The Use of Iambic Pentameter in the

More documents

Recommendations

Info

ecause Gestalt grouping principles are often not used redundantly in interface displays. In many cases, these principles are mistakenly used in opposition, giving rise to ambiguities. One such example of grouping interaction research is a study by David Addy (2000) who compared the relative strengths of similarity, proximity and common region grouping in display design. In Addy’s experiment (2000), each stimulus contained a single row of dots that could be organized by one of two different grouping principles. Participants were shown these stimuli on a computer screen for an unlimited amount of time and asked to report how they thought the dots should be grouped in each display. Across experiments, participants tended to group by color similarity, followed by common region, then followed by proximity. Addy (2000) had shown that, in certain conditions, some grouping principles could be stronger than others on computerized displays. Addy’s research exemplifies the importance of understanding the interactions between various Gestalt grouping principles in user interface design. Born out of grouping and interface design research, theorists have generated ideas about how the Gestalt principles of grouping can most effectively be applied to interface displays. A popular modern approach has been the Proximity Compatibility Principle (PCP), which combines information-processing models with Gestalt principles of grouping to create guidelines for how information should be displayed (Barnett & Wickens, 1988; Carswell & Wickens, 1987; Wickens & Andre, 1990; Wickens & Carswell, 1995). The PCP expands on the engineering principle of functional grouping, in which functionally related instruments should be designed to be close in physical 22
proximity (Bailey, 1989; Bonney & Williams, 1977). Specifically, the PCP provides guidelines for the relationship between two measures: processing proximity and perceptual proximity. Processing proximity describes the extent to which multiple information sources are used for the same task (Wickens & Carswell, 1995). If these information sources are to be integrated for the task, then processing proximity is considered to be high (Wickens & Carswell, 1995). On the other hand, perceptual proximity describes the extent to which multiple information sources are perceptually similar. If these information sources are depicted proximally or are similar in color, physical dimension or coding, these sources are thought to have close perceptual proximity. The PCP suggests that if information sources have high processing proximity, then designers should implement high perceptual proximity of these sources in interface displays. Likewise, if independent processing is required of multiple information sources, then low perceptual proximity is advised for those sources in display design. In short, the PCP suggests that the level of display proximity should match the level of task proximity (Bennett, Nagy, & Flach, 1997). Experimentation and principles about Gestalt grouping and interface design have provided researchers with important information about how to visually enhance the configuration of elements in displays. However, many of these experiments and principles have been conducted and developed under the assumption of unlimited time exposure to interface displays. Do unlimited exposure conditions necessarily match those that the typical user faces in completing a computerized task? The answer to this question is likely no. A typical users’ task may be speeded for a variety of reasons, causing their 23
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 and 24: Figure 4. Gestalt principles of gro
Page 25 and 26: One of the leaders in grouping and
Page 27 and 28: defined by similar numbers. For exa
Page 29: and Saasrinen (2000) observed that
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

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?