Triggering triggers and burying barriers to customizing software

ABSTRACT

General-purpose software applications are usually not tailored for a specific user with specific tasks, strategies or preferences. In order to achieve optimal performance with such applications, users typically need to transition to an alternative efficient behavior. Often, features of such alternative behaviors are not initially accessible and first need to be customized. However, few research works formally study and empirically measure what drives a user to customize. In this paper, we describe the challenges involved in empirically studying customization behaviors, and propose a methodology for formally measuring the impact of potential customization factors. We then demonstrate this methodology by studying the impact of different customization factors on customization behaviors. Our results show that increasing exposure and awareness of customization features, and adding social influence can significantly affect the user's customization behavior.

References

1. Brusilovsky, P. and Schwarz, E. User as student: towards an adaptive interface for advanced web-based applications. User Modeling, (1997), 177--188.
2. Bunt, A., Conati, C., and McGrenere, J. Supporting interface customization using a mixed-initiative approach. In Proc. IUI '07. ACM (2007), 92--101.
3. Bunt, A., McGrenere, J., and Conati, C. Understanding the Utility of Rationale in a Mixed-Initiative System for GUI Customization. In Proc. UM '07. (2007), 147--156.
4. Carrol, J. M., and Rosson, M. B. Paradox of the active user. In Interface thought: Cognitive aspects of humancomputer interaction. Cambridge (1987).
5. Clark, B., Matthews, J. Deciding Layers: Adaptive Composition of Layers in a Multi-Layer User Interface. In HCI International, Volume 7, July 2005.
6. Cockburn, A., Gutwin, C., and Greenberg, S. A predictive model of menu performance. In Proc. CHI '07. ACM (2007), 627--636.
7. Debevc, M., Meyer, B., Donlagic, D., and Svecko, R. Design and evaluation of an adaptive icon toolbar. User Mod. and User-Adap. Inter., 6, 1, (1995), 1--21.
8. Dourish, P., Lamping, J., and Rodden, T. Building bridges: customisation and mutual intelligibility in shared category management. In Proc. GROUP '99. ACM (1999), 11--20.
9. Findlater, L. and McGrenere, J. A comparison of static, adaptive, and adaptable menus. In Proc. CHI '04. ACM (2004), 89--96.
10. Findlater, L. and McGrenere, J. Evaluating reduced-functionality interfaces according to feature findability and awareness. In Proc. INTERACT'07. Springer-Verlag (2007), 592--605.
11. Findlater, L. and McGrenere, J. Impact of screen size on performance, awareness, and user satisfaction with adaptive graphical user interfaces. In Proc. CHI '08. ACM (2008), 1247--1256.
12. Findlater, L. and McGrenere, J. Beyond performance: Feature awareness in personalized interfaces. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Stud. 68, 3 (March 2010), 121--137.
13. Findlater, L., Moffatt, K., McGrenere, J., and Dawson, J. Ephemeral adaptation: the use of gradual onset to improve menu selection performance. In Proc. CHI '09. ACM (2009), 1655--1664.
14. Gajos, K. Z., Czerwinski, M., Tan, D. S., and Weld, D. S. Exploring the design space for adaptive graphical user interfaces. In Proc. AVI '06. ACM (2006), 201--208.
15. Greenberg, S. and Witten, I. Adaptive personalized interfaces: A question of viability. Behav. Inf. Tech. 4, 1, (1985), 31--45.
16. Grossman, T., Dragicevic, P., and Balakrishnan, R. Strategies for accelerating on-line learning of hotkeys. In Proc. CHI '07. ACM (2007), 1591--1600.
17. Grossman, T., Fitzmaurice, G., and Attar, R. A survey of software learnability: metrics, methodologies and guidelines. In Proc. CHI '09. ACM (2009), 649--658.
18. Krisler, B. and Alterman, R. Training towards mastery: overcoming the active user paradox. In Proc. NordiCHI '08. ACM (2008), 239--248.
19. Kurlander, D. and Feiner, S. A history-based macro by example system. In Proc. UIST '92. ACM (1992), 99--106.
20. Mackay, W. E. Patterns of sharing customizable software. In Proc. CSCW '90. ACM (1990), 209--221.
21. Mackay, W. E. Triggers and barriers to customizing software. In Proc. CHI '91. ACM (1991), 153--160.
22. MacLean, A., Carter, K., Lövstrand, L., and Moran, T. User-tailorable systems: pressing the issues with buttons. In Proc. CHI '90. ACM (1990), 175--182.
23. Marathe, S. S. Investigating the psychology of task-based and presentation-based UI customization. In Proc. CHI EA '09. ACM (2009), 3129--3132.
24. Marathe, S. and Sundar, S. S. What drives customization?: control or identity?. In Proc. CHI '11. ACM (2011), 781--790.
25. Matejka, J., Li, W., Grossman, T., and Fitzmaurice, G. CommunityCommands: command recommendations for software applications. In Proc. UIST '09. ACM (2009), 193--202.
26. McGrenere, J., Baecker, R. M., and Booth, K. S. An evaluation of a multiple interface design solution for bloated software. In Proc. CHI '02. (2002), 164--170.
27. Mitchell, J. and Shneiderman, B. Dynamic versus static menus: an exploratory comparison. SIGCHI Bull. 20, 4 (April 1989), 33--37.
28. Mørch, A. Three levels of end-user tailoring: customization, integration, and extension. In Computers and design in context. MIT Press (1997), 51--76.
29. Page, S. R., Johnsgard, T. J., Albert, U., and Allen C. D. User customization of a word processor. In Proc. CHI '96. ACM (1996), 340--346.
30. Peres, S. C., Tamborello II, F. P., Fleetwood , M. D., Chung, P., and Paige-smith, D. L. Keyboard shortcut usage: The roles of social factors and computer experience. Hum. Fact. & Ergo. Soc., 48. (2004), 803--807.
31. Scarr, J., Cockburn, A., Gutwin, C. and Quinn, P. Dips and ceilings: understanding and supporting transitions to expertise in user interfaces. In Proc. CHI '11. ACM (2011), 2741--2750.
32. Sears, A. and Shneiderman, B. Split menus: effectively using selection frequency to organize menus. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact. 1, 1 (1994), 27--51.
33. Shneiderman, B. and Plaisant, C. Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction (4th Ed.). Pearson Addison Wesley (2004).
34. Stuerzlinger, W., Chapuis, O., Phillips, D., and Roussel, N. User interface façades: towards fully adaptable user interfaces. In Proc. UIST '06. ACM (2006), 309--318.
35. Tsandilas, T. and schraefel, m. c. An empirical assessment of adaptation techniques. In CHI EA '05. ACM (2005), 2009--2012.
36. Thomas, C. G. and Krogsæter, M. An adaptive environment for the user interface of Excel. In Proc. IUI '93, ACM (1993), 123--130.
37. Twidale, M. B. Over the Shoulder Learning: Supporting Brief Informal Learning. Comput. Supported Coop. Work 14, 6 (December 2005), 505--547.
38. Venkatesh, V., Morris, M. G., Davis, F. D., and Davis, G. B. User Acceptance of Information Technology: Toward a Unified View. MISQ (27:3), 2003, 425--478.
39. Zipf, G. Human behavior and the principle of leasteffort. Addison-Wesley (1949).

Index Terms

• Human-centered computing

  • Human computer interaction (HCI)