Supporting interface customization using a mixed-initiative approach

We describe a mixed-initiative framework designed to support the customization of complex graphical user interfaces. The framework uses an innovative form of online GOMS analysis to provide the user with tailored customization suggestions aimed at maximizing the user's performance with the interface. The suggestions are presented non-intrusively, minimizing disruption and allowing the user to maintain full control. The framework has been applied to a general user-productivity application. A formal user evaluation of the system provides encouraging evidence that this mixed-initiative approach is preferred to a purely adaptable alternative and that the system's suggestions help improve task performance.

[1]  Sandra Carberry,et al.  Techniques for Plan Recognition , 2001, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.

[2]  Allen Newell,et al.  The psychology of human-computer interaction , 1983 .

[3]  Pattie Maes,et al.  Interface agents , 1996, CHI Conference Companion.

[4]  Eric Horvitz,et al.  The Lumière Project: Bayesian User Modeling for Inferring the Goals and Needs of Software Users , 1998, UAI.

[5]  David E. Kieras,et al.  A validation of the GOMS model methodology in the development of a specialized, commercial software application , 1994, CHI '94.

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

[7]  Marek Czarkowski.  How to give the user a sense of control over the personalization of AH , 2003 .

[8]  Eric Horvitz,et al.  Principles of mixed-initiative user interfaces , 1999, CHI '99.

[9]  Cristina Conati,et al.  What role can adaptive support play in an adaptable system? , 2004, IUI '04.

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

[11]  I. H. Witten,et al.  How users repeat their actions on computers: principles for design of history mechanisms , 1988, CHI '88.

[12]  Anthony J. Hornof,et al.  GLEAN: a computer-based tool for rapid GOMS model usability evaluation of user interface designs , 1995, UIST '95.

[13]  Wendy E. Mackay,et al.  Triggers and barriers to customizing software , 1991, CHI.

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

[15]  Matjaz Debevc,et al.  Design and evaluation of an adaptive icon toolbar , 2004, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.

[16]  Frank Linton,et al.  Recommender Systems for Learning: Building User and Expert Models through Long-Term Observation of Application Use , 2000, User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction.

[17]  Ben Shneiderman,et al.  Direct manipulation vs. interface agents , 1997, INTR.

[18]  Paul R. Cohen,et al.  Interaction with a mixed-initiative system for exploratory data analysis , 1997, IUI '97.

[19]  Krzysztof Z. Gajos,et al.  Fast and Robust Interface Generation for Ubiquitous Applications , 2005, UbiComp.

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

[21]  Anthony Jameson,et al.  Pros and Cons of Controllability: An Empirical Study , 2002, AH.

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

[23]  Allen Cypher,et al.  EAGER: programming repetitive tasks by example , 1991, CHI.

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

[25]  Christoph G. Thomas,et al.  An adaptive environment for the user interface of Excel , 1993, IUI '93.

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

[27]  Reinhard Oppermann,et al.  Adaptively supported adaptability , 1994, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..