Model and representation: the effect of visual feedback on human performance in a color picker interface

ABSTRACT

User interfaces for color selection consist of a visible screen representation, an input method, and the underlying conceptual organization of the color model. We report a two-way factorial, between-subjects variable experiment that tested the effect of high and low visual feedback interfaces on speed and accuracy of color matching for RGB and HSV color models. The only significant effect was improved accuracy due to increased visual feedback. Using color groups as a within-subjects variable, we found differences in performance of both speed and accuracy. We recommend that experimental tests adopt a color test set that does not show bias toward a particular model, but is based instead on a range of colors that would be most likely matched in practice by people using color selection software. We recomment the Macbeth Color Checker naturals, primaries, and grays. As a follow-up study, a qualitative case analysis of the way users navigated through the color space indicates that feedback helps users with limited knowledge of the model, allowing them to refine their match to a higher degree of accuracy. Users with very little or a lot of knowledge of the color model do not appear to be aided by increased feedback. In conclusion, we suggest that visual feedback and design of the interface may be a more important factor in improving the usability of a color selection interface than the particular color model used.

REFERENCES

• 1: Christopher Ahlberg , Ben Shneiderman, Visual information seeking: tight coupling of dynamic query filters with starfield displays, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: celebrating interdependence, p.313-317, April 24-28, 1994, Boston, Massachusetts, United States [doi>10.1145/191666.191775]
• 2: ATWOOD, M. AND POLSON, P. 1976. A process model for water jug problems. Cogn. Psychol. 8, 191-216.
• 3: Penny F. Bauersfeld , Jodi L. Slater, User-oriented color interface design: direct manipulation of color in context, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: Reaching through technology, p.417-418, April 27-May 02, 1991, New Orleans, Louisiana, United States [doi>10.1145/108844.108981]
• 4: Toby Berk , Arie Kaufman , Lee Brownston, A human factors study of color notation systems for computer graphics, Communications of the ACM, v.25 n.8, p.547-550, Aug 1982 [doi>10.1145/358589.358606]
• 5: Sarah Douglas , Ted Kirkpatrick, Do color models really make a difference?, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: common ground, p.399-ff., April 13-18, 1996, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada [doi>10.1145/238386.238585]
• 6: Sarah A. Douglas , Ted Kirkpatrick, The effect of feedback on a color selection interface, Proceedings of the conference on Graphics interface '96, p.47-54, May 1996, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
• 7: James D. Foley , Andries van Dam , Steven K. Feiner , John F. Hughes, Computer graphics: principles and practice (2nd ed.), Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc., Boston, MA, 1990
• 8: HANDEL, S. AND IMAI, S. 1972. The free classification of analyzable and unanalyzable stimuli. Percept. Psychophys. 12, 108-116.
• 9: Roy Hall, Illumination and color in computer generated imagery, Springer-Verlag New York, Inc., New York, NY, 1988
• 10: HUNT, R. W.G. 1991. Measuring Color, 2d. ed. Ellis Horwood, New York.
• 11: HURVICH, L.M. 1981. Color Vision. Sinauer, Sunderland, MA.
• 12: Robert J. K. Jacob , Linda E. Sibert , Daniel C. McFarlane , M. Preston Mullen, Jr., Integrality and separability of input devices, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), v.1 n.1, p.3-26, March 1994 [doi>10.1145/174630.174631]
• 13: JUDD, D. B. AND WSYZECKI, G. 1975. Color in Business, Science, and Industry, 3rd. ed. Wiley, New York.
• 14: MACBETH 1990. Color Checker Chart. Munsell Color, Baltimore, MD.
• 15: MURCH, G. 1984. The effective use of color: Cognitive principles. TEKniques 8, 2, 25-31.
• 16: MUNSELL, A.H. 1946. A Color Notation, 17th ed. Munsell Color, Newburgh, NY.
• 17: Allen Newell, Human Problem Solving, Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, 1972
• 18: ROSNOW, R. AND ROSENTHAL, R. 1989. Definition and interpretation of interaction effects. Psychol. Bull. 105, 143-146.
• 19: Michael W. Schwarz , William B. Cowan , John C. Beatty, An experimental comparison of RGB, YIQ, LAB, HSV, and opponent color models, ACM Transactions on Graphics (TOG), v.6 n.2, p.123-158, April 1987 [doi>10.1145/31336.31338]
• 20: SHNEIDERMAN, B. 1983. Direct manipulation: A step beyond programming languages. IEEE Comput. 16, 8 (August), 57-69.
• 21: Alvy Ray Smith, Color gamut transform pairs, ACM SIGGRAPH Computer Graphics, v.12 n.3, p.12-19, August 1978
• 22: Alvy Ray Smith , Eric Ray Lyons, HWB—a more intuitive hue-based color model, Journal of Graphics Tools, v.1 n.1, p.3-17, 1996
• 23: TEKTRONIX, INC. 1991. US Patent number 4,985,853.
• 24: WELLS, E. 1994. A comparison of interactive color specification systems for human-com-puter interfaces. M.S. Thesis in Visualization Sciences, Texas A & M University.
• 25: WICKELGREN, W.A. 1974. How to Solve Problems: Elements of a Theory of Problems and Problem Solving. Freeman, San Francisco.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)
          Subjects: Graphical user interfaces (GUI)

Additional Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)
          Subjects: Interaction styles (e.g., commands, menus, forms, direct manipulation)

  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.3 COMPUTER GRAPHICS
      I.3.6 Methodology and Techniques
          Subjects: Ergonomics; Interaction techniques

General Terms:
Experimentation, Human Factors, Measurement

Keywords:
HSV, RGB, color model, color selection, feedback, mental model, user interface