Design Space and Evaluation Challenges of Adaptive Graphical User Interfaces

Adaptive graphical user interfaces (GUIs) have the potential to improve performance and user satisfaction by automatically tailoring the presentation of functionality to each individual user. In practice, however, many challenges exist and evaluation results of adaptive GUIs have been mixed. To guide researchers and designers in developing effective adaptive GUIs, we outline a design space and discuss three important aspects to consider when conducting user evaluations of these types of interfaces: the control and reporting of adaptive algorithm characteristics, the impact of task choice and user characteristics on the overall effectiveness of a design, and evaluation measures that are appropriate for adaptive interaction.

[1]  Joanna McGrenere,et al.  Impact of screen size on performance, awareness, and user satisfaction with adaptive graphical user interfaces , 2008, CHI.

[2]  Joanna McGrenere,et al.  Beyond performance: Feature awareness in personalized interfaces , 2010, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[3]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Split menus: effectively using selection frequency to organize menus , 1994, TCHI.

[4]  Fabio Pianesi,et al.  The influence of personality factors on visitor attitudes towards adaptivity dimensions for mobile museum guides , 2006, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.

[5]  Kellogg S. Booth,et al.  An evaluation of a multiple interface design solution for bloated software , 2002, CHI.

[6]  Krzysztof Z. Gajos,et al.  Predictability and accuracy in adaptive user interfaces , 2008, CHI.

[7]  Carl Gutwin,et al.  A predictive model of menu performance , 2007, CHI.

[8]  Daniel S. Weld,et al.  Exploring the design space for adaptive graphical user interfaces , 2006, AVI '06.

[9]  Gale Moore,et al.  Are We All In the Same "Bloat"? , 2000, Graphics Interface.

[10]  Krzysztof Z. Gajos,et al.  Improving the performance of motor-impaired users with automatically-generated, ability-based interfaces , 2008, CHI.

[11]  Monica M. C. Schraefel,et al.  An empirical assessment of adaptation techniques , 2005, CHI EA '05.

[12]  Eric McCreath,et al.  Inducing shortcuts on a mobile phone interface , 2006, IUI '06.

[13]  Anthony Jameson,et al.  Understanding and Dealing With Usability Side Effects of Intelligent Processing , 2009, AI Mag..

[14]  Henry Lieberman,et al.  User Interface Goals, AI Opportunities , 2009, AI Mag..

[15]  Joanna McGrenere,et al.  Evaluating Reduced-Functionality Interfaces According to Feature Findability and Awareness , 2007, INTERACT.

[16]  J. Mitchell,et al.  Dynamic versus static menus: an exploratory comparison , 1989, SGCH.

[17]  Ian H. Witten,et al.  Adaptive personalized interfaces—A question of viability , 1985 .

[18]  Kristina Höök,et al.  Steps to take before intelligent user interfaces become real , 2000, Interact. Comput..

[19]  Joanna McGrenere,et al.  A comparison of static, adaptive, and adaptable menus , 2004, CHI.

[20]  Dermot P. Browne,et al.  A self-regulating adaptive system , 1987, CHI '87.

[21]  Joanna McGrenere,et al.  Ephemeral adaptation: the use of gradual onset to improve menu selection performance , 2009, CHI.