1Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Matching Attentional Draw with Utility in Interruption
Jennifer Gluck, Andrea Bunt, Joanna McGrenereUniversity of British Columbia
CHI 2007 April 30, 2007
2 2Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Matching Attentional Draw with Utility in Interruption?
• Attentional Draw (AD): How quickly attention is drawn to a notification
• Utility: Usefulness of the interruption content
• Matching: Low AD ↔ Low Utility … High AD ↔ High Utility
3 3Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Interruption
When something causes a break in our actions, activities, or concentration.
4 4Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Negative Effects
Lowered primary task performance Cutrell, Czerwinski, & Horvitz 2001 Gillie & Broadbent 1989
Increased anxiety, annoyance, perceived difficulty in completing primary task Bailey, Konstan, & Carlis, 2001
5 5Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Positive Aspects
Technologies that interrupt are popular
suggests there is value to interruption
Other systems also have the potential to promote beneficial interruption…
6 6Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Assist users by making suggestions that can help users complete a task
FlexExcel (Thomas & Krogseoter, 1993)
Adaptive Bar (Debevc, Meyer, Donlagic & Svecko 1996)
Mixed-Initiative Systems
How can we design interruption to emphasize positive aspects?
7 7Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Design Guideline
Make the amount of attention attracted by a notification relative to the usefulness of the interruption content
Obermayer & Nugent, 2000McFarlane & Latorella,
2002
8 8Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
What did we do?Empirical investigation of the effectsof matching attentional draw (AD) of notification and interruption utility
9 9Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Attentional Draw (AD)Empirical investigation of the effectsof matching attentional draw (AD) of notification and interruption utility
How quickly your attention is drawn to the notification signal
attentional draw
10 10Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
UtilityEmpirical investigation of the effectsof matching attentional draw (AD) of notification and interruption utility
How useful, important, or urgent the interruption content is to the recipient
“How helpful the interruption is in terms of performing a primary task”
utility
11 11Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Findings
• Reduces negative effects • Facilitates positive perception of
interruption
Empirical investigation of the effectsof matching attentional draw (AD) of notification and interruption utility
12 12Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Research Overview
Study 1: Find some signalsEstablished a set of significantly different notification signals in terms of their attentional draw (AD)
Study 2: Match the signals to utilityInvestigated matching AD and utility to see if this strategy can promote positive interruption
13 13Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Primary Task
14 14Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
15 15Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
16 16Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
17 17Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
18 18Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
19 19Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
20 20Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Goal: Establish a set of visual notification signals with significantly different detection times
Approach: Concurrent detection task Play Memory game Detect notification signals
Study 1
21 21Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Notification Signals
10 signals: Transformations applied to a base icon
Properties explored Colour Motion Location
22 22Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Signals
Time (seconds)
23 23Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Study 1 Design
• Within-subjects• 12 subjects• 10 signals• 120 trials per subject
24 24Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Study 1 Results: Detection Times
High AD signal: Follow
Med AD signal: Slow Zoom
Low AD signal: Flag
25 25Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Goal:Investigate the effects of matching attentional draw and utility
In terms of: Annoyance Perceived benefit Performance
Study 2
26 26Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Interrupting Task
Context-sensitive hints• 3 hint utility levels:
very helpful somewhat helpful not helpful
• Emulated a mixed-initiative system
27 27Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
QuickTime™ and aTechSmith EnSharpen decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
28 28Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
3 Game Conditions
1. Match• Match AD to utility
2. Static • Same AD for all utilities
3. Control• No interruption
Low utility hint ↔ Low AD signal
Med utility hint ↔ Med AD signal
High utility hint ↔ High AD signal
Low utility hint
Med utility hint ↔ Med AD signal
High utility hint
29 29Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Study 2 Design
• Conditions: Match, Static, Control
• Within-subjects design
• 24 subjects
• 15 interruptions per condition
30 30Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Study 2 Measures & Procedure
Procedure: Training, {Condition, Survey} x 3, Interview
Measures: Annoyance Perceived benefit Fatigue Performance (# of matches) Preference
31 31Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Study 2 HypothesesH1: Interruption annoyance is lower in the
Matchcondition than in the Static condition
H2: Perceived benefit is higher in the Match condition than in the Static condition
H3: Performance is higher in the Match
conditionthan in all other conditions
32 32Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Results: Annoyance & Benefit Annoyance lower in Match (p = .034) Benefit higher in Match (p = .037)
0
20
40
60
80
100
InterruptionAnnoyance
PerceivedBenefit
MatchStatic
33 33Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Condition Preference
75%
15%10%
0%
20%
40%
60%
80%
100%
Match Static Control
% o
f Par
ticip
ants
34 34Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Performance Results (# of matches)• No main effect of condition (p = .454)
• Other effects present Condition x Presentation, Fatigue, Learning,
Performance results unclear
35 35Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Study 2: Summary of Results
H1: Interruption annoyance is lower in the Match condition than in the Static condition
H2: Perceived benefit is higher in the Match condition than in the Static condition
H3: Performance is higher in the Match conditionthan in all other conditions
36 36Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Future Research
• Computational appraisal of utility• Notification signals• Scope of utility
Primary task relevance: • Re-examine performance results
Personal relevance: • Confirm annoyance and benefit results
37 37Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Take Home MessageMatching AD and utility
Reduces annoyance and Increases perception of benefit
• UI design implications?
38 38Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Acknowledgements
Many thanks to:• Natural Science and Engineering Research Council
of Canada (NSERC)• Lyn Bartram
39 39Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Matching AD and utility Reduces annoyance and Increases perception of benefit
Take Home Message
Questions?
40Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Additional Information
41 41Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Interview Results
Comprehension of AD-utility relationshipLow 70%Med 40%High 45%All 40%None 25%
40% utilized this knowledge to ignore low-utility hints
42 42Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Related Work
Coordination McFarlane 2002
Timing of Onset Fogarty et al. 2004 Bailey et al. 2001
Peripheral Awareness
Maglio & Campbell 2000 McCrickard et al. 2003
Notification Bartram, Ware, Calvert 2003 Horvitz, Kadie, Paek, Hovel 2003
Relevance Czerwinski, Cutrell, Horvitz 2000
Utility Horvitz, Koch, Apacible 2004 Horvitz, Jacobs, Hovel 1999 Avrahami & Hudson 2005 Gievska & Sibert 2005
43 43Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Study 1: Simple Editor Task
44 44Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Study 1 DesignWithin-subjects: 2 (task) x 10 (signal) x 3 (block)
Block Design 2 replications per block 3 blocks per primary task (6 total) 120 trials per subject
Measures Detection time
12 subjects, 90 minute experiment
45 45Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Study 1: Structure of a Trial
46 46Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Study 1 Results• Significant main effect of signal (p < .001)• 3-way significant comparison between Flag,
Slow Zoom, and Follow
4.83 4.57
6.02
1.96 1.88 1.74
3.39
9.19
1.491.19
0
2
4
6
8
10
Flag Colour Grow Oscillate SlowZoom
SlowBlink
Bounce FastZoom
FastBlink
Follow
Tim
e (s
econ
ds)
4.83 4.57
6.02
1.96 1.88 1.74
3.39
9.19
1.491.19
0
2
4
6
8
10
Flag Colour Grow Oscillate SlowZoom
SlowBlink
Bounce FastZoom
FastBlink
Follow
Tim
e (s
econ
ds)
47 47Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Study 1: Pairwise Comparisons
48 48Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Study 1: TimeoutsMain effect of signal(F(2.542,27.961) = 3.630, p = .031, η2 = .248)
49 49Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Study 2 Design• Conditions: Match, Static, Control
• Within-subjects design
• 5 replications in 17-min block (i.e. 15 interruptions per condition)
• 65-second average interruption frequency
• 24 subjects
• 1 hour experiment
50 50Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Study 2: Interruption Structure
51 51Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Missed-Hints Dialog
52 52Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Study 2 General AnnoyanceNo main effect of condition(F(2,24) = 2.788, p = .079, η2 = .166, power = .429)
53 53Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Study 2: Presentation Order Effect
F(5,14) = 2.720, p = .064, η2 = .493
54 54Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Study 2 Interaction Effect
F(10,28) = 2..35, p = .068, η2 = .421
55 55Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Study 2 Hint DurationMain effect of utility(F(2,36) = 6.839, p = .003, η2 = .275)
56 56Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Study 2 WorkloadNASA-TLX Factor F(2,28) p η2
Mental Demand .057 .945 .004
Physical Demand 2.335 .115 .143
Temporal Demand 1.069 .357 .071
Effort .118 .889 .008
Perceived Performance 1.347 .276 .088
Frustration .381 .687 .027
57 57Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
NASA Task Load Index
Mental DemandHow much mental and perceptual activity was required to play the game and attend to the hints? (e.g., thinking, remembering, looking, searching, deciding, etc.)?
Physical DemandHow much physical activity was required to play the game? (e.g. moving the mouse, clicking the mouse button, etc.)
Temporal DemandHow much time pressure did you feel due to the rate or pace at which the tasks or task elements occurred?
58 58Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
NASA Task Load Index (2)
EffortHow hard did you have to work (mentally and physically) to accomplish your level of performance?
Perceived PerformanceHow successful do you think you were in accomplishing the goals of the task set by the experimenter (or yourself)?
FrustrationHow insecure, discouraged, irritated, stressed and annoyed versus secure, gratified, content, relaxed and complacent did you feel during the task?
59 59Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Performance Results
• No main effect of condition (p = .454)
• Main effect: presentation order (p = .064, η2 = .493) Interaction effect: condition & presentation order
(p = .068, η2 = .421)
• Learning effect (p = .053)
• Fatigue effect (p = .009)
Impossible to interpret performance results
60 60Imager Laboratoryfor Graphics, Visualization and HCI
Top Related