ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Reading patterns and usability in visualizations of electronic documents
Full text PdfPdf (4.18 MB)
Source ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) archive
Volume 10 ,  Issue 2  (June 2003) table of contents
Pages: 119 - 149  
Year of Publication: 2003
ISSN:1073-0516
Authors
Kasper Hornbæk  University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
Erik Frøkjær  University of Copenhagen, Copenhagen, Denmark
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 21,   Downloads (12 Months): 234,   Citation Count: 12
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   review   collaborative colleagues   peer to peer  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/772047.772050
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

We present an exploration of reading patterns and usability in visualizations of electronic documents. Twenty subjects wrote essays and answered questions about scientific documents using an overview+detail, a fisheye, and a linear interface. We study reading patterns by progression maps that visualize the progression of subjects' reading activity, and by visibility maps that show for how long different parts of the document are visible. The reading patterns help explain differences in usability between the interfaces and show how interfaces affect the way subjects read. With the overview+detail interface, subjects get higher grades for their essays. All but one of the subjects prefer this interface. With the fisheye interface, subjects use more time on gaining an overview of the document and less time on reading the details. Thus, they read the documents faster, but display lower incidental learning. We also show how subjects only briefly have visible the parts of the document that are not initially readable in the fisheye interface, even though they express a lack of trust in the algorithm underlying the fisheye interface. When answering questions, the overview is used for jumping directly to answers in the document and to already-visited parts of the document. However, subjects are slower at answering questions with the overview+detail interface. From the visualizations of the reading activity, we find that subjects using the overview+detail interface often explore the document further even when a satisfactory answer to the given question has already been read. Thus, overviews may grab subjects' attention and possibly distract them.


REFERENCES

Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.

 
1
Anderson, T. H. and Armbruster, B. B. 1982. Reader and text-studying strategies. In Reading Expository Material. W. Otto and S. White, Eds. New York, NY: Academic Press. 219--242.
 
2
Bazerman, C. 1988. Shaping Written Knowledge. Madison, WI: The University of Wisconsin Press.
 
3
Bishop, A. P. 1995. Working towards an understanding of digital library use. D-Lib Magazine, October 1995, http://www.dlib.org/dlib/october95/10bishop.html.
 
4
 
5
Boguraev, B., Kennedy, C., Bellamy, R., Brawer, S., and Wong, Y. Y. 1998. Dynamic presentation of document content for rapid on-line skimming. In AAAI Spring 1998 Symposium on Intelligent Text Summarization, E. Hovy and D. Radev, Eds., AAAI Press, Stanford CA, 109--118.
 
6
7
8
 
9
Chen, C., and Rada, R. 1996. Interacting with hypertext: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Hum.-Comput. Interact. 11, 2, 125--156.
 
10
Cohen, J. 1988. Statistical Power Analysis for the Behavioral Sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
 
11
Dee-Lucas, D. and Larkin, J. H. 1995. Learning from electronic texts: Effects of interactive overviews for information access. Cogn. Instruct. 13, 3, 431--468.
 
12
 
13
14
 
15
 
16
Foltz, P. W. 1996. Comprehension, coherence and strategies in hypertext and linear text. In Hypertext and Cognition. Rouet, J. F., Levonen, J. J., Dillon, Andrew P., and Spiro, R. J., Eds. New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 109--136.
17
18
 
19
Goldman, S. R. and Saul, E. U. 1990. Flexibility in text processing. Learning and Individual Differences, 2, 2, 181--219.
20
 
21
Guthrie, J. 1998. Locating information in documents: examination of a cognitive model. Reading Research Quarterly, 23, 178--199.
22
23
 
24
Hertzum, M., Lalmas, M., and Frøkjær, E. 2001. How are searching and reading intertwined during retrieval from hierarchically structured documents? In Proceedings of the IFIP TC 13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Tokyo, Japan, Jul. 2001, M. Kurosu, Ed., IOS Press, Amsterdam, 537--544.
25
26
27
 
28
29
30
 
31
Langer, E. J. 1991. Mindfulness. London: Harvill.
32
33
 
34
Muter, P. 1996. Interface design and optimization of reading of continuous text. In Cognitive Aspects of Electronic Text Processing. H. van Oostendorp and S. de Mul, Eds. Norwood, NJ: Ablex.
35
 
36
Páez, L. B., da Silva-Fh., J. B., and Marchionini, G. 1996. Disorientation in electronic environments: A study of hypertext and continuous zooming interfaces. In Proceedings of the 59th Annual Meeting of the American Society for Information Science, Baltimore, MD, Oct. 1996, Harding, S., Ed., 58--66.
 
37
 
38
Raskin, J. 2000. The Humane Interface. Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.
39
 
40
Rosenthal, R., Rosnow, R. L., and Rubin, D. B. 2000. Contrasts and Effect Sizes in Behavioral Research. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
 
41
Rothkopf, E. 1971. Incidental memory for location of information in text. J. Verbal Learn. Verbal Behav. 10, 608--613.
 
42
43
 
44
 
45
Wright, P. 1987. Reading and writing for electronic journals. In Executive Control Processes in Reading. B. K. Britton and S. M. Glynn, Eds.Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. 23--55.
46

CITED BY  12
 
 
 


REVIEW

"Evangelia Kavakli : Reviewer"

Nearest neighbor searches are important in many database and classification applications. Sequential searches are too expensive to perform and take too long for efficient interactive query activity. The data is usually multidimensional, and effici  more...

Collaborative Colleagues:
Kasper Hornbæk: colleagues
Erik Frøkjær: colleagues

Peer to Peer - Readers of this Article have also read: