Footprints: History-Rich Tools for Information Foraging Wexelblat & Maes, 1999 Presented to EECE 519 March 1, 2007 Desy Wahyuni

Goal To evaluate both subjective and objective usefulness of Footprints (interaction history tools) To validate the authors' theory/framework of interaction history using the tools

To evaluate both subjective and objective usefulness of Footprints (interaction history tools)

To validate the authors' theory/framework of interaction history using the tools

Context 1999 Human-Computer Interaction (HCI) MIT Media Lab

1999

Human-Computer Interaction (HCI)

MIT Media Lab

Context 1988 - Don Norman: history rich objects acquires new affordances we can use these affordances to interact with the object in new ways 1990s - Peter Pirolli & Stuart Card: the concept of information foraging 1992/93: Will Hill and Jim Hollan: Edit Wear & Read Wear

1988 - Don Norman:

history rich objects acquires new affordances

we can use these affordances to interact with the object in new ways

1990s - Peter Pirolli & Stuart Card:

the concept of information foraging

1992/93: Will Hill and Jim Hollan:

Edit Wear & Read Wear

Interaction History Interaction history: traces/records of interaction between humans and an object that affect subsequent interaction (of other humans) with the same object Digital object vs physical object Footprints project

Interaction history:

traces/records of interaction between humans and an object that affect subsequent interaction (of other humans) with the same object

Digital object vs physical object

Footprints project

Interaction History Framework Goals: boundary of possible interaction history systems system design guidance for building history-rich interfaces

Goals:

boundary of possible interaction history systems

system design guidance for building history-rich interfaces

Interaction History Framework Proxemic vs Distemic Active vs Passive Rate/Form of Change Degree of Permeation Personal vs Social Kind of Information (what, who, why, and how)

Proxemic vs Distemic

Active vs Passive

Rate/Form of Change

Degree of Permeation

Personal vs Social

Kind of Information (what, who, why, and how)

The Footprints Tools Tools applying interaction history to the problem of navigation in a complex information space Using metaphor of physical world navigation: maps, paths, and signposts

Tools applying interaction history to the problem of navigation in a complex information space

Using metaphor of physical world navigation: maps, paths, and signposts

Map Social Passive Distemic Unpermeated

Social

Passive

Distemic

Unpermeated

Path Social Passive Unpermeated Distemic/proxemic

Social

Passive

Unpermeated

Distemic/proxemic

Annotation Social Passive Proxemic Permeated

Social

Passive

Proxemic

Permeated

Signposts (Comments) Social Active Proxemic Permeated

Social

Active

Proxemic

Permeated

Experiment Timed (20 mins) browsing task (buy a car with a $20,000 budget) Group 1: unaided Group 2: with Footprints

Timed (20 mins) browsing task (buy a car with a $20,000 budget)

Group 1: unaided

Group 2: with Footprints

Hypotheses Objective measures: Footprints tools would increase the number of alternatives generated and reduce the number of pages visited Subjective measures: Users would find it easier to find and understand relevant information, and would have a greater sense of satisfaction

Objective measures:

Footprints tools would increase the number of alternatives generated and reduce the number of pages visited

Subjective measures:

Users would find it easier to find and understand relevant information, and would have a greater sense of satisfaction

Results Objective measures: The number of alternatives generated by the two subject groups was not significantly different The mean number of pages required to reach the same alternative level was significantly less for the Footprints group

Objective measures:

The number of alternatives generated by the two subject groups was not significantly different

The mean number of pages required to reach the same alternative level was significantly less for the Footprints group

Results Subjective measures: No significant differences were observed One exception: interaction history models helped (or increased satisfaction level of) experienced users but not naïve users

Subjective measures:

No significant differences were observed

One exception: interaction history models helped (or increased satisfaction level of) experienced users but not naïve users

Conclusion Footprints tools are successful in two respects: They enable users to get the same work done with significantly less effort Experienced users were able to recognize the information models left behind by other users and reported a significantly higher sense of satisfaction when working with these models

Footprints tools are successful in two respects:

They enable users to get the same work done with significantly less effort

Experienced users were able to recognize the information models left behind by other users and reported a significantly higher sense of satisfaction when working with these models

Analysis For casual tasks such as the one used in the experiment, I think this tool is too much for the users. Users are lazy. Footprints vs del.icio.us? The way people tag online resources can be seen as the interaction between human and digital object. Tags are the traces.

For casual tasks such as the one used in the experiment, I think this tool is too much for the users. Users are lazy.

Footprints vs del.icio.us?

The way people tag online resources can be seen as the interaction between human and digital object.

Tags are the traces.

Analysis Social tagging systems are: Distemic Active Rapidly changed Unpermeated Social Supportive for various kinds of information

Social tagging systems are:

Distemic

Active

Rapidly changed

Unpermeated

Social

Supportive for various kinds of information

Question Is there any relation between interaction history and recommendation system?

Is there any relation between interaction history and recommendation system?