ICEIS 2012 - VISUALIZING USER INTERFACE EVENTS: Event Stream Summarization through Signs

  • 950 views
Uploaded on

Slides of the presentation during the ICEIS 2012.

Slides of the presentation during the ICEIS 2012.

More in: Design , Business
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
950
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2

Actions

Shares
Downloads
3
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide

Transcript

  • 1. Visualizing User Interface Events: Event Stream Summarization through Signs ICEIS - 2012 - July 1st slides available at: slideshare.net/santanavagnerVagner Figueredo de SantanaMaria Cecília Calani BaranauskasInstitute of Computing - University of CampinasSão Paulo - Brazil
  • 2. Agenda1. Motivation2. Objective3. Background4. Method5. Results6. Discussion and conclusion
  • 3. Motivation1. Evaluation of User Interface (UI) is a key task in the development of information systems2. UI events are now in use by a number of UI evaluation tools3. Summarization of UI events appears as a vital task in order to study the behavior contained in hundreds of log lines4. The only way of directly communicating an idea is through an icon (Peirce, 1974)
  • 4. Objective1. Present usage data in a summarized way through a usage graph2. Propose a set of signs to represent UI events based on Peirces Semiotics
  • 5. BackgroundIcon libraries1. Large open icon libraries for designing websites or Graphical User Interface are available in the Web. a. Ex.: Open Icon Library2. There is no such library for representing UI events
  • 6. BackgroundTheoretical references1. Peirce presents properties and details signs based on trichotomies2. This work follows the most important trichotomy in which a sign can be classified as an a. Icon b. Index c. Symbol
  • 7. BackgroundTheoretical references1. Peirce presents properties and details signs based on trichotomies2. This work follows the most important trichotomy in which a sign can be classified as an Interpretant a. Icon b. Index c. Symbol Representamen Object
  • 8. BackgroundTheoretical references1. Peirce presents properties and details signs based on trichotomies2. This work follows the most important trichotomy in which a sign can be classified as an Interpretant a. Icon b. Index c. Symbol Representamen Object
  • 9. BackgroundTheoretical references1. Peirce presents properties and details signs based on trichotomies2. This work follows the most important trichotomy in which a sign can be classified as an Interpretant a. Icon b. Index c. Symbol Representamen Object
  • 10. BackgroundTheoretical references1. UI events considered are the standard ones presented by W3C2. Events involve actions (transition of states)3. Photographic streaking effect was used
  • 11. MethodParticipants1. This work counted on the participation of 28 potential users of evaluation tools2. Two evaluations were conducted a. The initial proposal of signs (15 participants) b. The redesigned set of signs (13 participants)3. Participants of the groups had no contact among themselves4. An interval of 9 months separated the evaluations
  • 12. MethodExperiment design1. In each evaluation the participants were separated in two halves (+ or - 1)2. Three forms were used (10min. each) a. Form A: The proposed signs in a random order b. Form B: The usage graph representing the real use of a Web page c. Form C: Matching exercise of signs and the meaning3. Half of the participants received first the form A then the form B (Group AB), lastly C4. Other half received first the form B then the form A (Group BA), lastly C
  • 13. MethodOverview of the forms A and B
  • 14. ResultsSummary Attribute 1st evaluation 2nd evaluation Participants 15 (12 men, 3 womem) 13 (7 men, 6 womem) Mean age (years) 28.35 (SD = 6.1) 28.09 (SD = 4.41) Mean of correct interpretation of the 40% 61.54% usage graph (Form B)
  • 15. ResultsSummary
  • 16. ResultsSummary
  • 17. ResultsRedesign1. Examples of redesign results
  • 18. ResultsBest vs. worst results1. Best results (accur. > mean accur. + SD) a. 1st evaluation: abort, mousemove, mousedown, and submit b. 2nd evaluation: abort, error, mousedown, and submit2. Worst results (accur. < mean accur. + SD) a. 1st evaluation: change, click, dbclick, error, focus, and unload b. 2nd evaluation: change, mouseover, mouseout, and unload
  • 19. ResultsClass of sign vs. UI event1. Mapping relating events and class of sign Candidate Event UI events Class of Sign categoryIcon Direct users click, dbclick, keydown, keypress, keyup, actions mousedown, mousemove, mouseout, mouseover, and mouseupIndex Effect of users change, dragdrop, move, resize, reset, actions or select, and submit abstract eventsSymbol Browser abort, blur, error, focus, load, and functioning unload
  • 20. Discussion and conclusion1. The proposed set is a first approach to deal with the nonexistence of an open set of UI events signs2. The proposed representation of usage was understood by most of participants3. The mapping proposed may help designers who want to create signs4. The proposed set of signs can be reused by other applications5. Future work involves the study of representing events of modern mobile apps
  • 21. Thank you! vsantana@ic.unicamp.br Set of signs is available at http://bit.ly/uieventsAcknowledgments:Participants, colleagues, and FAPESP(Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa do Estadode São Paulo) grant #2009/10186-9