Adaptive Hypertext Navigation Based On User Goals and Context

Kaplan, Craig A.; Fenwick, Justine; Chen, James

doi:10.1007/978-94-017-0617-9_2

Cited by 65 publications

(39 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…There are two options to prioritize the list: put the more relevant choices on top (according to the local goal), or put the more frequently used choices on top (adaptation to the main goal). Experimental research showed that adaptive ordering could signi®cantly reduce the navigation time in information retrieval applications (Kaplan et al 1993, Math'e 1996. The drawback with adaptive menus, however, is that it may disrupt the consistency of the interface.…”

Section: Dialogue Adaptationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review and reappraisal of adaptive interfaces: Toward biologically inspired paradigms

Rothrock

Koubek²,

Fuchs³

et al. 2002

Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The ®eld of Adaptive Interfaces has been an active area of research for over 10 years. While there have been great advances, unresolved issues remain. The paper presents a reappraisal of adaptive interfaces with an eye toward addressing these issues using biologically inspired methods. We ®rst de®ne a general and theoretical model of adaptive interfaces based on a survey of existing research. Using our generalized adaptive interface model, we then proceed to build taxonomies of variables used for adaptation. The aim is to provide researchers, designers and builders a better understanding of the underlying mechanisms, processes and outcomes of adaptive interfaces. From our review, we propose design rules that address three primary elements of a generalized adaptive interface: the identi®ca-tion of variables that call for adaptation, the determination of necessary modi®-cations to the interface, and the selection of the decision inference mechanism. We then turn to the investigation of an alternative method for adaptive interface design. To ®nd a method that corresponds better to human decision-making, which has been characterized as situated and recognition-primed, we explored biologically inspired techniques. In particular, we focus on the correspondence between human decision-making behaviour and the concepts of emergence and self-organization. While our ruminations are speculative, the future of biologically inspired interfaces seems promising.

show abstract

Section: Dialogue Adaptationmentioning

confidence: 99%

Review and reappraisal of adaptive interfaces: Toward biologically inspired paradigms

Rothrock

Koubek²,

Fuchs³

et al. 2002

Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The method is documented in more than 500 documents consisting of [5][6][7][8][9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18][19][20] pages of text and graphs each. In our studies of the domain and its users, [1], we found that the main problem for the users of the method was in retrieving the right information from this large information space.…”

Section: The Push Systemmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It is of crucial importance to be able to distinguish the adaptive features of the system from the general usability of the designed tool. This is probably why most studies of adaptive systems are comparisons of the system with and without adaptivity [13,2,4,12]. The problem with those studies is obvious: the non-adaptive system may not have been designed 'optimally' for the task.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Evaluating the utility and usability of an adaptive hypermedia system

Höök

1998

Knowledge-Based Systems

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…This gave rise to the popular, but potentially also problematic, "with and without" adaptivity evaluation design, in which an adaptive instance of the system is compared with a non-adaptive one. This evaluation design has been used in several studies in the field, including, for example, Kaplan et al (1993), Boyle and Encarnacion (1994), Weber and Specht (1997), and Brusilovsky and Eklund (1998).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 98%

Layered evaluation of interactive adaptive systems: framework and formative methods

Paramythis

Weibelzahl

Masthoff

2010

User Model User-Adap Inter

114

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The evaluation of interactive adaptive systems has long been acknowledged to be a complicated and demanding endeavour. Some promising approaches in the recent past have attempted tackling the problem of evaluating adaptivity by "decomposing" and evaluating it in a "piece-wise" manner. Separating the evaluation of different aspects can help to identify problems in the adaptation process. This paper presents a framework that can be used to guide the "layered" evaluation of adaptive systems, and a set of formative methods that have been tailored or specially developed for the evaluation of adaptivity. The proposed framework unifies previous approaches in the literature and has already been used, in various guises, in recent research work. The presented methods are related to the layers in the framework and the stages in the development lifecycle of interactive systems. The paper also discusses practical issues surrounding the employment of the above, and provides a brief overview of complementary and alternative approaches in the literature.

show abstract

Adaptive Hypertext Navigation Based On User Goals and Context

Cited by 65 publications

References 15 publications

Review and reappraisal of adaptive interfaces: Toward biologically inspired paradigms

Review and reappraisal of adaptive interfaces: Toward biologically inspired paradigms

Evaluating the utility and usability of an adaptive hypermedia system

Layered evaluation of interactive adaptive systems: framework and formative methods

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About