Cognitive Models Lecture #10. 20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 2 Agenda Cognitive models –KLM –GOMS –Fitt’s Law –Applications.

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
Chapter 15: Analytical evaluation
Advertisements

User Modeling CIS 376 Bruce R. Maxim UM-Dearborn.
Predictive Assessment of Usability Laura Marie Leventhal.
Evaluation Types GOMS and KLM
The Growth of Cognitive modeling in Human-Computer Interaction Since GOMS Presented by: Daniel Loewus-Deitch Douglas Grimes.
Task Analysis (continued). Task analysis Observations can be done at different levels of detail fine level (primitives, e.g. therbligs, keystrokes,GOMS.
The Essential Role of Mental Models in HCI: Card, Moran and Newell
GOMS Analysis & Automated Usability Assessment Melody Y. Ivory (UCB CS) SIMS 213, UI Design & Development March 8, 2001.
Cognition in the virtual world. Which is easiest to read? What is the time?
GOMS and You CS125a - HCI Alex Feinman. Overview Background of GOMS Application of GOMS A Few Examples Related Work.
Instructor: Vincent Duffy, Ph.D. Associate Professor of IE Lecture 8 – Human-Computer Interaction Thurs. Feb. 8, 2007 IE 486 Work Analysis & Design II.
GOMS Analysis & Automating Usability Assessment Melody Y. Ivory SIMS 213, UI Design & Development March 19, 2002.
SIMS 213: User Interface Design & Development
CS160 Discussion Section Fitts Law and KLM David Sun Sept 26 th 2007.
KLM and GOMS Professor: Tapan Parikh TA: Eun Kyoung Choe
Objectives Define predictive and descriptive models and explain why they are useful. Describe Fitts’ Law and explain its implications for interface design.
SIMS 213: User Interface Design & Development Marti Hearst Tues, April 6, 2004.
SIMS 213: User Interface Design & Development Marti Hearst Tues, April 19, 2005.
Predictive Evaluation Predicting performance. Predictive Models Translate empirical evidence into theories and models that can influence design. Performance.
Chapter 4 Cognitive Engineering HCI: Designing Effective Organizational Information Systems Dov Te’eni Jane M. Carey.
Some questions of hypermedia and CHI Josep Blat Universitat Pompeu Fabra.
I213: User Interface Design & Development Marti Hearst Tues, April 17, 2007.
Analytical Evaluations 2. Field Studies
Predictive Evaluation Simple models of human performance.
Prepared By: Rekah Veloo Date:16 th Aug 2010 Lecture: Dr. Balakrishnan Muniandy Course Code: QIM 501E.
©2011 1www.id-book.com Analytical evaluation Chapter 15.
Chapter 5 Models and theories 1. Cognitive modeling If we can build a model of how a user works, then we can predict how s/he will interact with the interface.
User Models Predicting a user’s behaviour. Fitts’ Law.
UNDERSTANDING USERS: MODELING TASKS AND LOW- LEVEL INTERACTION Human-Computer Interaction
Slides based on those by Paul Cairns, York ( users.cs.york.ac.uk/~pcairns/) + ID3 book slides + slides from: courses.ischool.berkeley.edu/i213/s08/lectures/i ppthttp://www-
Ch 14. Testing & modeling users
User Modeling 1 Predicting thoughts and actions. Agenda Cognitive models Physical models Fall 2006PSYCH / CS
GOMS CS 160 Discussion Chris Long 3/5/97. What is GOMS? l A family of user interface modeling techniques l Goals, Operators, Methods, and Selection rules.
Gary MarsdenSlide 1University of Cape Town Human-Computer Interaction - 6 User Models Gary Marsden ( ) July 2002.
Testing & modeling users. The aims Describe how to do user testing. Discuss the differences between user testing, usability testing and research experiments.
Identifying needs and establishing requirements
GOMs and Action Analysis and more. 1.GOMS 2.Action Analysis.
Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Pearson Addison-Wesley Prof Jim Warren with reference to sections 7.3 and 7.5 of The Resonant Interface.
Analytical evaluation Prepared by Dr. Nor Azman Ismail Department of Computer Graphics and Multimedia Faculty of Computer Science & Information System.
Cognitive Modeling 1 Predicting thougts and actions
Task Analysis CSCI 4800/6800 Feb 27, Goals of task analysis Elicit descriptions of what people do Represent those descriptions Predict difficulties,
User Interface Evaluation Cognitive Walkthrough Lecture #16.
© Simeon Keates 2009 Usability with Project Lecture 14 – 30/10/09 Dr. Simeon Keates.
ITM 734 Introduction to Human Factors in Information Systems
The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction
6.813/6.831 User Interface Design and Implementation
Evaluation Using Modeling. Testing Methods Same as Formative Surveys/questionnaires Interviews Observation Documentation Automatic data recording/tracking.
1 Cognitive Modeling GOMS, Keystroke Model Getting some details right!
마스터 제목 스타일 편집 마스터 텍스트 스타일을 편집합니다 둘째 수준 셋째 수준 넷째 수준 다섯째 수준 The GOMS Family of User Interface Analysis Techniques : Comparison and Contrast Bonnie E. John.
Chapter 15: Analytical evaluation. Aims: Describe inspection methods. Show how heuristic evaluation can be adapted to evaluate different products. Explain.
Copyright © 2008 Pearson Education, Inc. Publishing as Pearson Addison-Wesley Prof Jim Warren with reference to sections 7.1 and 7.2 of The Resonant Interface.
1CS 338: Graphical User Interfaces. Dario Salvucci, Drexel University. Lecture 15: User Modeling.
GOMS Analysis & Web Site Usability Melody Y. Ivory (UCB CS) SIMS 213, UI Design & Development April 15, 1999.
User Interface Evaluation Introduction Lecture #15.
1 1 ITM 734 Introduction to Human Factors in Information Systems Cindy Corritore This material has been developed by Georgia Tech HCI.
Evaluation Types GOMS and KLM CS352. Quiz Announcements Notice upcoming due dates (web page). Where we are in PRICPE: –Predispositions: Did this in Project.
A Survey on User Modeling in HCI PRESENTED BY: MOHAMMAD SAJIB AL SERAJ SUPERVISED BY: PROF. ROBERT PASTEL.
Copyright 2006 John Wiley & Sons, Inc Chapter 5 – Cognitive Engineering HCI: Developing Effective Organizational Information Systems Dov Te’eni Jane Carey.
Human Computer Interaction Lecture 23 Cognitive Models
Chapter 5 – Cognitive Engineering
Human Computer Interaction
Task Analysis CSCI 4800/6800 Feb 27, 2003.
Analytical Evaluation with GOMS and KLM
GOMS Adapted from Berkeley Guir.
GOMS as a Simulation of Cognition
Model based design NGOMSL and CPM- GOMS
Testing & modeling users
Model based design keystroke level model
Chapter 12 cognitive models.
Presentation transcript:

Cognitive Models Lecture #10

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 2 Agenda Cognitive models –KLM –GOMS –Fitt’s Law –Applications of Cognitive Model in HCI

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 3 Cognitive Models Keystroke Level Model (KLM) –It is a low-level description of what users would have to do to perform a task GOMS Model –It is structured, multi-level description of what users would have to do to perform a task Fitt’s Law –It is used to predict a user’s time to select a target

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 4

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 5 Keystroke Level Model (KLM) Proposed by Card, Moran and Newell in 1980 The model provides a quantitative tools –To predict time to accomplish a task with a given method on an interactive computer system The model is based on counting keystrokes and low-level operations, including user’s mental operations and the system responses This models appears as simple, accurate enough and flexible to be applied in practical design and evaluation situations

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 6 Keystroke Level Model (KLM) Predicts expert task-completion time with the following inputs: –A task or series of subtasks –Method (is a sequence of system commands) used –Command language of the system –Motor-skill parameters of the user –Response-time parameters of the system

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 7 Keystroke Level Model (KLM) KLM decomposes the execution phase into five different operators

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 8 Keystroke Level Model (KLM) Assumptions 1.Acquisition –User builds a mental representation of tasks 2.Execution –Error free task execution Execution time is the sum of the time for each of the operators: T execute = T K +T B +T P +T H +T D +T M +T R Note: KLM gives the best result

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 9 Keystroke Level Model (KLM) Time for various operators in KLM

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 10 Keystroke Level Model (KLM) Example 1: User working with a mouse based editor He notices a single character error 1.He points at the error (by moving the mouse pointer) 2.Delete the character 3.Retype a character 4.Return to previous typing point

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 11 Example 1: KLM The execution of the above task will involve interleaved occurrences of various operators 1.He points at the error (by moving the mouse pointer) Move mouse to the location and place the pointer there 2.Delete the character Move to the keyboard and press a key (say, Del) 3.Retype a character Press another key (type the right character) 4.Return to previous typing point Task is done. Move to the previous place of editing

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 12 Example 1: KLM

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 13 Example 1: KLM Total execution time is obtained by adding the components time for each of the activities Encoding the method T = HPBHMKKHMPB

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 14 Heuristics for the M operator Jef Raskin’s Rules

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 15 Heuristics for the M operator Application of Raskin’s Rules 1.Begin with a method encoding that includes all physical operations and response operations KPBKKKPBKK 2.Use Rule 0 to place candidate Ms MKPBMKMKMKMPBMKMK 3.Repeat through Rule 1 to Rule 4 for each M to see whether it should be deleted or not MKPBMKKKKMPBMKKMK

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 16 Application of KLM: UI Evaluation Example 2

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 17 UI Evaluation: Temperature Converter Prediction of Execution Time according to KLM T = HPBHPBHKKKKK After Raskin’s Rules T = MHPBMHPBHMKKKKMK T = 5K+2B+2P+3H+4M T execution = 5 x.12+2 x.20+2 x x.40+4 x 1.35 = 9.80

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 18 UI Evaluation: Temperature Converter Other way of improving the interface? Ends up being slower: T execution = 16.8 seconds! Assume a button for compressing scale

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 19 UI Evaluation: Temperature Converter Another way of improving the UI of Temperature Converter? Solution T execution = MKKKKMK = 3.7 seconds

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 20 UI Evaluation: Temperature Converter Any other way of improving the UI of Temperature Converter? Tricks: Armed with knowledge of the minimum information the user has to specify Solution?

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 21 UI Evaluation: Temperature Converter Solution 2: Translates to both simultaneously T execution = MKKKK = 2.15 seconds

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 22

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 23 GOMS Model (revisited) Engineering model of user interaction G oals - user’s intentions (tasks) –e.g. delete a file, edit text, assist a customer O perators - actions to complete task –cognitive, perceptual & motor (MHP) –low-level (e.g., move the mouse to menu) M ethods - sequences of actions (operators) –based on error-free expert –may be multiple methods for accomplishing same goal »e.g., shortcut key or menu selection S elections - rules for choosing appropriate method –method predicted based on context

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 24 GOMS Family CMN-GOMS –Card, Moran and Newell GOMS, 1983 NGOMSL –Natural GOMS Language, (Kieras et al. 1988) CPM-GOMS –Cognitive Perceptual Motor GOMS (Gray at al. 1993)

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 25 CMN-GOMS Model Proposed by Card, Moran & Newell in 1983 –Apply psychology to CS Employ model human processor (MHP) to predict performance of tasks in UI –Task completion time, short-term memory requirements –Applicable to User interface design and evaluation Training and documentation –Example of Automating usability assessment

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 26 CMN-GOMS Model Card, Moran & Newell (1983) –most influential model of user interaction used in GOMS analysis –3 interacting subsystems cognitive, perceptual & motor each with processor & memory –described by parameters »e.g., capacity, cycle time serial & parallel processing

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 27 Example: CMN-GOMS Model Text Editing Method

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 28

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 29 Cognitive-Perceptual-Motor GOMS Example 1: Read Screen::When eye movement is required

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 30 CPM-GOMS (contd..) Example 2: Read Screen::When eye movement is not required

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 31

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 32 Fitt’s Law Models movement time for selection tasks The movement time for a well-rehearsed selection task Increases as the distance to the target increases Decreases as the size of the target increases

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 33 Fitt’s Law Time (in msec) = a + b log 2 (D/S+1) where a, b = constants (empirically derived) D = distance S = size ID is Index of Difficulty = log 2 (D/S+1)

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 34 Illustration of Fitt’s Law Time (in msec) = a + b log 2 (D/S+1) Same ID → Same Difficulty

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 35 Illustration of Fitt’s Law Time (in msec) = a + b log 2 (D/S+1) Smaller ID → Easier

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 36 Illustration of Fitt’s Law Time (in msec) = a + b log 2 (D/S+1) Larger ID → Harder

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 37 Determining the Constants in Fitt’s Law To determine a and b design a set of tasks with varying values for D and S (conditions) For each task condition –Multiple trials conducted and the time to execute each is recorded and stored electronically for statistical analysis Accuracy is also recorded –Either through the x-y coordinates of selection or –Through the error rate — the percentage of trials selected with the cursor outside the target

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 38

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 39 Cognitive Model-based Evaluation Some existing applications –Mouse-driven text editor (KLM/CMN-GOMS) –CAD system (KLM/CPM-GOMS) –Television control system (NGOMSL) –Minimalist documentation (NGOMSL) –Telephone assistance operator workstation (CMP- GOMS)

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 40 Cognitive Model-based Evaluation Drawbacks –Assumes an expert user –Assumes an error-free usage –Overall, very idealized

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 41 Recommended Materials See the course web page (For the presentation slides of the current lecture and other materials) Book Human-Computer Interaction by Alan Dix et al. Pearson-Education, Chapter 12

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 42 Recommended Materials References: 1.The Keystroke-Level for User Performance Time with Interactive Systems by Stuart K. Card, Thomas P. Moran and Allen Newell, Communication of the ACM, Vol. 23, No. 7, July The GOMS Family of User Interface Analysis Techniques: Comparison and Contrast, Bonnie E. John and David E. Kieras, ACM Transaction on Computer- Human Interaction, Vol. 3, No. 4, December 1996

20 March, 2008Human Computer Intercation Spring 2008, Lecture #10 43