.
In order to understand how adaptive interfaces affect digital tool users, it is important to first understand what they are. Adaptive interfaces are “user interfaces that change over time, in response to how they are used, to improve the quality of the interaction. Examples with current technology include speech and handwriting recognition systems that improve the accuracy of their recognition as they become familiar with the user’s style. Adaptive systems also include those that detect common user tasks and make these tasks more accessible – making lists of recently-opened files is a very simple example of this. Any adaptive interface has, at some level of detail, a model of the user’s behavior that is refined, and provides an interaction that fits the behavior as best as it can.” (www.usabilityfirst.com)
From this we can already see the effectiveness of adaptive interfaces in creating a computer to human environment that is easier and more accessible. Digital tool users’ needs are met on an individual basis, so that adaptive interfaces recognize the need for more personal interaction with these users. “The use of techniques from the field of autonomous agents provides a new complementary style of human-computer interaction, where the computer becomes an intelligent, active and personalized collaborator. Interface agents are computer programs that employ Artificial Intelligence methods to provide active assistance to a user of a particular computer application. The metaphor used is that of a personal assistant who is collaborating with the user in the same work environment. The assistant becomes gradually more effective as it learns the user's interests, habits and preferences." (www.aaai.org)
But how should these interfaces be designed? After much psychological research, these design principles were collected:
1) The interface should compensate for human physical and cognitive limitations
whenever possible. However, the interface should be "transparent,"
not getting in the way of the user's actions or impeding his or her progress.
The interface itself should not overload the user with complexity or unnecessary
"bells and whistles" that interfere with or distract from the
task at hand.
(2) The physical components of the interface should be ergonomically designed,
taking into account the comfort and health of the user as well as his
or her special needs and characteristics. For example, a touch panel design
for a word processing program demands far too much arm movement for lengthy
sessions, but serves quite nicely in an information kiosk of a shopping
mall when positioned to be touchable by users of various heights.
(3) The interface should be consistent. For example, selection methods,
positioning of important text and buttons, text fonts and styles, and
window layout and management should be consistent in all parts of an interface.
(4) Non-command interaction styles such as direct manipulation and menus
are preferable to command languages, although the expert user should be
given "type ahead" capability to quickly move through layers
of menus.
(5) The interface should handle errors by providing simple and concise
error messages that assist the user in recovery and future avoidance.
(6) The interface should support reversible actions (e.g., the UNDO capability
in many systems).
(7) The interface should be subjected to usability testing early in the
design process and as each iteration of the product evolves. (www.ericdigests.org)
“Perhaps the most basic principle is that the interface should be designed around the needs of the user rather than added on after a system has been completed, thus serving the constraints imposed by the system. This principle is sometimes expressed by the admonition to "know your user!” (www.ericdigests.org)
What we can learn from all of this is the importance of the interface being focused around the needs of the user. By doing so, digital tools will become more and more simple for the user to use. Proof of this can be seen from the experiments Zara and I have conducted. Just from a simple experiment where we have merely highlighted the appropriate areas being searched, the time taken to complete the experiment was remarkably less. This is an example of user adaptability.
“Although direct manipulation interfaces offer more control, they are not supportive enough to stimulate user activity. As Gentner and Nielsen suggest, users might prefer to be more supported in their interaction with the system.” (www.esi.umontreal.ca) However, where to we draw the line as to how much support should be given? Just as not enough support is not good, too much support can be even worse. “An overly intrusive system can disrupt users’ own objectives. A very important field of research is the concept of collaborative adaptation, where the user defines how much and what can be adapted.” (www.esi.umontreal.ca) In this way, each individual is able to decide just how much support they need. This might change as the user becomes more and more knowledgeable with computers, and can therefore be altered as time passes.
As a conclusion, I have found that adaptive interfaces are something that we are to look forward to. They will not only help users by catering to their specific needs, but they will give users the opportunity to get the most out of digital tools by offering us the support that we need. This corresponds very well with the results of the attention experiment. However, I believe that if a more intricate experiment were to be carried out, with all of the points I have discusses earlier, the effectiveness of adaptive interfaces would be more apparent.