View
500
Download
2
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
Graphic designand UI efficiency
Andrei Balkanskii, Artem Smolin PhD, Yury SolonitsynITMO University, Saint Petersburg
UXCampEurope 16, Berlin2016
AuthorsITMO University, Saint Petersburg:• Andrei Balkanskii — senior teacher, Chair of Graphic Technologies;• Artem Smolin, PhD — Head of the Chair of Graphic Technologies;• Yury Solonitsyn — practicing interaction designer with background in
graphic design, technical writing and web development … a master student of the Chair of Graphic Technologies ;)
Problem to be investigated• Now “Flat UI” style is popular;• But some well-known industry experts (e.g. Nielsen Norman) say,
that such graphic decoration reduces UI efficiency [1, 2];• UI efficiency is critical. Especially in enterprise systems, financial
solutions, medicine and transportation [3, 4].
Some examples
UI fragment, decorated in “traditional” style(“Heroes of Might and Magic III – HD Edition”, 3DO/UbiSoft, 1999)
UI fragment, “Flat UI” style(Windows Phone Maps, HERE/Microsoft corp., 2016)
Flat UI — More examples
Piotr Kubicki, Szczecin Airport | redesign concept,https://www.behance.net/gallery/37478667/Szczecin-Airport-redesign-concept
David Perger, FADE APP UI KIT | FREEBIE, https://www.behance.net/gallery/36367535/FADE-APP-UI-KIT-FREEBIE-
Roma Smirnov, Yandex.Electrichkihttps://www.behance.net/gallery/36466693/jandekselektrichki
Why should we care about?• UI efficiency depends on both UI logic (structure) & UI graphics;• UI efficiency = Time;• Time = Money.
$$$ :)
Just one example … of many
Tickets terminal, S-Bahn station, Schonefeld Airport … more than 20 minutes in line.
Pressing all and anything on the screen, trying to figure out, how to deal with it.
Boring academic stuff — Definitions• Cognitive load — the phenomenon, causing progressive growth of
mental efforts spent by user to operate the UI [3];• NASA HCI research group consider the cognitive load as one of the
serious threats for the adequate human-to-machine interaction and for the mission success [3];• Information load — amount of data or factors user is to process to
complete the given task;• The combined effect of cognitive and informational load leads to
decreased work efficiency [1, 2, 3, 4].
Boring academic stuff — Analogues• Publications: Burmistrov et al [5], Fabio et al [6];• Burmistrov et al:
• detailed review of the research method and results;• but the test tasks have an artificial nature.
• Fabio et al:• detailed methodology, information load measured;• but results are mostly fundamental.
• Both projects — incorporated limited amount of respondents(about 20 persons each, all university students).
Analogues — ExamplesBurmistrov et al [5]: Fabio et al [6]:
Our approach to the experiment• Involve as much users as possible via special experimental web-site;• Ensure maximum compatibility of this web site;• Use social networks to spread a link to the site;• Metrics of the HCI effectiveness:
• type I () errors — amount of “inactive objects” considered to be an active element … or just “tries”;• type II () errors — amount of “active element not found” errors;• task completion time.
Results — Respondents
Russia
Ukraine
Germany
Belaru
s
Austria
Estonia
Israe
lUSA
Australi
a
Bulgaria
Swed
en
Thail
and
The Neth
erlan
ds
Afghanist
an
Azerbaij
an
Czech Rep
ublic
Finlan
dFra
nce
Honduras
Hungary
Irelan
dJap
an
Lithuan
ia
Montenegro
Switz
erlan
d UK0
50
100
150
200
250
12-14 15-18 18-25 25-35 35-45 45-65 More than 65
020406080
100120140160180200
Total respondents: 571;Complete records: 356.
Survey: 20 May — 19 June 2016.
Please, notice:These are preliminary results, based on raw data.Our project will continue with data processing and interpretation.If you are running an academic project, we can share the raw data with you. We are also interested in exchanging results with teams, running similar researches.Contact address: Yury Solonitsyn, solonitsyn.yury@adesignlab.ru
Results — “Select a button” task
0
50
100
150
200
250
300
0123456789
10
Style:
Button selected,times:
Average time, s:
Results — “Find a given button” task
00.05
0.10.15
0.20.25
0.30.35
0.4
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Average errors:
Average time, s:
Style:
“Buttons vs distractions” & “ Digits” tasks
Results — “Buttons vs distractions”, “Digits”
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
3x3 5x5 7x7
Average errors:
Matrix size:
Average time, s:
Respondents:Buttons:• 3x3: 397 (128/140/129);• 5x5: 389 (119/144/126);• 7x7: 382 (127/130/125);
Digits:• 3x3: 380;• 5x5: 378;• 7x7: 373.
Style:
Style:
Results — “Buttons vs dictractions2” task
00.5
11.5
22.5
33.5
0123456789
10
Average errors:
Average time, s:
Respondents: 118 134 117
Thank you!Any questions?
Andrei Balkanskii abalkanskij@yandex.ruArtem Smolin, PhD artikus@inbox.ruYury Solonitsynsolonitsyn.yury@adesignlab.ru
ITMO UniversitySaint Petersburg, Russia
References1. J. Nielsen. Windows 8 – Disappointing Usability for Both Novice
and Power Users. Nielsen Norman Group. Published on: 19 November 2012. Accessed on: 05 December 2015. Web: http://www.nngroup.com/articles/windows-8-disappointing-usability/.
2. K. Whitenton. Minimize Cognitive Load to Maximize Usability. Nielsen Norman Group. Published on: 22 December 2013. Accessed on: 17 November 2015. Web: http://www.nngroup.com/articles/minimize-cognitive-load/.
3. K. Holden, N. Ezer, G. Vos. Risk of Inadequate Human-Computer Interaction. NASA Johnson Space Center. Published on: 26 December 2013. Accessed on: 16 November 2015.Web: https://humanresearchwiki.jsc.nasa.gov/index.php?title=Risk_of_Inadequate_Human-Computer_Interaction.
4. The human-machine interface as an emerging risk. European Agency for Safety and Health at Work. Published in ~2006. Accessed on: 16 November 2015. Web: https://osha.europa.eu/en/tools-and-publications/publications/literature_reviews/HMI_emerging_risk.
5. I. Burmistrov, T. Zlokazova, A. Izmalkova, A. Leonova (Laboratory of Work Psychology, Lomonosov Moscow State University, Moscow, Russia; InterUX Usability Engineering Studio, Tallinn, Estonia). “Flat Design vs Traditional Design. Comparative Experimental Study”, IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2015; J. Abascal et al. (Eds.): INTERACT 2015, Part II, LNCS 9297, pp. 106-114, 2015.
6. A. Errante, R. A. Fabio, C. Incorpora, N. Mohammadhasni, T. Caprì, C. Carrozza, A. Falzone. :The Influence of Cognitive Load and Amount of Stimuli on Entropy through Eye tracking measures”, EuroAsian Joint Conference on Cognitive Science. September 25-27, 2015. Torino, Italy.
Recommended