APCS
RETHINKING THE TABBAR:INTRODUCING
AUTOMATIC TAB ORDERING INTO WEB BROWSERS
Nguyen Ngoc Dan Vy – 0612755Tran Thi Hong Diem – 0612701
Instructor: Do Lenh Hung Son
Contents
Introduction1
Understanding User’s Behavior3
Automatic Tab Ordering4
Evaluation5
Contribution & Conclusion6
Related Works2
Contents
Introduction1
Understanding User’s Behavior3
Automatic Tab Ordering4
Evaluation5
Contribution & Conclusion6
Related Works2
Clarification
Human Computer Interaction
Problem does not
exist advanced
Research Oriented
Introduce new concept
Approach
User
Centered
design
Evaluation
• Controlled experiment:
10 participants• Effectiveness: 10-
14%
User behavior analysis
• Field study• Online survey
Prototyping
• Most Used Tabs Instant Access• Fast Tab
Switching
Introducing concept
Automatic TabOrdering
Contents
Introduction1
Understanding User’s Behavior3
Automatic Tab Ordering4
Evaluation5
Contribution & Conclusion
6
Related Works2
Related Work
Tabs
Multitasking
D.Am, A.Spink and M.Park, “Information and non-information multitasking interplay”.
Related Work
Tabs
Multitasking
Web Browsing Activity
M.Kellar, C.Watters, K.M.Inkpen “An exploration of web-based monitoring:Implications for design” (CHI 2007)
Related Work
Tabs
Multitasking
Web Browsing Activity
Webpage Revisitation: 30%
25%
45%
30%
Ratio of selected tabs
Never se-lected
Selected Once
Selected More than once
L.Tauscher and S.Greenberg “Revisitation patterns in world wide web navigation” in CHI 97
Related Work
Tabs
Tab GroupingMultitasking
Web Browsing Activity
WebpageRevisitation: 30%
Visual Aid
Foxtab: tab preview panel
Related Work
Tabs
Tab GroupingMultitasking
Visual AidWeb Browsing
Activity
WebpageRevisitation: 30%
Tab Representation
Contents
Introduction1
Understanding User’s Behavior3
Automatic Tab Ordering4
Evaluation5
Contribution & Conclusion6
Related Works2
Field Study
7 users: 3F 4M. Age:22-25 Position:
developer, designer, officer, researcher.
Explore how users work with browser.
Interview: usage trend& difficulties.
Purpose Participants Location Set Up
PersonalVibe.2 week duration.Run in background.Collect data:
Software Interview
Selab- Software Engineering Lab in University of Science.
Field Study
Figure 2: One participant in this study. Figure 1: Selab- Software Engineering Lab in University of Science.
Semi-structured Interview
“I need a tool to support me in managing tabs
automatically.”
“I think if I can arrange tabs in many rows, it would be better”
“I want to put related tabs in same groups.”
“It takes me a lot of time to find and switch when
opened many tabs. I am really uncomfortable!”
Number of opened tabs?
Number of worked tabs?
When open many tabs?
8 questions
Problems with tabs?
Order of tabs?
Semi-structured Interview
A Most users opened many tabs( over 15 tabs).
B Searching requires open a lot of tabs
C Lost tabs' trace when opening too many tabs.
D Remark the order of tabs.
Online Survey
Online Survey
1 Large population. (30 participants).
General tendency of participants2
Participants: knowledgeable workers3
4 Created by Google Spreadsheet Form(Include 17 questions)
APCS
Findings
1
User spend a lot of time for web browsers.
2
Searchingrequires a lot of tabs.
3
Finding & switching tabs waste time.
4
Difficulties in managing opened tabs
25% users open >= 15 tabs
Contents
Introduction1
Understanding User’s Behavior3
Automatic Tab Ordering4
Evaluation5
Contribution & Conclusion6
Related Works2
Concept
Most Used Tabs Instant Access• Free Tab Switching• Tab Dummy• Permanent Ranked Tabs
Automatic Tab OrderingImplement on Firefox
Fast Tab Switching• Manualmarking Tabs• Automarking Tabs
Finding a common equation
Rank = α*No.Access + β*ActiveTime + γ*ElapsedTime
• Domain (α,β,γ ) = R• Number of Access: number of clicks to access the tab• ActiveTime: time when the tab is active (miliseconds)• ElapsedTime: time when the tab is opened (miliseconds).
Final Equation
Rank = 1*No.Access + 0.00005*ActiveTime + 0*ElapsedTime
In this particular case: web browsing:
• Favor Number of Access.• ElapsedTime does not contribute weight.• Many zeros: time is calculated in miliseconds
Prototypes
Develop 5 in total, evaluate 2.
No concerning about optimization, memory management, etc.
Implement in Firefox (result from online survey).Use JavaScript & XUL.
A tool for demonstration.
Contents
Introduction1
Understanding User’s Behavior3
Automatic Tab Ordering4
Evaluation5
Contribution & Conclusion6
Related Works2
Independent Variables
Firefox with installed Tab Dummy Prototype.
Default Firefox.Firefox with installed Permanent Ranked Tabs Prototype.
Condition 1 Condition 2 Condition 3
Dependent Variables
Performance Measures
Number of scroll buttons clicked
Time spent switching tabs
Attitudinal Measures
Self-reported workload (NASA
TLX)
Subjective feedbacks
Hypotheses
1Number of scroll buttons clicked decreases in condition 2-3.
2Time spent switching tabsdecreases in condition 2-3.
3User workload & stressdecreases in condition 2-3.
Pilot Test
PurposePurpose QuestionnairesQuestionnairesTask DescriptionTask Description
-2 specific keywords : one text, one image.- Keywords must
be unpopular.- One question/
page. Require to open many tabs and multitasking.
- Perform searching tasks.- 45 minutes.- 14
participants.- 3 conditions.
Get first impression of users in real context.
Feedback & Improvement
Change questionnaires to open more tabsChange questionnaires to open more tabs
Synchronize interactionSynchronize interaction
Divide participants to smaller group.Divide participants to smaller group.
Improvement for control experiment
Improvement for control experiment
Controlled Experiment
1 10 participants.
Same configurations2
3 conditions. 45 minutes each.3
4 Searching task and answer questionnaires proposed by us.
Evaluation – Result
Overall result: Mental’s stress and workload decreases: Tab Dummy: 10%. Permanent Ranked Tabs: 14%.
Contents
Introduction1
Understanding User’s Behavior3
Automatic Tab Ordering4
Evaluation5
Contribution & Conclusion6
Related Works2
Future Works
2nd Category
Platforms
Experiment.
Controlled Experiment.
Fast Tab Switching:Continue
developmentControlled
Experiment
Implement in various platforms: Text editors,
IDE.OssExperiment.Platform
differences
Conclusion
Benefits large population
No existingEfficienttechnique
ChallengeTraditionalTab order
AutomaticTab Ordering
Reduce stressUsers’ workload
Problems With TabbedBrowsing
Top Related