ADAPTIVE USER INTERFACES
Zdenek Eichler
HCI
•part of art & part of science
•successful software =
•good internal architecture
•good user interface
•?
•mental model
MOTIVATION
source: wikipedia
source: wikipedia
CURRENT STATUS
•WIMP paradigm
•“One size fits all“
WORD PROCESSORS
•XEROX STAR workstation (1981)
•WIMP (Windows, Icons, Menus, Pointing device)
•Microsoft Word 1.0 (1989)
source: brazandre.com
source: cybernetnews.com
source: cybernetnews.com
SOFTWARE BLOAT
(CREEPING FEATURISM, FEATURE WAR)
•hardware vs human abilities
•J. McGrenere and G. Moore: Are we all in the same “bloat”?
•“Software is “bloated” when a significant proportion of the
functions available are not used by the majority of users”
•L. Kaufman and B. Weed: Too much of a good thing?:
identifying and resolving bloat in the user interface
HOW PEOPLE USE WORD
PROCESSORS?
•McGrenere and Moore: Of the 265 first-level functions,
15.8% (42) were not used at all and only 21.5% (57) were
used by more than half of the participants. There were only
3.3% (12) functions that were used regularly by more than
three quarters of the participants.
•users usually use only 5%.
•Dostál: there are no significant groups of users
•Spolsky: 80% of the people use 20% of the features,
Unfortunately, it's never the same 20%.
SOLUTIONS
•decrease provided functionality
•personalization:
•adaptable approach
•adaptive approach
•versioning
•plug-in
USER INTERFACE FACADES
 W. Stuerzlinger, O. Chapuis, D. Phillips and N. Roussel. User Interface Façades: Towards Fully Adaptable User
Interfaces. In Proceedings of UIST'06, the 19th ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, pages
309-318, October 2006. ACM
WELL KNOWN ADAPTIVE USER
INTERFACES
(EVERYBODY HATES A MAGICIAN)
•Microsoft Office Assistant - “Clippy”
•Microsoft Smart Menu
SMART MENUS
EPHEMERAL MENUS
tt*
, Joanna McGrenere, Jessica Dawson
of Computer Science
Columbia, Vancouver, Canada
tt, joanna}@cs.ubc.ca
GUI
ual
cy.
to
ely
ed,
ate
wo
hat
nus
wer
are
on Figure 1. Ephemeral adaptation applied to menus: predicted
Findlater, L., Moffatt, M., McGrenere, J., Dawson, J. (2009). Ephemeral adaptation: The user of gradual onset to improve menu selection performance.
Proceedings of ACM CHI '09, 1655-1664.
Leah Findlater and Joanna McGrenere. 2004. A comparison of static, adaptive, and adaptable menus. In
Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems (CHI '04). ACM, New York, NY,
USA, 89-96
/-'+#$1"#$#)).4.#04.#3$
0*39$ :'4"$ /#0*$ 2'3$
7+.#)(;$.01+&6*4#6$.0$
-'+1.1.&0$&)$1"#$3-(.1$
2".4"$ #'4"$ .1#/$ "'3$
&0#$.0$+#'(>1./#5$7*1$
$'3$'$3-(.1$/#0*9$<0$'$
0&1$4&01'.0$'$3-(.1@5$
*4"$ '3$ '(-"'7#1.4$ &+$
3$+#('1.8#$&+6#+.0%$&)$
.&09$ A&+$#,'/-(#5$.)$
+'6.1.&0'($/#0*$(';>
&1"$'+#$.0$1"#$1&-$&+$
2.0%$12&$-+#(./.0'+;$
$$
1"#$1&-$-'+1.1.&09$
1"#$1&-$-'+1.1.&0$&)$1"#$'6'-1.8#$/#0*$'+#$1"#$3'/#$'3$1"&3#$
'
?'@$
'
$$$$$$$$$?7@$
!"#$%&'4)'5,6'7.,."8'9-0".'3&:$;'5<6'*+,-.,<0&'9-0".'
3&:$)'
O&8#$.1#/3$*-$
'06$6&20$.0$
1&-$-'+1.1.&0$
$
O&8#$.1#/3$
)+&/$7&11&/$
1&$1&-$-'+1.1.&0
%'-%.$/*,01$$ $$20+33)4$/567,0)$
!
SPLIT MENUS
ADAPTIVE TOOLBAR
ore, in the first experiment we subtly varied the predictility
of the adaptive algorithm and in the second we
ried its accuracy.
ments in the popup pane to shift and also causing the ex
isting buttons on the toolbar to shift to make space for the
promoted button (see Figure 1b). If there are too many
(a)
(b) (c)
Figure 1. (a) The Split Interface; (b) The Moving Interface; (c) The Visual Popout Interface
Krzysztof Z. Gajos, Mary Czerwinski, Desney S. Tan, and Daniel S. Weld. 2006. Exploring the design space for adaptive
graphical user interfaces. In Proceedings of the working conference on Advanced visual interfaces (AVI '06). ACM, New York,
NY, USA, 201-208.
EARLY ADAPTIVE USER
INTERFACES
•AIDA
•FLEXCEL
RIBBON USER INTERFACE
ADAPTIVE APPROACH
•not well accepted by users
•predictability and accuracy
•hard to implement to real application: mock-ups or very simple
•adaptation of menu or toolbar - destructive
LOGGERS
• User Interface Events-Based
• MSTracker
• AppMonitor
• RUI
• User Command-Based
• OWL
INTERCEPTOR
•OpenOffice.org logger
•Interceptor + OpenOffice.org = research framework
•API
•hybrid approach logging:
•user interface events
•underlaying function calls (macro recorder)
BOULEVARD
“Today’s cities are vast and
complex, just like today’s
applications. Boulevard is a
metaphor of a main street
(boulevard), where the users
can find everything they
need.” - Dostál
BOULEVARD
•adaptive container of user commands
•non-desctructive principle
•adapts:
•user commands
•interaction style
•parameters and values
ARRANGEMENT IN
BOULEVARD
•vertical or horizontal layout
•user command prominence:
•frequency
•recency
organizes user commands in the panel container accordin
r the user. The importance of a user command is expres
is a number between 0 and 1 and considers two factors of
ncy and a frequency. The frequency factor reflects frequen
ge. The recency factor reflects whether the command has
r to accelerate position of scarcely used commands to a m
panel container. Conversely, whether such an accelerated
ne of recently used commands, it loses the accelerator an
inent position. The most prominent position is considered
nt at the bottom of the panel container. The rank of user
ording to the following formula:
rank(x) = w
|x|
|T|
+ (1 w)
P
pi2Px
(q pi + 1)
Pq
i=1 i
VISUAL REPRESENTATION
•adaptive representation:
•interaction style
•parameters and values
•animations
SWEEPING BACK
FIND COMMAND EXAMPLE
FIND COMMAND EXAMPLE
IMPLEMENTATION
•OpenOffice.org
•OpenOffice.org Interceptor
•Expert System (Clips)
•Java, Swing
DEMO
FUTURE WORK
•Boulevard as adaptive user interface for people with
disabilities
•workflow analysis and its adaptation
•revise current Boulevard
•deploy Boulevard to end-users and long-term study
•visualization of adaptivity
USABILITY TEST
•comparison of toolbar vs Boulevard vs menu
•measuring task completion time and error rates
•no statistically significant difference was found between
toolbar and Boulevard
•questionnaires
•Boulevard rated as a better interaction style than toolbar
TESTING USABILITY
Source: SolidWorks
USABILITYTESTING
• mock-ups vs real software
• quantitative approach
• exact
• time, error rates,
distance, ...
• loggers
• qualitative approach
• subjective
• behavior, feelings, beauty, ...
• questionnaires
source: celstec.org