hypertext 2016

A Comparative Study of Visual Cues for Annotation-Based Navigation Support in Adaptive Educational Hypermedia

Roya Hosseini & Peter Brusilovsky {roh38,peterb}@pitt.edu

Visual Cues in Past Work Annotation Design Choices The Study Findings

A2

A3

Knowledge-based Annotation

Recommendations

C1A1

C1A2

C1A3

C2A1

C2A2

C2A3

Task 1: Finding Least/Most Known Lines +

Task 3: Finding Recommended Lines +

Visual Cues Were Perceptually Different

User Preference Changed in Task Context

B1A1

B1A2

B1A3

B2A1

B2A2

B2A3

History-based Annotation

NavEx: Fillable Shape

Progressor: Red-to-Green Gradient

Mastery Grids: Green Color Intensities

WebEx: Check Mark Annotation

The plots show that the percent of subjects favoring a design changed before and after performing Task 1, Task 2, and Task 3.

….

33.54

4.55

A1 A2 A3

3.5

4

4.5

5

B1 B2

3.5

4

4.5

5

C1 C2

20

40

60

80

Before After --

A1A2A3

20

40

60

80

100

Before After

B1B2C1C2

The plots show predictive margins of designs’ preference score with 95% CI, for 30 subjects.

Design A1, B2, and C2 received significantly higher preference scores compared to other designs in their group.

Preference score was calculated by aggregating responses over all questions in each questionnaire.

The top designs A1–B2–C2 identified in out-of-context evaluation increased their standing above other designs during in-context evaluation.

Task 2: Finding Clicked Lines +

A1 Most Efficient Design

Most Efficient Design

Most Efficient Design