The spatial metaphor for user interfaces: experimental tests of reference by location versus name

The enduring dichotomy between spatial and symbolic modes of representation and retrieval acquires an added pragmatic dimension through recent developments in computer-based information retrieval. The standard name-based approach to object reference is now supplemented on some systems by a spatial alternative-often driven by an office or desktop metaphor. Little rigorous evidence is available, however, to support the supposition that spatial memory in itself is more effective than symbolic memory. The accuracy of spatial versus symbolic reference was assessed in three experiments. In Experiment 1 accuracy of location reference in a location-only filing condition was initially comparable to that in a name-only condition, but deteriorated much more rapidly with increases in the number of objects filed. In Experiment 2 subjects placed objects in a two-dimensional space containing landmarks (drawings of a desk, table, filing cabinets, etc.) designed to evoke an office metaphor, and in Experiment 3 subjects placed objects in an actual, three-dimensional mock office. Neither of these enhancements served to improve significantly the accuracy of location reference, and performance remained below that of a name-only condition in Experiment 1. The results raise questions about the utility of spatial metaphor over symbolic filing and highlight the need for continuing research in which considerations of technological and economic feasibility are balanced by considerations of psychological utility.

[1]  J. Mandler,et al.  On the coding of spatial information , 1977, Memory & cognition.

[2]  L. Hasher,et al.  Automatic and effortful processes in memory. , 1979 .

[3]  S. T. Dumais,et al.  Human factors and behavioral science: Statistical semantics: Analysis of the potential performance of key-word information systems , 1983, The Bell System Technical Journal.

[4]  E B Zechmeister,et al.  Recall of place on the page. , 1972, Journal of educational psychology.

[5]  A. Schulman,et al.  Recognition memory and the recall of spatial location , 1973, Memory & cognition.

[6]  M. Just,et al.  Remembering the Location and Content of Sentences in a Prose Passage. , 1976 .

[7]  William E. Jones,et al.  Context and self-selection effects in name learning† , 1985 .

[8]  E. Lovelace,et al.  Memory for words in prose and their locations on the page , 1983, Memory & cognition.

[9]  Thomas W. Malone,et al.  How do people organize their desks?: Implications for the design of office information systems , 1983, TOIS.

[10]  J. V. von Wright,et al.  A developmental study of the recall of spatial location. , 1975, Journal of experimental child psychology.

[11]  Endel Tulving,et al.  Encoding specificity and retrieval processes in episodic memory. , 1973 .

[12]  I. Cole.  Human Aspects of Office Filing: Implications for the Electronic Office , 1982 .

[13]  Susan T. Dumais,et al.  Statistical semantics: analysis of the potential performance of keyword information systems , 1984 .

[14]  F. Yates.  The Art of Memory , 1969 .

[15]  George Mandler,et al.  Free and constrained concept learning and subsequent recall , 1966 .

[16]  E. B. Zechmeister,et al.  Visual memory for place on the page. , 1975, The Journal of general psychology.

[17]  H. Pick,et al.  Environmental differentiation and familiarity as determinants of children's memory for spatial location. , 1975 .

[18]  T. S. Hyde,et al.  Differential effects of incidental tasks on the organization of recall of a list of highly associated words. , 1969 .

[19]  E. Rothkopf.  Incidental memory for location of information in text , 1971 .