QUESTIONING CONVENTIONS: ARE PRODUCT CONVENTIONS TRADING OFF THE USABILITY OF  PRODUCTS FOR SHORT TERM USER SATISFACTION

Bryan Gough Young; Andrew Wodehouse; Marion Sheridan

doi:10.23947/2334-8496-2015-3-2-47-58

Authors

Bryan Gough Young University Of Strathclyde
Andrew Wodehouse University Of Strathclyde
Marion Sheridan University Of Strathclyde

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.23947/2334-8496-2015-3-2-47-58

Keywords:

cognitive engineering, cognitive load theory, user centered design, product interaction, product conventions

Abstract

Mapping conventions are a key aspect of user centered design as they present users with familiar interactions in unfamiliar products. Conventions evolve over time and are slow to be adopted, requiring a high percentage of acceptance within a society, ensuring that conventions exhibit a sufficient level of usability. However this paper argues that while usability is a necessary condition for good interactions it is not a sufficient one.
Therefore user centered design which accents individuals bias towards conventions my in fact be hindering the innovation of product interactions. This paper argues that a cognitive approach should be adopted in order understand and reassess product interactions. An experiment was carried out that demonstrates the influence that simple mappings can have on cognitive load. The results showed that basic mappings of the types that are found throughout product conventions can have a substantial impact on mental load and subsequently product interaction.

Downloads

Download data is not yet available.

References

Abras, C., Maloney-Krichmar, D., & Preece, J. (2004). User-centered design. Bainbridge, W. Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications, 37(4), 445-456.

Ayres, P. (2006). Using subjective measures to detect variations of intrinsic cognitive load within problems. Learning and Instruction, 16(5), 389-400.

Brunken, R., Plass, J. L., & Leutner, D. (2003). Direct measurement of cognitive load in multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 38(1), 53-61.

Emarketer. (2015). Half of UK Population Now Uses Tablet; UK tablet market approaches saturation point.http://www.emarketer.com/Article/Half-of-UK-Population-Now-Uses-Tablets/1012172#sthash.LUW8tcDX.dpuf

Kemp, J. A. M., & Van Gelderen, T. (1996). Co-discovery exploration: an informal method for the iterative design of consumer products. Usability evaluation in industry, 139-146.

Kurosu, M. (2007). Concept of usability revisited. In Human-computer interaction. Interaction design and usability (pp. 579-586). Springer Berlin Heidelberg.

Maguire, M. (2001). Methods to support human-centred design. International journal of human-computer studies, 55(4), 587-634.

Mousavi, S. Y., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of educational psychology, 87(2), 319.

Norman, D. A. (1988). The design of everyday things: Revised and expanded edition. Basic books.

Norman, D. A., & Draper, S. W. (1986). User centered system design. Hillsdale, NJ.

Norman, D. A. (1999). Affordance, conventions, and design. Interactions, 6(3), 38-43.

Norman, D. A., & Draper, S. W. (1986). User centered system design. Hillsdale, NJ.

Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2003). Cognitive load theory and instructional design: Recent developments. Educational psychologist, 38(1), 1-4.

Paas, F., Renkl, A., & Sweller, J. (2004). Cognitive load theory: Instructional implications of the interaction between information structures and cognitive architecture. Instructional science, 32(1), 1-8.

Paas, F. G. (1992). Training strategies for attaining transfer of problem-solving skill in statistics: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of educational psychology, 84(4), 429.

Paas, F. G., & Van Merriënboer, J. J. (1994). Variability of worked examples and transfer of geometrical problem-solving skills: A cognitive-load approach. Journal of educational psychology, 86(1), 122.

Paas, F. G., Van Merriënboer, J. J., & Adam, J. J. (1994). Measurement of cognitive load in instructional research. Perceptual and motor skills, 79(1), 419-430.

Shackel, B. (2009). Usability–Context, framework, definition, design and evaluation. Interacting with Computers, 21(5-6), 339-346.

Sharples, M., Jeffery, N., Du Boulay, J. B. H., Teather, D., Teather, B., & Du Boulay, G. H. (2002). Socio-cognitive engineering: a methodology for the design of human-centred technology. European Journal of Operational Research, 136(2), 310-323.

Sweller, J. (1988). Cognitive load during problem solving: Effects on learning. Cognitive science, 12(2), 257-285.

Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty, and instructional design. Learning and instruction, 4(4), 295-312.

Sweller, J., Ayres, P., & Kalyuga, S. (2011). The redundancy effect. In Cognitive load theory (pp. 141-154). Springer New York.

Sweller, J., Van Merrienboer, J. J., & Paas, F. G. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational psychology review, 10(3), 251-296.

Trudeau, M. B., Catalano, P. J., Jindrich, D. L., & Dennerlein, J. T. (2013). Tablet keyboard configuration affects performance, discomfort and task difficulty for thumb typing in a two-handed grip. PloS one, 8(6), e67525.

Tuch, A. N., Presslaber, E. E., StöCklin, M., Opwis, K., & Bargas-Avila, J. A. (2012). The role of visual complexity and prototypicality regarding first impression of websites: Working towards understanding aesthetic judgments. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 70(11), 794-811.

Wagner, J., Huot, S., & Mackay, W. (2012). BiTouch and BiPad: designing bimanual interaction for hand-held tablets. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 2317-2326). ACM.