The Use of Iambic Pentameter in the

More documents

Recommendations

Info

Figure 9. Flight status display with ambiguous grouping Note. In each interface, text groups by the principle of color similarity within the ‘Status’ and ‘Measure’ columns. However, text also groups by alignment within the ‘Current’ and ‘Recommended’ rows. The designer in our example has grouped the information in each display by the principles of alignment and color similarity (see Figure 9). Grouping by color similarity is used to show difference between the ‘Status’ and ‘Measure’ categories of information. Grouping by alignment is used to show the difference between the ‘Current’ and ‘Recommended’ categories. Recall that the pilot’s task is to locate the ‘Current’ measurement of altitude and speed before making a decision about landing. If the pilot groups the information by alignment, she will likely find the ‘Current’ status of both altitude and speed very quickly. However, the nature of the pilots’ task requires her to saccade across the displays very rapidly. In these conditions, is the designers’ intended grouping of information perceived? If so, is one grouping interpretation more salient than the other? If the alignment grouping were most salient in limited exposure conditions, then the pilot would locate the relevant information very efficiently. However, if color grouping where the most salient in limited exposure conditions, the scene would appear to be grouped by ‘Status’ and ‘Measure’ categories. In this case, the grouping of information would not help the user discriminate between ‘Current’ and ‘Recommended’ 28
measures. As a result, the pilot would have to slow search for the relevant information. Clearly, this delay may have dire consequences. This example illustrates that the quick eye saccades, which are necessary for information integration, may limit exposure time to user interface. This example also shows how limits on exposure time could potentially affect the way users perceive the grouping of information in such situations. In the previous example, the users try to attend to presented information. But what about situations in which the user’s goal is to not attend to the presented information? Are the effects of exposure time limits on perceptual grouping relevant in these settings? Unwanted information sorting. Users are often presented with information that they do not wish to view. A good example of this type of information is that which is presented on Internet pop-up windows. How many milliseconds does it take to close a pop-up window? How long do the users actually see the information that is presented? Often times, the users only see the information presented in pop-up windows for a very brief time period because they are almost always more interested in searching for the close button than they are in scanning the advertisement. Designers know that the more meaningfully they group the information within pop-up windows, the more likely the users who are presented with such windows will be to correctly interpret this information. But the designers of pop-up windows may have weeks or even months to develop their displays. Are the information groupings that designers perceive in unlimited window development conditions the same as those that users perceive when rapidly attempting to close these windows? 29
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 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: Humans integrate many types of info
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?