The Use of Iambic Pentameter in the

More documents

Recommendations

Info

(Reeves, Lang, Kim, & Tatar, 1999), motion (Reeves, Thorson, Rothschild, McDonald, Hirsch & Goldstein, 1985), novelty (Geiger & Reeves, 1993; Reeves et al., 1985), scene change (Geiger & Reeves, 1993), and faces (Nass & Gong, 1999; Nass, Isbister & Lee, 2000; Nass, & Lee, 2000; Nass, Moon & Green, 1997) have been shown to occur in computerized interface environments in much the same way that they do in the real world. Based on these findings, it seems logical to think that the Gestalt grouping principles could determine the grouping of elements presented in computerized environments in much the same way that these principles determine human perception of real world elements. Researchers in user interface design have begun to apply basic Gestalt grouping principles to computerized displays. But how far have they taken this application? Have they taken it far enough? Gestalt grouping in user interface Designers are beginning to recognize the importance of applying the Gestalt principles of grouping to user interface (Bailey, 1982; Bellcore, 1995; Card, 1982; Danchak, 1976; Galitz, 1985; Holden, Adolf & Woolford, 1997; Jones & Okey, 1997; Moore & Fitz, 1993; Stewart, 1976; Streveler & Wasserman, 1984; Tullis, 1983; Tullis, 1988; Williges & Williges, 1981). Several researchers have tested the effect of basic Gestalt grouping principles in interface design (Card, 1982; Niemela & Saarien, 2000; Tullus 1981; Tullis, 1984; Tullus, 1986). This research has paved the way to an understanding of how to efficiently group icons, buttons, pictures, text and other elements within user interface displays. 16
One of the leaders in grouping and user interface research is Thomas Tullis. Tullis (1981) began by evaluating several types of user interface displays found in the telecommunication industry. These displays were used to help operators make decisions about what was wrong with particular telephone lines. Tullis presented displays in several formats and tested the usability of each display type. Two of these interface display types included narrative format, which contained unstructured text (see Figure 5A), and structured format, which used grouping principles like common region and proximity to organize the text into chunks (see Figure 5B). While Figure 5A appears to be moderately grouped by proximity, it is far less organized than Figure 5B. Participants were presented with both narrative and structured format display types and were asked to answer a series of questions about each. In addition, participants were asked to rate the overall quality of each display format on a scale of one to seven. Figure 5. Narrative and structured format experimental interface A Note. Stimuli presented by Tullis (1981) (a) Narrative stimulus contains complete unstructured text. (b) Structured stimulus contains text that is grouped by closure and proximity. 17 B
Page 1 and 2: Time Course of Perceptual Grouping
Page 3 and 4: Experiment 1 76 Method 76 Results a
Page 5 and 6: List of Figures Figure 1. Illustrat
Page 11 and 12: will look like and how it will comm
Page 13 and 14: visibility of important interface e
Page 15 and 16: displays are reported. Global and l
Page 17 and 18: Electrical activity generated by th
Page 19 and 20: would not be. It would be easier to
Page 21 and 22: could be grouped by the principles
Page 23: Figure 4. Gestalt principles of gro
Page 27 and 28: defined by similar numbers. For exa
Page 29 and 30: and Saasrinen (2000) observed that
Page 31 and 32: proximity (Bailey, 1989; Bonney & W
Page 33 and 34: find the target ‘Picture’ in th
Page 35 and 36: Humans integrate many types of info
Page 37 and 38: measures. As a result, the pilot wo
Page 39 and 40: Figure 10. Pop-up advertisement wit
Page 41 and 42: soldiers see in these speeded condi
Page 43 and 44: 2001), grouping by proximity and al
Page 45 and 46: local letters, as illustrated by Fi
Page 47 and 48: frequency channels at specific rang
Page 49 and 50: Recent support for the Flexible Usa
Page 51 and 52: occluded shape as being incomplete
Page 53 and 54: search for the target in the experi
Page 55 and 56: Gestalt principle of good continuat
Page 57 and 58: columns of circles on the opposing
Page 59 and 60: short stimulus durations can be use
Page 61 and 62: Figure 15. Results for ambiguous pr
Page 63 and 64: As shown in Figure 16B, for the lig
Page 65 and 66: In review these findings, it become
Page 67 and 68: in user interface display layouts.
Page 69 and 70: were asked to make decisions about
Page 71 and 72: columns of pushbuttons on either si
Page 73 and 74: principles that are depicted more g
Page 75 and 76:
no longer perceived. These cases wi
Page 77 and 78:
influence what ‘goes together’
Page 79 and 80:
participants, randomly with replace
Page 81 and 82:
Figure 23. Targets used in reported
Page 83 and 84:
participants that were more than th
Page 85 and 86:
that was presented in the pilot exp
Page 87 and 88:
from three participants because one
Page 89 and 90:
see, each of the four distributions
Page 91 and 92:
The distribution of data from each
Page 93 and 94:
Figure 28. Targets for Experiment 2
Page 95 and 96:
Results and discussion Sixteen fema
Page 97 and 98:
global grouping was significantly f
Page 99 and 100:
Figure 32A depicts a box plot for g
Page 101 and 102:
means, the Wilcoxon Signed Ranks Te
Page 103 and 104:
to group by the alternative scale.
Page 105 and 106:
Table 4. Characteristics of RT dist
Page 107 and 108:
General Discussion Research that ha
Page 109 and 110:
Experiments 2A and 2B were designed
Page 111 and 112:
the size scale within an existing i
Page 113 and 114:
“Hotmail” has been reported to
Page 115 and 116:
They are interesting within the con
Page 117 and 118:
forms of similarity could also be t
Page 119 and 120:
the context of vision science resea
Page 121 and 122:
Bennett, K. B., Nagy, A. L., and Fl
Page 123 and 124:
De Valois, R. L. & De Valois, K. K.
Page 125 and 126:
Johnston, W.A., Schwarting, I.S. &
Page 127 and 128:
Nass, C., Isbister, K., & Lee, E.J.
Page 129 and 130:
Palmer, S. E. & Rock, I. (1994). Re
Page 131 and 132:
Sanocki, T.(2001). Interaction of s
Page 133 and 134:
Tullis, T. S. (1981). An evaluation
Page 135:
About the Author Melissa F. Schulz
show all

The Use of Iambic Pentameter in the

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?