Subscribe to the gold package and get unlimited access to Shamra Academy
Register a new userQuantifying the Impact of Making and Breaking Interface Habits
48
0
0.0
(
0
)
Added by
Diego Garaialde
Publication date
2020
fields
Informatics Engineering
and research's language is
English
Ask ChatGPT about the research
No Arabic abstract
The frequency with which people interact with technology means that users may develop interface habits, i.e. fast, automatic responses to stable interface cues. Design guidelines often assume that interface habits are beneficial. However, we lack quantitative evidence of how the development of habits actually affect user performance and an understanding of how changes in the interface design may affect habit development. Our work quantifies the effect of habit formation and disruption on user performance in interaction. Through a forced choice lab study task (n=19) and in the wild deployment (n=18) of a notificationdialog experiment on smartphones, we show that people become more accurate and faster at option selection as they develop an interface habit. Crucially this performance gain is entirely eliminated once the habit is disrupted. We discuss reasons for this performance shift and analyse some disadvantages of interface habits, outlining general design patterns on how to both support and disrupt them.Keywords: Interface habits, user behaviour, breaking habit, interaction science, quantitative research.
rate research
Read More
Crowdsourcing can identify high-quality solutions to problems; however, individual decisions are constrained by cognitive biases. We investigate some of these biases in an experimental model of a question-answering system. In both natural and controlled experiments, we observe a strong position bias in favor of answers appearing earlier in a list of choices. This effect is enhanced by three cognitive factors: the attention an answer receives, its perceived popularity, and cognitive load, measured by the number of choices a user has to process. While separately weak, these effects synergistically amplify position bias and decouple user choices of best answers from their intrinsic quality. We end our paper by discussing the novel ways we can apply these findings to substantially improve how high-quality answers are found in question-answering systems.
The widespread adoption of algorithmic decision-making systems has brought about the necessity to interpret the reasoning behind these decisions. The majority of these systems are complex black box models, and auxiliary models are often used to approximate and then explain their behavior. However, recent research suggests that such explanations are not overly accessible to lay users with no specific expertise in machine learning and this can lead to an incorrect interpretation of the underlying model. In this paper, we show that a predictive and interactive model based on causality is inherently interpretable, does not require any auxiliary model, and allows both expert and non-expert users to understand the model comprehensively. To demonstrate our method we developed Outcome Explorer, a causality guided interactive interface, and evaluated it by conducting think-aloud sessions with three expert users and a user study with 18 non-expert users. All three expert users found our tool to be comprehensive in supporting their explanation needs while the non-expert users were able to understand the inner workings of a model easily.
Automated decision support can accelerate tedious tasks as users can focus their attention where it is needed most. However, a key concern is whether users overly trust or cede agency to automation. In this paper, we investigate the effects of introducing automation to annotating clinical texts--a multi-step, error-prone task of identifying clinical concepts (e.g., procedures) in medical notes, and mapping them to labels in a large ontology. We consider two forms of decision aid: recommending which labels to map concepts to, and pre-populating annotation suggestions. Through laboratory studies, we find that 18 clinicians generally build intuition of when to rely on automation and when to exercise their own judgement. However, when presented with fully pre-populated suggestions, these expert users exhibit less agency: accepting improper mentions, and taking less initiative in creating additional annotations. Our findings inform how systems and algorithms should be designed to mitigate the observed issues.
Algorithms engineered to leverage rich behavioral and biometric data to predict individual attributes and actions continue to permeate public and private life. A fundamental risk may emerge from misconceptions about the sensitivity of such data, as well as the agency of individuals to protect their privacy when fine-grained (and possibly involuntary) behavior is tracked. In this work, we examine how individuals adjust their behavior when incentivized to avoid the algorithmic prediction of their intent. We present results from a virtual reality task in which gaze, movement, and other physiological signals are tracked. Participants are asked to decide which card to select without an algorithmic adversary anticipating their choice. We find that while participants use a variety of strategies, data collected remains highly predictive of choice (80% accuracy). Additionally, a significant portion of participants became more predictable despite efforts to obfuscate, possibly indicating mistaken priors about the dynamics of algorithmic prediction.
Critical human-machine interfaces are present in many systems including avionics systems and medical devices. Use error is a concern in these systems both in terms of hardware panels and input devices, and the software that drives the interfaces. Guaranteeing safe usability, in terms of buttons, knobs and displays is now a key element in the overall safety of the system. New integrated development environments (IDEs) based on formal methods technologies have been developed by the research community to support the design and analysis of high-confidence human-machine interfaces. To date, little work has focused on the comparison of these particular types of formal IDEs. This paper compares and evaluates two state-of-the-art toolkits: CIRCUS, a model-based development and analysis tool based on Petri net extensions, and PVSio-web, a prototyping toolkit based on the PVS theorem proving system.
Log in to be able to interact and post comments
comments
Fetching comments
Sign in to be able to follow your search criteria
