Individual differences in human-computer interaction

Aykin, Nuray

doi:10.1016/0360-8352(89)90135-6

Cited by 6 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Different user characteristics of interest are: gender, age, experiences, background knowledge, etc. (Aykin, 1989). Important and interesting differences between users are the background knowledge and the level of experience they have with the topic under investigation, maps in this case (MacEachren, 1995;Nielsen, 1989).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpreting maps through the eyes of expert and novice users

Ooms

Maeyer

Fack

et al. 2012

International Journal of Geographical Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The experiments described in this paper combine response time measurements and eye movement data to gain insight in the users' cognitive processes while working with dynamic and interactive maps. Experts and novices participated in a user study with a 'between user' design. Twenty screen maps were presented in a random order to each participant, on which he had to execute a visual search. The combined information of the button actions and eye tracker reveal that both user groups showed a similar pattern in the time intervals needed to locate the subsequent names. From this pattern, information about the users' cognitive load could be derived: use of working memory, learning effect, etc. Moreover, the response times also showed that the experts were significantly faster in finding the names in the map image. This is further explained by the eye movement metrics: experts had significantly shorter fixations and more fixations per second meaning that they could interpret a larger part of the map in the same amount of time. As a consequence, they could locate objects in the map image more efficiently and thus faster.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Interpreting maps through the eyes of expert and novice users

Ooms

Maeyer

Fack

et al. 2012

International Journal of Geographical Information Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…He attributes these variations in interpretation to "personality, surroundings, period and culture" (p. 2). These variations were also noted in several later studies (Aykin 1989;Delikostidis 2011;Liben 2006;MacEachren 2004;Slocum et al 2001). There is no known limit to what a person might find to be ambiguous in a particular graphic and therefore, in a particular map.…”

Section: Background Information and Contextsupporting

confidence: 69%

“…The skills of individual map users vary (Aykin 1989;Board 1978;Gilmartin & Patton 1984;Hegarty et al 2006;Keates 1982;MacEachren 2004), and thus no single map can be suitable for all map users. Map-reading skills include detection, discrimination, interpretation, and short and long-term memory capabilities (Board 1978;Gilmartin & Patton 1984;Hegarty et al 2006).…”

Section: Map Literacy Definedmentioning

confidence: 99%

An alternative wayfinding map design for map illiterate tourists

Koletsis¹

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most seem to examine the impact of cognitive, perceptual or motor capabilities on interaction performance (e.g., [12,14]). A seemingly smaller number of studies address the role of personality and traits in user-system interaction (e.g., [1,6]). …”

Section: Individual Differencesmentioning

confidence: 99%

An implicit test of UX

Schmettow

Noordzij

Mundt

2013

CHI '13 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

User experience research has made considerable progress in understanding subjective experience with interactive technology. Nevertheless, we argue, some blind spots have remained: individual differences are frequently ignored, the prevalent measures of selfreport rarely undergo verification, and overly focus is on utilitarian and hedonic dimensions of experience.A Stroop priming experiment was constructed to assess what people implicitly associate with a picture of a computing device. Three categories of target words were presented: hedonic, utilitarian and "geek" words. Longer response times were interpreted as stronger associations. Need-for-cognition and subject of undergraduate study (computer science vs. psychology) were taken as predictors for a hypothetical geek personality. The results suggest that persons with a geek predisposition tend to think of computers as objects of intellectual challenge and play, rather than tools or extensions of the self.

show abstract

Individual differences in human-computer interaction

Cited by 6 publications

References 27 publications

Interpreting maps through the eyes of expert and novice users

Interpreting maps through the eyes of expert and novice users

An alternative wayfinding map design for map illiterate tourists

An implicit test of UX

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About