ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
A model for notification systems evaluation—assessing user goals for multitasking activity
Full text PdfPdf (219 KB)
Source ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI) archive
Volume 10 ,  Issue 4  (December 2003) table of contents
Pages: 312 - 338  
Year of Publication: 2003
ISSN:1073-0516
Authors
D. Scott McCrickard  Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA
C. M. Chewar  Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA
Jacob P. Somervell  Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA
Ali Ndiwalana  Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University, Blacksburg, VA
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 17,   Downloads (12 Months): 163,   Citation Count: 22
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/966930.966933
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

Addressing the need to tailor usability evaluation methods (UEMs) and promote effective reuse of HCI knowledge for computing activities undertaken in divided-attention situations, we present the foundations of a unifying model that can guide evaluation efforts for notification systems. Often implemented as ubiquitous systems or within a small portion of the traditional desktop, notification systems typically deliver information of interest in a parallel, multitasking approach, extraneous or supplemental to a user's attention priority. Such systems represent a difficult challenge to evaluate meaningfully. We introduce a design model of user goals based on blends of three critical parameters---interruption, reaction, and comprehension. Categorization possibilities form a logical, descriptive design space for notification systems, rooted in human information processing theory. This model allows conceptualization of distinct action models for at least eight classes of notification systems, which we describe and analyze with a human information processing model. System classification regions immediately suggest useful empirical and analytical evaluation metrics from related literature. We present a case study that demonstrates how these techniques can assist an evaluator in adapting traditional UEMs for notification and other multitasking systems. We explain why using the design model categorization scheme enabled us to generate evaluation results that are more relevant for the system redesign than the results of the original exploration done by the system's designers.


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
 
2
Anderson, J. R. and Liebiere, C. 1998. The Atomic Components of Thought. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc., Mahwah, New Jersey.
 
3
Baddelly, A. 1996. Exploring the central executive. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 49A, 5--28.
4
 
5
Barnard, P. and May, J. 1999. Representing cognitive activity in complex tasks. Human-Computer Interaction 14, 93--158.
6
 
7
Bartram, L. 1998. Enhancing visualizations with motion. In Proceedings of the IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization (InfoVis '98). Raleigh, NC, 13--16.
 
8
Bartram, L., Ware, C., and Calvert, T. 2001. Moving icons: Detection and distraction. In Proceedings of the IFIP TC.13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT 2001). Tokyo, Japan.
 
9
Bartram, L. R. 2001. Enhancing information visualization with motion. Ph.D. thesis, Simon Fraser University, Canada.
 
10
Cadiz, J., Venolia, G. D., Jancke, G., and Gupta, A. 2001. Sideshow: Providing peripheral awareness of important information. Tech. Rep. MSR-TR-2001-83, Microsoft Research, Collaboration, and Multimedia Group. Sept.
 
11
 
12
Cutrell, E., Czerwinski, M., and Horvitz, E. 2001. Notification, disruption, and memory: Effects of messaging interruptions on memory and performance. In Proceedings of the IFIP TC.13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT 2001). Tokyo, Japan, 263--269.
13
 
14
Duchnicky, R. L. and Kolers, P. A. 1983. Readability of text scrolled on visual display terminals as a function of window size. Human Factors 25, 6, 683--692.
 
15
Enns, J. T. and Rensink, R. A. 1991. Preattentive recovery of three-dimensional orientation from line drawings. Psychological Review 98, 335--351.
 
16
Ericsson, K. A. and Kintsch, W. 1995. Long term working memory. Psychological Review 102, 2, 211--245.
 
17
Foster, K. I. 1970. Visual perception of rapidly presented word sequences of varying complexity. Perception and Psychophysics 8, 215--221.
 
18
Granaas, M. M., McKay, T. D., Laham, R. D., Hurt, L. D., and Juola, J. F. 1984. Reading moving text on a CRT screen. Human Factors 26, 1, 97--104.
 
19
Gray, W. D. and Saltzman, M. C. 1998. Damaged merchandise? A review of experiments that compare usability evaluation methods. Human-Computer Interaction 13, 3, 203--261.
 
20
Green, P. 1999. The 15-second rule for driver information systems. In Proceedings of the ITS America Ninth Annual Meeting. Washington, DC, CD--ROM.
21
 
22
23
 
24
25
26
 
27
Horvitz, E., Jacobs, A., and Hovel, D. 1999. Attention-sensitive alerting. In Conference on Uncertainty and Artificial Intelligence (UAI '99). Stockholm, Sweden, 305--313.
28
29
 
30
Juola, J. F., Ward, N. J., and McNamara, T. 1982. Visual search and reading of rapid serial presentations of letter strings, words, and text. J. Exper. Psych. General 111, 2, 208--227.
 
31
Kang, T. J. and Muter, P. 1989. Reading dynamically displayed text. Behaviour and Information Technology 8, 1, 33--42.
 
32
Kieras, D. E. and Meyer, D. E. 1997. An overview of the EPIC architecture for cognition and performance with application to human-computer interaction. Human-Computer Interaction 12, 4, 391--438.
33
34
 
35
McCrickard, D. S. 1999. Maintaining information awareness with Irwin. In Proceedings of the World Conference on Educational Multimedia/Hypermedia and Educational Telecommunications (ED-MEDIA '99). Seattle, WA.
 
36
McCrickard, D. S., Catrambone, R., and Stasko, J. T. 2001. Evaluating animation in the periphery as a mechanism for maintaining awareness. In Proceedings of the IFIP TC.13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT 2001). Tokyo, Japan, 148--156.
37
 
38
 
39
 
40
McFarlane, D. C. 2002. Comparision of four primary methods for coordinating the interruption of people in human-computer interaction. Human Computer Interaction 17, 3.
 
41
42
 
43
Norman, D. A. 1986. Cognitive engineering. In User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human Computer Interaction, D. A. Norman and S. W. Draper, Eds. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 31--62.
44
 
45
 
46
Rogers, R. D. and Monsell, S. 1995. Cost of a predictable switch between simple cognitive tasks. J. Exper. Psych. General 124, 2, 207--231.
 
47
 
48
See, J. E., Howe, S. R., Warm, J. S., and Dember, W. 1995. Meta analysis of the sensitivity decrement in vigilance. Psych. Bull. 117, 2, 230--249.
 
49
Sheridan, T. 1991. Human factors of driver-vehicle interaction in the IVHS environment. Tech. Rep. DOT HS 807 837, National Technical Information Service, Springfield MA.
50
 
51
Tufano, D., Knee, H., and Spelt, P. 1996. In-vehicle signing functions and systems concepts. In Proceedings of the 29th International Symposium on Automotive Technology and Automation (ISATA) Dedicated Conference on Global Deployment of Advanced Transportation Telematics/ ITS. Florence Italy, 97--104.
 
52
van Dantzich, M., Robbins, D., Horvitz, E., and Czerwinski, M. 2002. Scope: Providing awareness of multiple notifications at a glance. In Proceedings of the 6th International Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI '02). ACM Press.
 
53
Weiser, M. and Brown, J. S. 1996. Designing calm technology. PowerGrid Journal 1.01.
 
54
Whittaker, S., Terveen, L., and Nardi, B. A. 2000. Let's stop pushing the envelope and start addressing it: A reference task agenda for HCI. Human-Computer Interaction 15, 75--106.
 
55
Wickens, C. D. and Hollands, J. G. 2000. Engineering Psychology and Human Performance, Third ed. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River, NJ.

CITED BY  22

Collaborative Colleagues:
D. Scott McCrickard: colleagues
C. M. Chewar: colleagues
Jacob P. Somervell: colleagues
Ali Ndiwalana: colleagues