 3 3
2 Blank_left (moving) 6 6 6 6
3 Blur_Left (moving) 4 4 5 4.33
4 Full-Left (moving) 5 5 7 5.67
5 Complex_Static_Left 4 6 6 5.33
6 Complex_Blank_left 3 6 3 4
7 Complex_Blur_Left 3 4 4 3.67
8 Complex_Full-Left 6 5 4 5
Results(Contd…)Words recalled -Vertical Vs Horizontal
Exposure Type Average(Horizontal) Average(Vertical)
1 Static_left 5.67 3
2 Blank_left (moving) 4.33 6
3 Blur_Left (moving) 4.67 4.33
4 Full_Left (moving) 5.67 5.67
AVERAGE 5.085 4.75
5 Complex_Static_Left 3.67 5.33
6 Complex_Blank_left 5 4
7 Complex_Blur_Left 3.67 3.67
8 Complex_Full_Left 4.33 5
AVERAGE 4.1675 4.5
Observations
Reading speed less with vertical orientation◦ Not the natural way of reading◦ Smaller visual span
Complex font needs more time to be processed◦ Complex font should be vertical◦ Simple font should be horizontal
Average in Horizontal exposure◦ Simple= 5.085◦ Complex= 4.1675
Average in Vertical exposure◦ Simple= 4.75◦ Complex= 4.5
More recall in case of Full webpage scenario◦ More distractions competing for
attention◦ Brain works harder to read and so
retains things better
Strong primacy effect observed
Results(Contd…)Words recalled
WORDSAvg(Simple-Horizontal)
Average(Complex-Horizontal)
Avg(Simple-Vertical)
Avg(Complex-Horizontal)
Scribble 0.9167 0.67 0.9167 0.75
Torque 0.9167 0.75 0.67 0.583
Encapsulate 0.75 0.583 0.25 0.5
Class 0.4167 0.75 0.33 0.5
India 0.833 0.67 0.9167 0.583
Business 0.4167 0.33 0.5 0.4167
Abysmal 0.25 0.25 0.583 0.25
Retrograde 0.167 0.083 0.25 0.4167
Arcane 0.4167 0.083 0.33 0.5
Top Related