Productivity gains via an adaptive user interface: an empirical analysis

Trumbly, James E.; Arnett, Kirk P.; Johnson, Peter C.

doi:10.1006/ijhc.1994.1004

Cited by 20 publications

(13 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is related to the second example of adaptive interfaces but still has an important difference. In this particular context, the interface is used to configure or program an IoT service, while in the examined literature, user interfaces refer to software applications which can be controlled either by novice or by expert users [24].…”

Section: B Adaptive Interfaces In Relation To Iot Service Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

IoT service development via adaptive interfaces: Improving utilization of cyber-physical systems by competence based user interfaces

Kalverkamp¹,

Gorldt²

2014

2014 International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The more complex the processes, the higher the need for process transparency through high-quality real-time data. The steady improvement of Internet-of-Things technologies, or of the recently phrased cyber physical systems, during the last years ensures this process transparency. Although these technologies are promising, the potential of IoT/CPS technologies is not yet fully applied in practice. One reason is that technology novices have difficulties participating in development processes and consequently prevent case-specific and relevant services from being described. This paper presents an adaptive interface approach to support the development and utilization of IoT solutions. An exemplary solution is presented based on an IoT toolkit with a GUI for configuration, making service development possible without coding skills. Based on experiment observations, design improvements of the GUI are implemented. Furthermore, a more sophisticated design is introduced. This will allow users with different competence levels to improve their interaction with sensor and actuator networks further; consequently, more appropriate solutions can be developed and used.

show abstract

Section: B Adaptive Interfaces In Relation To Iot Service Developmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

IoT service development via adaptive interfaces: Improving utilization of cyber-physical systems by competence based user interfaces

Kalverkamp¹,

Gorldt²

2014

2014 International Conference on Engineering, Technology and Innovation (ICE)

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…For example, if a user is in a complex situation, a digitized system can choose to enable or disable whether it presents certain information. Others argue that other context-aware user interfaces help users to reduce cognitive load and deal with complexity, which minimizes their need for help and helps them more easily use system (Edmonds & Dautenhahn, 1999;Trumbly, Arnett, & Johnson, 1994). …”

Section: In the Everyday World Of System Design Procedures Are Devismentioning

confidence: 99%

Sociomaterial Quasi-objects: From Interface to Experience

Hylving¹

2017

THCI

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract:In this paper, I examine design practices by contrasting the Cartesian view of separation with an ontological perspective and argue for a dynamic, multiple, and entangled world (namely, sociomateriality). In the digital era we live in, sociomateriality helps move design practices forward in order to embrace constant changes and reconfigurations. The word interface manifests a worldview of separation. Researchers typically conceive an interface as belonging to an artifact; that is, the technology, the material. More so, [people] typically considers user interfaces as the layer that separates and connects the technology and the user, which enables interaction. I recognize the limitations of the well-established perspective of interface design and contrast two traditional HCI concepts (namely, usability and context) from a Cartesian versus a sociomaterial perspective. However, to embrace and capitalize on the emergent digital reality, we need a new vocabulary. I introduce helpful concepts that one can use when designing and talking about experiences, and I ground the concepts in a sociomaterial ontological perspective. The concepts and design approach presented in this paper invite and encourage researchers to focus on experiences as sociomaterial entanglements and re-configurations and not as separated social and material entities. By using Michel Serres ' (1980) term quasi-objects, I call attention to the complexity of sociomaterial entanglements that make up experiences and emphasize a holistic and inclusive design approach. In addition, introducing sociomaterial concepts, such as agential cuts and intra-actions, into the human-computer interaction domain invites researchers to think and act in new ways in the era of digitalized experiences. I examine the benefits of the sociomaterial design approach and present practical guidelines on how to approach experiential design with a sociomaterial take.

show abstract

“…This agent's aim is to customize and adapt the user's entire experience with the interface according to individual need, thus improve the user experience. The basic concept of an adaptive user interface involves interface changes based on characteristics of the user [22].…”

Section: About the Projectmentioning

confidence: 99%