Lecture #12COLLABORATION.EYE TRACKING.

Tvorba uživatelského rozhraní

COLLABORATIVE USER INTERFACES

TUR 2011

(3)

Reason for collaborationReason for collaboration

(3)

TUR 2011

(4)

Reasons for computer supported collaborationReasons for computer supported collaboration

(4)

TUR 2011

(5)(5)

CSCW + Groupware

Some slides by Saila Ovaska, Saila.Ovaska@cs.uta.fi

TUR 2011

(6)

Groupware in group actvitiesGroupware in group actvities

Groupware supports group activity,Groupware supports group activity,

that isthat is

- - communicationcommunication

- - collaborationcollaboration

- - coordination.coordination.

[Ellis, Gibbs, Rein, 1991][Ellis, Gibbs, Rein, 1991]

(6)

TUR 2011

(7)

Groupware definitionGroupware definition

Computer- based systemsComputer- based systems

that support groups of people engaged in athat support groups of people engaged in a

common task (or goal) andcommon task (or goal) and

that provide an interface to a sharedthat provide an interface to a shared

environment.environment.

[Ellis, Gibbs, Rein, 1991][Ellis, Gibbs, Rein, 1991]

(7)

TUR 2011

(8)

Collaboration in a groupCollaboration in a group

(8)

TUR 2011

(9)

Groupware space-time matrixGroupware space-time matrix

(9)

TUR 2011

(10)

Construction Site

Project ManagerWorkerQuality Control Manager

Use case – Construction Area

MUMMY system

TUR 2011

(11)

Mummy Server

construction plans

Inspector

Construction site

Construction Site Inspection – Data Adaptation

TUR 2011

(12)

Inspector

Construction site

Construction Site Inspection – Data Adaptation

Mummy Server

construction plans

Adaptation

TUR 2011

(13)

Inspector

Construction site

Construction site inspection – Annotation Sharing

Mummy Server

construction plans

Adaptation

Remote expert

TUR 2011

(14)

Inspector

Construction site

Construction Site Inspection – Annotation Sharing

Remote expert

TUR 2011

(15)

CSCW Interview Guide Wasson, B. Guribye, F. & Mørch, A. (2000). Project DoCTA : Design and use Of

Collaborative Telelearning Artefacts. ITU Research Report, 5, 380 pages. Unipub Forlag : Oslo. ISBN: 82-7947-005-0.

Communication– The tool should facilitate both synchronous and asynchronous communication

between the team members. Administration

– The tool should provide functions to support the team in administration tasks such as scheduling meetings, distribution of work tasks etc.

Production– The tool should support the team in production of artefacts such as text documents,

images, web ages etc. Presentation

– The tool should facilitate the presentation and exchange of various types of information between the team members.

Navigating– The tool should provide guidance for how to use the tool and how to maneuver within

it.

TUR 2011

(16)

Communication Synchronous communication

– To what extent do you think the product made it possible for the group to communicate synchronously?

– What was the quality of this communication?– Which tools did you use for synchronous communication?– Do you have any suggestions for ways the synchronous

communication could have been improved?

Asynchronous communication– Did TeamWave make it possible for the team to communicate

asynchronous?– What was the quality of this communication?– Which tools did you use for asynchronous communication?– Do you have any suggestions for ways the asynchronous

communication could have been improved?

TUR 2011

(17)

Administration Do you think that the product supported the team in the

administration of the teamwork? If no:

– How did you administrate the teamwork? Otherwise:

– Which tools did you use to support administrative tasks? Are you satisfied in the way the team administrated the

work, or did you experience any problems?

TUR 2011

(18)

Production

Did you, through the support of the product, manage to produce the elements you wanted to include in the task (such as documents, images etc.)?

Which tools did you use to support these tasks? How well did these tools support production? Please report tools that you felt were missing, if any

TUR 2011

(19)

Presentation

To what extent did the product support you in presenting information for other team members?

Which tools did you use as aids when presenting information?

How well did these tools perform?

TUR 2011

(20)

Navigating

Was it ok to navigate within the various modes within the product?

How did you manage in finding the other members of your team (easy or difficult)?

TUR 2011

(21)

Help

To what extent did you use product’s help system? Did you use and of the web based help pages?

TUR 2011

(22)

General Questions

Are there any other aspects of the product that you want to comment on? – Not necessarily the specific tools, but rather some words

on your experiences in using the product as a GroupWare tool.

TUR 2011

(23)

e-Learning

Computer-supported Collaborative Learning

TUR 2011

(24)

Notes on the CSCW Testing

Methodology varies, depending on the type of the application– Collaboration over PC– Collaboration in the mobile environment

TUR 2011

(25)

Ecological Validity

= “the test setup reflects the real use” CSCW heavily influenced by social factors

– How people communicate– Boss vs. Employee– Personal relationships

Must be taken into account otherwise the test is ecologically invalid.– “I will rather send him a message using a private channel (no CC to

others) so that they don’t know I helped him, because they would think I am a stupid brown-noser.”

– “I would help him, but he would owe me one, and he does not want to feel obliged towards me. I would have a hard time with him.”

TESTING USING PHYSIOLOGICAL RESPONSES

TUR 2011

(27)

Physiological Responses

Can’t read mind directly … yet …– (Actually, do we really want such a thing?)

But we have– Eye movement– Heart activity– Activity of the sweat glands– Electrical activity in muscle– Electrical activity in the brain

Free examination

Wealth of family

Ages of people

What were theydoing just before?

Remember theclothes worn

Remember the positionof the people

For how longhas he been gone?

Yarbus (1967) via Webb and Renshaw (2008)Yarbus (1967) via Webb and Renshaw (2008)Study of Unexpected Visitor (1888) by RjepinStudy of Unexpected Visitor (1888) by Rjepin

TUR 2011

(29)

Eye Movement

Non-homogenous resolution of retina– Fovea vs. peripheral vision– 2° of visual angle

Fixation– Constant direction of gaze– 200—300 ms

Saccade– Rapid movement of eye between fixations

Smooth pursuit– Following – Horizontal movement tracked better than vertical movement

TUR 2011

(30)

Eye Movement

Pupil dilation– Caused by luminance or cognitive workload

Pupil dilation, blink rate– Explored as a means of cognitive load and stress

TUR 2011

(31)(31)Federico M. Facca 31

Eye Tracking

Records eye movements Originally designed for mobility impaired users Relies on the “eye-mind” hypothesis

– “People look at what they are thinking about”

Used in neuroscience, cognitive psychology, advertising, and now … usability

TUR 2011

(32)

Eye Tracking

Previously a highly invasivemethod– Surgical modifications to the eyes

State-of-art systems– No physical contact– No constrains on the (reasonable) participants’ movement

Stanley Kubrick: A Clockwork Orange (1971)

TUR 2011

(33)(33)Federico M. Facca

Eye Tracking

Equipment– Head-mounted systems– Remote systems (ERICA)– Computer monitor camera

systems

TUR 2011

(34)(34)Federico M. Facca 34

Eye Tracking

Eye movements collected– Fixations – where the eye stops

long enough to absorb information– Saccades – move the eye from one

fixation to the next

Visual representation– Scanpath – the temporal sequence

of fixations and saccades

Other representations– Numerical– Real-time

TUR 2011

(35)(35)Federico M. Facca 35

Eye Tracking

Provides a higher level of granularity than other data collection methods & quantitative measures of user behavior

Reveals behavior not evident in concurrent think-aloud protocol– Scanning continues when people are silent or using verbal

fillers (ums and ahs)– Eye movement occurs faster than verbalization

Shows parts of a user interface/web page that receive user attention and how search is visually distributed.

TUR 2011

(36)

What to Measure

Number of fixations– More fixations in a task less efficient search strategy

Fixation duration– Longer fixations indication of a difficulty with a display

Scan path– Areas of interest– Search strategy– Cognitive load

TUR 2011

(37)

Example Questions that Can Be Resolved

Search– Where do people search for the correct link?

Comprehension– Is the navigation link, that people find, easy to

understand?– How long does it take to make a sense of a stimulus?

Making decisions– In what sequence do people look at visual elements?– Do different user groups show different visual behavior?

According to Webb and Renshaw (2008)

TUR 2011

(38)

Example Questions that Can Be Resolved

Reading and scanning– Parts that were scanned– Parts that were read

Efficiency of task completion– Is there a strategy of expert users?

Visual elements capturing attention– Do people notice banners?– Do certain elements distract users?

TUR 2011

(39)

“Golden Triangle” http://eyetrackingupdate.com/2010/06/14/eye-tracking-web-

usability-study-reveals-golden-triangle/

How many people see what when using Google– … when scanning a page– Top of the page: seen by 100 %– Bottom of the screen: 85 %– “Below the fold”: < 50 %– Last entry: 20 %

TUR 2011

(40)

Eye Tracking – Heat Map

TUR 2011

(41)(41)Federico M. Facca 41

Eye Tracking

TUR 2011

(42)(42)Federico M. Facca 42

Eye Tracking

TUR 2011

(43)

Other Uses for Eye Tracking

TUR 2011

(44)

Other Users for Eye Tracking

As a pointing device– Relatively low precision– Problems with two-focus interactions– Problems with actuation

• Dwell time?

• Blinking?

Typing for the motor-impaired people– http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WvWdwB6nTkk

TUR 2011

(45)

Eye Tracking Videos

BBC News Reading– http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O6DRl6tTjCU

Semi-commercial videos– http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lo_a2cfBUGc – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=75RpQ2Z6nYc

TUR 2011

(46)

Doing a Study

Goals of the Study– Must be well defined– “Use the site for 10 minutes” is not enough

• Different people were doing different things• Browsing interesting articles?• Watching the ads?

Ethics– People reveal a lot about themselves

• More than they wish• Never give your raw data to anyone

– Many institutions require that experiment proposals are approved by an ethical committee

TUR 2011

(47)

Case study: Tomb Raider Study

Renshaw, Stevens and Finlay (2006)via Webb, Renshaw (2008)

Goals– Why even experienced players get stuck at particular

levels– Whether any changes in eye movement can be related

to player’s stress– Whether different levels would yield different

distributions of fixations

TUR 2011

(48)

Case study: Tomb Raider Study Method

– Playing Tomb Raider “Peru: Ball Puzzle” and “England: Pool Area”

– Tobii 1750 eyetracker– Pentium 4 PC, Playstation 2 Dualshock

controller. Procedure

– 7 males between 20 and 29 y.o.– Pre-test: General briefing, discussion of

the gaming experience– Not informed that each level is limited by

5 minutes– Asked at a given interval to use single-

word expressions such as “fine”, “great”, “frustrated”, how they feel.

TUR 2011

(49)

Case study: Tomb Raider Study

Replay of recorded eye movements The plot in the Peru level required the users to

locate an indentation in the floor.– No fixations not located by any user.

Correspondence of the fixation lengths and the mood reports not found

Fixation distributions differed in the two levels– Peru: Within a confined area– England: People needed to search for objects in

distance Advertisers need to know the optimal placements

TUR 2011

(50)

Other Physiological Measurements

Heart activity– Stress or anger

Activity of the sweat glands– Galvanic skin response– Levels of arousal and mental effort

Electrical activity in muscle– Electromyogram– Involvement in the task

Electrical activity in the brain– Electroencephalogram– Decision making, attention, motivation

TUR 2011

(51)

Other Physiological Measurements

Determining user’s emotional response to an interface

Current research question– How to interpret these measurements in the context of

the usability testing?– E.g. Increased heart rate means:

• “I can’t find that icon”

• “OMG, this test takes so long and I forgot to go to the bank.”

TUR 2011

(52)

EEG in Usability Testing

Emerging discipline

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t4DQYkMPbzY http://www.simpleusability.com/services/eeg

“Neuromarketing”