Search (2 results, page 1 of 1)

  • × author_ss:"Ju, B."
  • × year_i:[2000 TO 2010}
  1. Ju, B.; Gluck, M.: User-Process Model Approach to Improve User Interface Usability (2005) 0.00 
    0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 3262) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=3262,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 3262, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=3262)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    Our purpose in this study is to inductively reorganize software interface menu items based an a user's process model. The proposed menu interface in this study used direct users' input, such as goals and strategies for solving their information needs, to reorganize and re-label menus. To assess its effectiveness, efficiency, and user satisfaction with actual users, we implemented and compared this new menu version to the original interface that was based upon a traditional categorical menu organization. The significance of this study is that it incorporates user process modeling into the design of the user interface, providing insights into the impact of such modeling an the usability of an information system. Results from the usability testing do indicate that the proposed menu and the traditional menu are similarly effective for users in terms of task completion time and accuracy. User preferences and debriefing comments from usability testing also indicate users preferred the user-process based arrangement of menu items as displayed. However, the types of tasks (different problem type) suggest significant differences for results in task completion time and in accuracy, sometimes favoring the new version. In other words, usable and effective menu organization depends more an the types of tasks and the domain of knowledge than mere menu organization, although menu organization is a factor in the process.
    Type
    a
  2. Ju, B.: Does domain knowledge matter : mapping users' expertise to their information interactions (2007) 0.00 
    0.0016913437 = product of:
  0.0033826875 = sum of:
    0.0033826875 = product of:
      0.006765375 = sum of:
        0.006765375 = weight(_text_:a in 618) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.006765375 = score(doc=618,freq=8.0), product of:
            0.053105544 = queryWeight, product of:
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.046056706 = queryNorm
            0.12739488 = fieldWeight in 618, product of:
              2.828427 = tf(freq=8.0), with freq of:
                8.0 = termFreq=8.0
              1.153047 = idf(docFreq=37942, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0390625 = fieldNorm(doc=618)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)
    Abstract
    The purpose of this study is to investigate the role that domain knowledge plays in users' interactions with information systems. Two groups of users with two different areas of expertise were recruited for 34 experimental sessions to answer two research questions: (a) Does one group's domain knowledge (Geography majors) affect their performance on an information system more than another group's domain knowledge (Computer Science majors)? (b) Are there any differences and/or similarities in the performance of the two groups in terms of the information problem-solving processes? Task completion time, task completeness, and mouse movements were collected while users performed six tasks during the experimental sessions. Data were analyzed through repeated measures. An ANOVA was used for task completion time and task completeness. GOMS (Goals, Operators, Methods, and Selection rules) was also used for mouse movements to identify some of the similarities and differences between the two groups' information problem-solving processes. The GOMS analysis found the two groups' processing activities to be remarkably similar. The ANOVA results indicate that expertise type was not a major factor influencing user performance, but task and task combined with the type of expertise played a significant role in the users' interactions with the interface. External operators, goal decompositions, and methods related to the problem solving process through GOMS are also presented.
    Type
    a