the context of the interface ian ruthven university of strathclyde
TRANSCRIPT
The context of the interface
Ian RuthvenUniversity of Strathclyde
2
interface and interaction• interaction
– designing for reciprocal behaviour of person and system
– largely influenced by cognitive models of behaviour– largely (I think) we often pay attention to
components of interaction than whole interaction• interface
– means of interaction – how interactive possibilities manifest themselves
– means of understanding how to behave– largely, now, means of popularity and uptake
• want to look at the interface in more detail and the possibilities that interface design offer us
3
interface and interaction• interaction
– designing for reciprocal behaviour of person and system
– largely influenced by cognitive models of behaviour– largely (I think) we often pay attention to
components of interaction than whole interaction• interface
– means of interaction – how interactive possibilities manifest themselves
– means of understanding how to behave– largely, now, means of popularity and uptake
• want to look at the interface in more detail and the possibilities that interface design offer us
There will be exceptions to
everything I say!
4
models in information seeking• information
seeking can be– cognitively
demanding– frustrating– just plain difficult
• but can also be– stimulating– fun– engaging
5
6
7
8
‘regular’ IR
9
‘regular’ IR
10
‘regular’ searching• in interactive terms
– no identification of individual– high prediction of output and interaction
(generic and obvious interaction models)– relatively short term interaction
• not always but drive to easy satisfaction
– values direct interaction• emphasis on query• and verbal (textual communication)• not always suitable for complex interaction
– tendency to ‘linear logic’ in interaction• e.g. documents retrieved contain query terms• structured output
11
‘regular’ searching• ranking model very dominant
– useful model for users (at least to increase efficiency) and for some search tasks
– IR has constructed a lot around ranking approach• especially in evaluation
– but perhaps too much• personalisation in particular• even work on implicit feedback tended to
concentrate on improving rankings
12
contextual searching
13
contextual searching• in interactive terms
– identification of individual• but also group (collaborative filtering)• some personalised interaction
– takes time to create relationships• not just recommendations but reviewers
– relatively longer term interaction• and interface support for increased engagement
– values implicit interaction• emphasis on browsing• and non-verbal communication
– tendency to ‘spiral logic’ in interaction
14
interface• affordances
– possibilities made available (or at least perceived abilities)
• also used for interfaces that suggest/encourage particular interaction
• still (I think) under-investigated in IR
• in IR (I think)– interactive work has laudable aim of making
interaction easier cognitively • (relevance feedback, interactive query expansion,
metaphors such as document piles)– but not really tackled making search more
enjoyable or interesting• motivated searchers always do better
– not suggesting we YouTube everything
15
persuasive interaction• interfaces that encourage (persuade) people
to behave differently– either macro-persuasion (stop smoking, drive
more carefully,..) or micro-persuasion (customer reviews, ‘more like this’)
• many techniques, including– reduction – making complex tasks simpler (Google
suggest vs interactive query expansion)– tunnelling - (leading users into a step by step
process or particular strategy, e.g. dialogue models of search)
• although may not be an effective strategy!• force vs persuasion
– self-monitoring – giving feedback to users (e.g. Query Performance Analyser)
16
persuasive interaction• can we design interfaces that help
people interact more usefully?– make interaction (that we believe to be
useful) more enjoyable and likely to happen?
– either • in a ‘big’ sense – whole interaction model• or in ‘small’ ways – individual interactive
tasks
17
18
19
20
emotional• emotional aspects of searching still under-
investigated– not only what we do with emotions
• we can recognise emotions
– but how to design to help create emotions• different emotions have different effects
– can help people be more creative– can help people focus
• different emotions can be imaginatively used in different search situations
21
emotional design• Don Norman
– visceral level of design (appearance)– behavioural level of design (pleasure and
effectiveness of use)– reflective level of design (self-image, personal
satisfaction, memories)• argues, in part, that objects designed to be
emotionally appealing are more likely to be used• but also more likely to forgive an object that does not
work well if we like it!• this is important for an area like IR
– especially for more difficult tasks– and tasks that are unlikely to work every time
22
engagement• functionality is important
– in IR we have tended to concentrate on functionality and effectiveness
– less on usability (although interlinked with effectiveness)
– still less on engagement• engagement, of course, not a substitute for
effectiveness• but tendency to see IR as an intellectual challenge
– O’Brien and Toms• useful language to talk about engagement• need to respond to this with new designs
23
engagement• very important commercially • there is a flip-side for academic
researchers • users do bring expectations• design and perceived quality is
increasingly important
24
summary• interactive IR has created some great
systems• we still have many challenges
– creating complex search requests– analysing complex search results
• lots of very useful ‘under-the-bonnet’ work– perhaps still not quite sure what to do with
it!• but need to consider excitement and
pleasure of search