Human-centered design meets cognitive load theory: designing interfaces that help people think

ABSTRACT

Historically, the development of computer systems has been primarily a technology-driven phenomenon, with technologists believing that "users can adapt" to whatever they build. Human-centered design advocates that a more promising and enduring approach is to model users' natural behavior to begin with so that interfaces can be designed that are more intuitive, easier to learn, and freer of performance errors. In this paper, we illustrate different user-centered design principles and specific strategies, as well as their advantages and the manner in which they enhance users' performance. We also summarize recent research findings from our lab comparing the performance characteristics of different educational interfaces that were based on user-centered design principles. One theme throughout our discussion is human-centered design that minimizes users' cognitive load, which effectively frees up mental resources for performing better while also remaining more attuned to the world around them.

REFERENCES

• 1: G. D. Abowd, Classroom 2000: an experiment with the instrumentation of a living educational environment, IBM Systems Journal, v.38 n.4, p.508-530, Dec. 1999
• 2: Alibali, M., Kita, S., and Young, A. Gesture and the process of speech production: We think, therefore we gesture. Language and Cognitive Processing, 2000. 15: 593--613.
• 3: Richard J. Anderson , Crystal Hoyer , Steven A. Wolfman , Ruth Anderson, A study of digital ink in lecture presentation, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, p.567-574, April 24-29, 2004, Vienna, Austria [doi>10.1145/985692.985764]
• 4: Anoto technology, http://www.anoto.com (2006).
• 5: Baddeley, A. Working memory. 1986, New York: Oxford University Press.
• 6: Baddeley, A. Working memory: Looking back and looking forward. Neuroscience, 2003. 4: 829--839.
• 7: Camp, G., Paas, F., Rikers, R., and van Merrienboer, J. Dynamic problem selection in air traffic control training: A comparison between performance, mental effort and mental efficiency. Computers in Human Behavior, 2001. 17:575--595.
• 8: Philip R. Cohen , David R. McGee, Tangible multimodal interfaces for safety-critical applications, Communications of the ACM, v.47 n.1, January 2004 [doi>10.1145/962081.962103]
• 9: Farmer, E. and Brownson, A. Review of workload measurement, analysis and interpretation methods - physiological measures, performance-based measures, and self-assessment measures. CARE-Integra-TRS-130-02-WP2, 2003.
• 10: Friedman, T. The age of interruption. New York Times. July 5, 2006.
• 11: Goldin-Meadow, S., Nusbaum, H., Kelly, S.J., and Wagner, S. Explaining math: Gesturing lightens the load. Psychological Science, 2001. 12(6): 516--522.
• 12: Ho, C. and Spence, C. Assessing the effectiveness of various auditory cues in capturing a driver's visual attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 2005. 11: 157--174.
• 13: John, M., Kobus, D., and Morrison, J. Augmented cognition technical integration experiment (TIE). Technical Report 1905, December 2003, DARPA.
• 14: Leapfrog, http://www.leapfrog.com (2006).
• 15: Chunyuan Liao , François Guimbretière , Ken Hinckley, PapierCraft: a command system for interactive paper, Proceedings of the 18th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, October 23-26, 2005, Seattle, WA, USA [doi>10.1145/1095034.1095074]
• 16: Mayer, R.E. and Moreno, R. A split-attention effect in multimedia learning: Evidence for dual processing systems in working memory. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1998. 90(2): 312--320.
• 17: Mousavi, S.Y., Low, R., and Sweller, J. Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Educational Psychology, 1995. 87(2): 319--334.
• 18: Christian Müller , Barbara Großmann-Hutter , Anthony Jameson , Ralf Rummer , Frank Wittig, Recognizing Time Pressure and Cognitive Load on the Basis of Speech: An Experimental Study, Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on User Modeling 2001, p.24-33, July 13-17, 2001
• 19: Antti Oulasvirta , Sakari Tamminen , Virpi Roto , Jaana Kuorelahti, Interaction in 4-second bursts: the fragmented nature of attentional resources in mobile HCI, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, April 02-07, 2005, Portland, Oregon, USA [doi>10.1145/1054972.1055101]
• 20: Oviatt, S.L. Predicting spoken disfluencies during human-computer interaction. Computer Speech and Language, 1995. 9: 19--35.
• 21: Sharon Oviatt, User-Centered Modeling for Spoken Language and Multimodal Interfaces, IEEE MultiMedia, v.3 n.4, p.26-35, December 1996 [doi>10.1109/93.556458]
• 22: Oviatt, S.L. Multimodal interactive maps: Designing for human performance. Human Computer Interaction, 1997. 12(1-2): 93--129.
• 23: Sharon Oviatt, Mutual disambiguation of recognition errors in a multimodel architecture, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: the CHI is the limit, p.576-583, May 15-20, 1999, Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, United States [doi>10.1145/302979.303163]
• 24: Oviatt, S.L. Toward multimodal support for interpreted telephone dialogues. Structure of multimodal dialogue, M. Taylor, F. Neel, and D. Bouwhuis, Editors, 2000. John Benjamins: Amsterdam, Netherlands. 85--107.
• 25: Oviatt, S.L. Breaking the robustness barrier: Recent progress on the design of robust multimodal systems, Advances in computers, M. Zelkowitz, Editor, 2002. Academic Press: 305--341.
• 26: Sharon Oviatt , Alex Arthur , Julia Cohen, Quiet interfaces that help students think, Proceedings of the 19th annual ACM symposium on User interface software and technology, October 15-18, 2006, Montreux, Switzerland [doi>10.1145/1166253.1166284]
• 27: Oviatt, S.L., Brock, Y., Cohen, J., and Arthur, A.M. Expressive pen-based interfaces for active learners, in submission.
• 28: Sharon Oviatt , Rachel Coulston , Rebecca Lunsford, When do we interact multimodally?: cognitive load and multimodal communication patterns, Proceedings of the 6th international conference on Multimodal interfaces, October 13-15, 2004, State College, PA, USA [doi>10.1145/1027933.1027957]
• 29: Sharon Oviatt , Rachel Coulston , Stefanie Tomko , Benfang Xiao , Rebecca Lunsford , Matt Wesson , Lesley Carmichael, Toward a theory of organized multimodal integration patterns during human-computer interaction, Proceedings of the 5th international conference on Multimodal interfaces, November 05-07, 2003, Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada [doi>10.1145/958432.958443]
• 30: Sharon Oviatt , Courtney Darves , Rachel Coulston, Toward adaptive conversational interfaces: Modeling speech convergence with animated personas, ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), v.11 n.3, p.300-328, September 2004 [doi>10.1145/1017494.1017498]
• 31: Paas, F., Tuovinen, J., Tabbers, H., and Van Gerven, P. Cognitive load measurement as a means to advance cognitive load theory. Educational Psychologist, 2003. 38(1): 63--71.
• 32: Pea, R. and Maldonado, H. Wild for learning: Interacting through new computing devices anytime, anywhere., The Cambridge Handbook of the Learning Sciences, R.K. Sawyer, Editor, 2005. Cambridge University Press, New York: 427--443.
• 33: Sweller, J. Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive Science, 1988. 12: 257--285.
• 34: Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., and Sweller, P. When two sensory modes are better than one. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 1997. 3(3): 257--287.
• 35: van Merrienboer, J. and Sweller, J. Cognitive load theory and complex learning: Recent developments and future directions. Educational Psychology Review, 2005. 17(2): 147--177.
• 36: Wickens, C. Multiple resources and performance prediction. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Science, 2002. 3(2): 159--177.
• 37: Wickens, C., Sandry, D., and Vidulich, M. Compatibility and resource competition between modalities of input, central processing, and output. Human Factors, 1983. 25(2): 227--248.

INDEX TERMS

Primary Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)
          Subjects: User-centered design

Additional Classification:
  H. Information Systems
  H.5 INFORMATION INTERFACES AND PRESENTATION (I.7)
      H.5.2 User Interfaces (D.2.2, H.1.2, I.3.6)
          Subjects: Evaluation/methodology; Prototyping; Interaction styles (e.g., commands, menus, forms, direct manipulation); Input devices and strategies (e.g., mouse, touchscreen)

Keywords:
cognitive load, educational interfaces, human-centered design, mobile interfaces, multimodal interfaces, pen-based interfaces, performance metrics, robustness, spoken language interfaces, tangible interfaces, usability