A performance model of system delay and user strategy selection

ABSTRACT

This study lays the ground work for a predictive, zero-parameter engineering model that characterizes the relationship between system delay and user performance. This study specifically investigates how system delays affects a user's selection of task strategy. Strategy selection is hypothesized to be based on a cost function combining two factors: (1) the effort required to synchronize input system availability and (2) the accuracy level afforded. Results indicate that users, seeking to minimize effort and maximize accuracy, choose among three strategies – automatic performance, pacing, and monitoring. These findings provide a systematic account of the influence of system delay on user performance, based on adaptive strategy choice drive by cost.

REFERENCES

• 1: Raymond E. Barber , Henry C. Lucas, Jr., System response time operator productivity, and job satisfaction, Communications of the ACM, v.26 n.11, p.972-986, Nov. 1983 [doi>10.1145/182.358464]
• 2: Bergman, H., Brinkman, A., & Koelega, H. S. (1981). System response time and problem solving behavior. Proceedings of the 25th Annual Meeting of the Human Factors Society, 749-753.
• 3: Boies, S. J. (1974). User behavior on an interactive computer system. IBM Systems Journal, 13(1), 2-18.
• 4: T. W. Butler, Computer response time and user performance., Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, p.58-62, December 12-15, 1983, Boston, Massachusetts, United States [doi>10.1145/800045.801581]
• 5: Dannenbring, G. L. (1983). The effect of computer response time on user performance and satisfaction: A preliminary investigation. Behavior Research Methods & Instrumentation, 15(2), 213-216.
• 6: Dannenbring, G. L. (1984). System response time and user performance. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-14(3), 473-478.
• 7: Goodman, T. J., & Spence, R. (1981). The effect of computer system response time variability on interactive graphical problem solving. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-11(3), 207-216.
• 8: Grossberg, M., Wiesen, R. A., & Yntema, D. B. (1976). An experiment on problem solving with delayed computer responses. IEEE Transactions on Systems, Man, and Cybernetics, SMC-6(3), 219-222.
• 9: Johnson, E. J., & Payne, J. W. (1985). Effort and accuracy in choice. Management Science, 31 (4), 395-414.
• 10: Kleinmuntz, D. N., & Schkade, D. A. (1989). The cognitive implications of infom~ation displays in computer-supported decision making (Working Paper 88/89- 4-11). Austin, TX: University of Texas at Austin, Graduate School of Business.
• 11: Kosmatka, L. J. (1984). A user challenges the value of subsecond response time. Computerworld, 18(24), ID 1-8.
• 12: Kuhmann, W. (1989). Experimental investigation of stress-inducing properties of system response times. Ergonomics, 32(3), 271-280.
• 13: Lambert, G. N. (1984). A comparative study of system response time on program developer productivity. IBM Systems Journal, 23(1), 36-43.
• 14: Martin, G. L., & Corl, K. G. (1986). System response time effects on user productivity. Behaviour and Information Technology, 5(1), 3-13.
• 15: Miller, R. B. (1968). Response time in man-computer conversational transactions. Proceedings of the AFIPS Fall Joint Computer Conference, 33, 267-277.
• 16: N~afit~en, R., Muranen, V., & Merisalo, A. (1974). Timing of expectancy peak in simple reaction time situation. Acta Psychologica, 38(6), 461-470.
• 17: Pachella, R. G. (1974). The interpretation of reaction time in information-processing research. In B. H. Kantowitz (Ed.), Human information processing: Tutorials in performance and cognition (pp. 41-82). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence ~lbaum Associates.
• 18: Rudnicky, A. I., & Quirin, J. L. (1990). Subjective re. action to system response delay: A pilot study. Unpublished manuscript, Carnegie Mellon University, School of Computer Science, Pittsburgh.
• 19: Avi Rushinek , Sara F. Rushinek, What makes users happy?, Communications of the ACM, v.29 n.7, p.594-598, July 1986 [doi>10.1145/6138.6140]
• 20: Sherwood, B. A., & Sherwood, J. N. (1988). The cT Language. Pittsburgh: Carnegie Mellon University.
• 21: Siegler, R. S., & Jenkins, E. (1989). How children discover new strategies. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
• 22: Shneiderman, B. (1987). Response time and display rate. Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human-computer interaction (pp. 272-309). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
• 23: Ben Shneiderman, Human values and the future of technology: a declaration of responsibility, ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, v.23 n.1, p.11-16, Jan. 1991 [doi>10.1145/122672.122674]
• 24: Smith, D. (1983). A business case for subsecond response time: Faster is better. Computerworld, 17(16), ID 1-11.
• 25: Tlaadhani, A. J. (1981). Interactive user productivity. IBM Systems Journal, 20(4), 407-423.
• 26: Wickens, C. D. (1984). Engineering psychology and human performance. Glenview, IL: Scott, Foresman and Company.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.1 MODELS AND PRINCIPLES
      H.1.2 User/Machine Systems
          Subjects: Human factors

Additional Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)

  I. Computing Methodologies
  I.6 SIMULATION AND MODELING

General Terms:
Design, Experimentation, Human Factors, Performance

Keywords:
human factors, interface design, strategy selection, system response time