Change search
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf
Did We Miss Something? Correspondence Analysis of Usability Data
Uppsala University, Disciplinary Domain of Humanities and Social Sciences, Faculty of Social Sciences, Department of Informatics and Media, Human-Computer Interaction.
York University, Toronto, Canada.
2013 (English)In: Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2013: 14th IFIP TC 13 International Conference, Cape Town, South Africa, September 2-6, 2013, Proceedings, Part IV / [ed] Paula Kotzé, Gary Marsden, Gitte Lindgaard, Janet Wesson, Marco Winckler, Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin/Heidelberg, 2013, 272-279 p.Conference paper, Published paper (Refereed)
Abstract [en]

We have applied a multivariate exploratory technique called Correspondence Analysis (CA) to create and analyze a model of the dataset of experiment results. The dataset originates from a comparative usability study of tracing with the use of mouse, pen, and touch input and contains both categorical and continuous data – i.e. results of questionnaires and task measurements. CA allowed to visually and numerically assess the main variables in the dataset and how they interact with each other. In our study, pen input had the best measured performance and was preferred by the users. Touch input was the least accurate of all input methods tested but it was preferred by users over mouse especially in the conditions lacking of visual feedback of drawing. CA helped to detect that secondary effect even though it cannot be explained by the performance results alone. The importance of the influence of user’s previous experience is also noted. We conclude that CA helped to identify all major phenomena known from previous studies but also was sensitive to minor and secondary effects, what makes it a well suited method to quickly evaluate usability data.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Berlin/Heidelberg: Springer Berlin/Heidelberg, 2013. 272-279 p.
Series
Lecture Notes in Computer Science, ISSN 0302-9743 ; 8120
Keyword [en]
shape, freehand, tracing, drawing, mouse, pen, stylus, touch, evaluation, comparison, error, measurement, subjective
National Category
Human Computer Interaction
Research subject
Human-Computer Interaction
Identifiers
URN: urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-207264DOI: 10.1007/978-3-642-40498-6_20ISI: 000345125400020ISBN: 978-3-642-40497-9 (print)ISBN: 978-3-642-40498-6 (print)OAI: oai:DiVA.org:uu-207264DiVA: diva2:647415
Conference
14th IFIP TC 13 International Conference on Designing for Diversity, September 2-6, 2013, Cape Town, South Africa
Available from: 2013-09-11 Created: 2013-09-11 Last updated: 2015-01-08Bibliographically approved
In thesis
1. Creating Digital Traces of Ideas: Evaluation of Computer Input Methods in Creative and Non-Creative Drawing
Open this publication in new window or tab >>Creating Digital Traces of Ideas: Evaluation of Computer Input Methods in Creative and Non-Creative Drawing
2014 (English)Doctoral thesis, comprehensive summary (Other academic)
Abstract [en]

Ideas are formed in a process of idea generation that includes creation, development, and communication of new ideas. Drawing has been used as a support for ideation for centuries. Today, computerized tools are commonly used for drawing. Such tools form a user interface between the human and the resulting drawing presented on the screen. The interface may come between the user and the drawing in a disruptive way also affecting the ideation process.

Using controlled laboratory studies, this thesis investigates the consequences of drawing with different user interfaces in two types of tasks: creative drawing tasks (based on a standardized test of creativity) and non-creative drawing tasks (i.e. shape-tracing tasks where no new idea is created). The goal was to identify and evaluate the consequences of the several issues originating from the use of different input devices, the functionality of the graphical user interfaces, the formulation of the drawing task, and the user’s previous experience.

The results showed that drawing tasks are oriented toward quality of outcomes and that higher input accuracy led to higher quality of outcomes of both creative and non-creative drawing tasks. This came with a trade-off between the quantity and quality. In ideation, less accurate input devices facilitated significantly more ideas but these were of lower quality. In non-creative tracing, higher speeds caused lower quality of outcomes.

The users subjectively preferred higher accuracy, also when an inaccurate user interface offered an eraser function. However, using the eraser allowed avoiding reinterpretations of ideas and led to ideation strategies characterized by laborious drawing that negatively affected the quality and quantity of the ideas produced. For non-creative drawing, the more difficult the shapes were, the lower the tracing accuracy.

In the thesis a new framework for interaction analysis is introduced that improves the theoretical and practical understanding of computerized drawing tasks and the phenomena resulting from different aspects of the user interface design of computerized drawing tools.

This thesis demonstrates that the inaccuracy of computerized tools cannot only make our drawings less aesthetically pleasing but also negatively affect ideas that are created in the process.

Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Uppsala: Acta Universitatis Upsaliensis, 2014. 110 p.
Series
Digital Comprehensive Summaries of Uppsala Dissertations from the Faculty of Social Sciences, ISSN 1652-9030 ; 94
Keyword
evaluation, user performance, input methods, mouse, stylus, touch, tracing, ideation
National Category
Human Computer Interaction
Research subject
Human-Computer Interaction
Identifiers
urn:nbn:se:uu:diva-220882 (URN)978-91-554-8911-3 (ISBN)
Public defence
2014-05-15, Hörsal 2, Ekonomikum, Uppsala, 13:15 (English)
Opponent
Supervisors
Available from: 2014-04-23 Created: 2014-03-22 Last updated: 2014-09-09Bibliographically approved

Open Access in DiVA

fulltext(339 kB)110 downloads
File information
File name FULLTEXT02.pdfFile size 339 kBChecksum SHA-512
01aa823ae9ff14780e3b1cde727cb0646e2ac036cb1cf91ff0f36b443151ce3b58f3abaf86b6b9cd2e8306e2e29f8a9d0ae7a29403567dd07d1649f499a7e4df
Type fulltextMimetype application/pdf

Other links

Publisher's full textSpringer LNCS

Search in DiVA

By author/editor
Zabramski, Stanislaw
By organisation
Human-Computer Interaction
Human Computer Interaction

Search outside of DiVA

GoogleGoogle Scholar
Total: 110 downloads
The number of downloads is the sum of all downloads of full texts. It may include eg previous versions that are now no longer available

doi
isbn
urn-nbn

Altmetric score

doi
isbn
urn-nbn
Total: 460 hits
CiteExportLink to record
Permanent link

Direct link
Cite
Citation style
  • apa
  • ieee
  • modern-language-association-8th-edition
  • vancouver
  • Other style
More styles
Language
  • de-DE
  • en-GB
  • en-US
  • fi-FI
  • nn-NO
  • nn-NB
  • sv-SE
  • Other locale
More languages
Output format
  • html
  • text
  • asciidoc
  • rtf