The documents discuss measuring and evaluating screen design complexity. They propose methods for calculating screen complexity based on elements like size, density, grouping, and alignment. Empirical studies found that users prefer screens with moderate complexity rather than very simple or complex screens. Mid-range complexity screens were more usable for effectiveness, learnability, and user attitude. Properly defining components and their relationships is important for evaluating screen designs and determining an appropriate level of complexity for the task and situation.

1. Final Project
: literature review
강가영
정동녘

2. Screen complexity and user design
preferences in windows applications (1994)
• opening screen in 13 windows app.
• 30 subjects - ranked
• A significant negative correlation was
found between the subjects’ rankings and
the complexity ratings, indicating that
users’ do not like “simple” screens.

3. • Shannon formula for entropy
• used for typography by Bonsieppe
• 2 types of order in typographical design
• for text screens by Tullis
• for Windows app. screen by Comber and
Maltby

4. • design goals
• minimize the complexity of a display
• make screen a predictable as possible

6. Measuring the Screen Complexity of
Web Pages
Purpose
: The purpose of this study is to propose determinants of and formulae for
calculating the complexity of Web pages.
• To propose a valid numerical tool to measure the screen complexity
according to users’ viewpoints when browsing a Web site.
• The tool is developed based on the four key elements of screen complexity.
• the key elements of complexity in GUI design
: size, local density, grouping and alignment

7. • Measure of Size Complexity
Size complexity involved the categorization of
elements into groups according to actual physical size
and variation in those sizes.
The complexity did not increase significantly when
different information appeared in different sizes.
• Measure of Local Density
Local density is the extent to which the screen is filled
with objects. Empirical studies proved that local density
had an influence on users’ searching time when using
text menus both in English and in Chinese.

8. • Measure of Group
The group measure reflects coherence: the degree to
which all elements seem belong together and appear
visually as one piece. Grouping makes it easier for the
users to extract the information assigned to the group.
Empirical study proved that the proper grouping results
in shorter search times.
• Measure of Alignment
The smaller the number of alignment points, the better.
Measuring the level of alignment for simplicity (AS) of a
graphic screen involves counting the number of different
rows and columns on the screen that are used as starting
positions of objects.

9. Empirical Study
According to previous experimental studies, users had
longer periods of fixation durations while on the first
pages compared to the second pages, implying that the
first page of a web site is more important than the other
pages.
Methodology
They first translated the real screens to serve as model
screens.
They then compared the viewers’ judgment of the actual
screens with the complexity values counted from our
tool, and determined the level of consistency between the
two.

10. RESULT
Viewers’ judgments of the real screens almost mirror the
complexity values from the model screens, which
confirms the usefulness of the tool measuring
complexity.
One inconsistent result which emerged from the real
screen judgment of and aggregate complexity value for
the Ebay USA site hints at the need for further studies on
the method for calculating the preference weight of
complexity values or other influencing variables on the
screen complexity of Web pages.

11. Layout Complexity: Does It Measure Usability?
Tim Comber, John R. Maltby
• To investigates the validity of the layout complexity metric to GUI screen design.
• This metric offers a simple method to gauge the complexity of the visual design of a computer
screen by classifying screen objects into classes based on common dimensions and positions.
• Layout complexity and compares it to other measures eg white space, balance, and symmetry,
to assess the usability of screen designs.
N = total number of objects (widths or
heights, distance from top or side of
page)
n = number of classes (number of unique
widths, heights or distances)
ni = number of objects in the ith class pi =
proportion of the ith class.

12. Hypotheses
• As the complexity figure becomes smaller, it becomes more difficult to distinguish
different interface objects and the interface takes on an artificial regularity.
• The interface becomes more predictable. At the other extreme as the interface
approaches maximum complexity, it looks artificially irregular. However, the increase in
complexity does mean that the user has more information and therefore more choice of
operations.
Relationship between complexity and usability
Methodology
• Experimental design
• An important characteristic of usability testing is that it should be carried out
"by real users carrying out real tasks in a real technical, physical and organisational
environment"

13. FINDINGS
•A number of applications, including Microsoft Word and Excel, received rankings
opposite to that good layout design strives to be simple. This suggests that users prefer
more complex layouts.
• A pilot experiment (Comber and Maltby 1995) was designed to test three components of
usability; effectiveness, learnability, and attitude.
•The pilot consisted of a simple application, running under Microsoft Windows, found that
the least and most complex screens were the least usable.
Summary of results.
• The screens with a mid- range complexity, screens 2 and 3, rate better overall than the screens
at either end of the complexity scale.
• These results do need to be treated cautiously because of the small number of subjects
and the limited number of screens.

14. Connecting with ACT-R
• Interfacing ACT-R to External Simulations Using
Segman Robert St. Amant and Frank E.
Ritter(2003)
• Interfacing ACT-R with External Simulations (Slide)

15. Conclusion
• Defining components and relationship
• Ref. Measuring the Screen Complexity of Web Pages
• Evaluating screen design complexity
• Ref. Screen complexity and user design preferences in windows
applications
• Driving situation with controlling navigation
and getting information
• Ref. Layout Complexity: Does It Measure Usability?

16. • 디자인 복잡도가 몇 이다?
• 배치와 구성에 따른 복잡도 평가의 유용성?
• 목적, 상황 하에서의 디자인 복잡도 정의
• 특정 용도의 가중치 부여
• 선택창, 입력창, 탐색창
• 메뉴, 문자, 그림, 창
• 색, 크기, 비율, 밀집도, 입체감(중첩도)