Maximizing the guessability of symbolic input

ABSTRACT

Guessability is essential for symbolic input, in which users enter gestures or keywords to indicate characters or commands, or rely on labels or icons to access features. We present a unified approach to both maximizing and evaluating the guessability of symbolic input. This approach can be used by anyone wishing to design a symbol set with high guessability, or to evaluate the guessability of an existing symbol set. We also present formulae for quantifying guessability and agreement among guesses. An example is offered in which the guessability of the EdgeWrite unistroke alphabet was improved by users from 51.0% to 80.1% without designer intervention. The original and improved alphabets were then tested for their immediate usability with the procedure used by MacKenzie and Zhang (1997). Users entered the original alphabet with 78.8% and 90.2% accuracy after 1 and 5 minutes of learning, respectively. The improved alphabet bettered this to 81.6% and 94.2%. These improved results were competitive with prior results for Graffiti, which were 81.8% and 95.8% for the same measures.

REFERENCES

• 1: Tom Brinck , Darren Gergle , Scott D. Wood, Usability for the Web: designing Web sites that work, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc., San Francisco, CA, 2001
• 2: Fleetwood, M.D., Byrne, M.D., Centgraf, P., Dudziak, K.Q., Lin, B. and Mogilev, D. (2002) An evaluation of text-entry in Palm OS-Graffiti and the virtual keyboard. In Proc. HFES 2002. Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, pp. 617--621.
• 3: G W. Furnas , T K. Landauer , L M. Gomez , S T. Dumais, Statistical semantics: analysis of the potential performance of keyword information systems, Human factors in computer systems, Ablex Publishing Corp., Norwood, NJ, 1984
• 4: G. W. Furnas , T. K. Landauer , L. M. Gomez , S. T. Dumais, The vocabulary problem in human-system communication, Communications of the ACM, v.30 n.11, p.964-971, Nov. 1987 [doi>10.1145/32206.32212]
• 5: Michael D. Good , John A. Whiteside , Dennis R. Wixon , Sandra J. Jones, Building a user-derived interface, Communications of the ACM, v.27 n.10, p.1032-1043, Oct 1984 [doi>10.1145/358274.358284]
• 6: Thomas Költringer , Thomas Grechenig, Comparing the immediate usability of graffiti 2 and virtual keyboard, CHI '04 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, April 24-29, 2004, Vienna, Austria [doi>10.1145/985921.986017]
• 7: I. Scott MacKenzie , Shawn X. Zhang, The immediate usability of graffiti, Proceedings of the conference on Graphics interface '97, p.129-137, May 1997, Kelowna, British Columbia, Canada
• 8: Wiedenbeck, S. (1999) The use of icons and labels in an end user application program: An empirical study of learning and retention. Behavior and Information Technology 18 (2), pp. 68--82.
• 9: Jacob O. Wobbrock , Brad A. Myers , John A. Kembel, EdgeWrite: a stylus-based text entry method designed for high accuracy and stability of motion, Proceedings of the 16th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, p.61-70, November 02-05, 2003, Vancouver, Canada [doi>10.1145/964696.964703]

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: Evaluation/methodology

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: User-centered design; Input devices and strategies (e.g., mouse, touchscreen)

General Terms:
Design, Experimentation, Measurement

Keywords:
command-line, commands, edgewrite, gestures, guessability, icons, immediate usability, keywords, labels, proposals, referents, symbols, text entry, unistrokes