Software applications continue to grow in terms of the number of features they offer, making personalization increasingly important. Research has shown that most users prefer the control afforded by an adaptable approach to personalization rather than a system-controlled adaptive approach. No study, however, has compared the efficiency of the two approaches. In a controlled lab study with 27 subjects we compared the measured and perceived efficiency of three menu conditions: static, adaptable and adaptive. Each was implemented as a split menu, in which the top four items remained static, were adaptable by the subject, or adapted according to the subject's frequently and recently used items. The static menu was found to be significantly faster than the adaptive menu, and the adaptable menu was found to be significantly faster than the adaptive menu under certain conditions. The majority of users preferred the adaptable menu overall. Implications for interface design are discussed.

Mobile computing devices, such as smart phones, offer benefits that may be especially valuable to older adults (age 65+). Yet, older adults have been shown to have difficulty learning to use these devices. In the research presented in this article, we sought to better understand how older adults learn to use mobile devices, their preferences and barriers, in order to find new ways to support them in their learning process. We conducted two complementary studies: a survey study with 131 respondents from three age groups (20--49, 50--64, 65+) and an in-depth field study with 6 older adults aged 50+. The results showed, among other things, that the preference for trial-and-error decreases with age, and while over half of older respondents and participants preferred using the instruction manual, many reported difficulties using it. We discuss implications for design and illustrate these implications with an example help system, Help Kiosk, designed to support older adults’ learning to use mobile devices.

________________________________________________________________________ Two approaches for supporting personalization in complex software are system-controlled adaptive menus and user-controlled adaptable menus. We evaluate a novel interface design for feature-rich productivity software based on adaptable menus. The design allows the user to easily customize a personalized interface, and also supports quick access to the default interface with all of the standard features. This design was prototyped as a front-end to a commercial word processor. A field experiment investigated users' personalizing behavior and tested the effects of different interface designs on users' satisfaction and their perceived ability to navigate, control, and learn the software. There were two conditions: a commercial word processor with adaptive menus and our prototype with adaptable menus for the same word processor. Our evaluation shows: (1) when provided with a flexible, easy-to-use and easy-to-understand customization mechanism, the majority of users do effectively personalize their interface; and (2) user-controlled interface adaptation with our adaptable menus results in better navigation and learnability, and allows for the adoption of different personalization strategies, as compared to a particular system-controlled adaptive menu system that implements a single strategy. We report qualitative data obtained from interviews and questionnaires with participants in the evaluation in addition to quantitative data.

Aphasia is a cognitive disorder that impairs speech and language. From interviews with aphasic individuals, their caregivers, and speech-language pathologists, the need was identified for a daily planner that allows aphasic users to independently manage their appointments. We used a participatory design approach to develop ESI Planner (the Enhanced with Sound and Images Planner) for use on a PDA and subsequently evaluated it in a lab study. This methodology was used in order to achieve both usable and adoptable technology. In addition to describing our experience in designing ESI Planner, two main contributions are provided: general guidelines for working with special populations in the development of technology, and design guidelines for accessible handheld technology.

No abstract