Information Technology Reference
In-Depth Information
Actors, audience, paradigm.
All of the objects involved in the interaction pertain to the leading paradigm of
“window, icon, menu, pointing device” (WIMP). The paradigm is constituted by the
menu bar, toolbars, main window containing the image, dialog windows, icons, and
pointer. The paradigm is bound to the graphical UI metaphor. Both the applications
analyzed belong to the same genre, as we have shown above.
Patterns.
The patterns formed from the interaction games are the following (based on the
functions analyzed in the UI corpus): Open a document, choose a tool, apply a tool,
save the file. The patterns from interaction sentences are centered on the verbs: find,
look, select, click, drag, open, and save. The nouns are: tool palette, button, brush,
object, menu, window. The patterns from the discrete elements are: mouse-drag,
mouse-up, mouse-down, option-press, control-press.
In order to analyze the number of steps and patterns more easily, the UI language
elements should be visualized in a future work.
Each step groups an interaction sentence with the system's response.
1. Red-eye removal: PS 5 steps, GIMP 4 steps.
2. Barrel distortion: PS 8 steps, GIMP 8 steps.
3. Eliminate an object: PS 7 steps, GIMP 10 steps.
4. Clone objects in perspective: PS 7 steps, GIMP 6 steps.
5. Customize the UI: PS 5 steps, GIMP 5 steps.
As is evident in the “eliminate an object” analysis, the number of steps can vary
depending on the user's (mis)interpretation of the interaction proposed by the symbols
used or based on the user's knowledge of the target domain or proficiency with the
software. The number of steps can be thus reduced by using keyboard shortcuts or
prolonged by consulting the manual during interaction.
Even on such a small set of five functions, different genres of interaction begin to
emerge. So far we can distinguish two of them: in the first four functions the genre is
image manipulation; in the last function it is UI modification. Obviously, the greater
the number of functions analyzed, the stronger the evidence for our claim.
4.3 EXPERT EVALUATION RESULTS
By comparing the output from the HE and SA analysis, HE proved to be more concise.
However, of the 16 heuristics used, only a small number could be applied on each
occasion. The application of the 6 elements of SA tended to be more verbose, but, on
the other hand, the elements could be applied every time. Whereas SA could seem
repetitive in some instances, it provided a solid context of analysis. Both the methods
(HE and SA) could be used not only on the interaction sentence level but also as for
a general appreciation of the entire UI. During the general analysis, only portions of
the UI are selected and suggestions made to other similar parts of the UI. In summary,
our study demonstrated the depth of investigation and breadth of insight that SA can
Search WWH ::
Custom Search