The context of the interface

Ian RuthvenUniversity of Strathclyde

2

interface and interaction• interaction

– designing for reciprocal behaviour of person and system

– largely influenced by cognitive models of behaviour– largely (I think) we often pay attention to

components of interaction than whole interaction• interface

– means of interaction – how interactive possibilities manifest themselves

– means of understanding how to behave– largely, now, means of popularity and uptake

• want to look at the interface in more detail and the possibilities that interface design offer us

3

interface and interaction• interaction

– designing for reciprocal behaviour of person and system

– largely influenced by cognitive models of behaviour– largely (I think) we often pay attention to

components of interaction than whole interaction• interface

– means of interaction – how interactive possibilities manifest themselves

– means of understanding how to behave– largely, now, means of popularity and uptake

• want to look at the interface in more detail and the possibilities that interface design offer us

There will be exceptions to

everything I say!

4

models in information seeking• information

seeking can be– cognitively

demanding– frustrating– just plain difficult

• but can also be– stimulating– fun– engaging

5

6

7

8

‘regular’ IR

9

‘regular’ IR

10

‘regular’ searching• in interactive terms

– no identification of individual– high prediction of output and interaction

(generic and obvious interaction models)– relatively short term interaction

• not always but drive to easy satisfaction

– values direct interaction• emphasis on query• and verbal (textual communication)• not always suitable for complex interaction

– tendency to ‘linear logic’ in interaction• e.g. documents retrieved contain query terms• structured output

11

‘regular’ searching• ranking model very dominant

– useful model for users (at least to increase efficiency) and for some search tasks

– IR has constructed a lot around ranking approach• especially in evaluation

– but perhaps too much• personalisation in particular• even work on implicit feedback tended to

concentrate on improving rankings

12

contextual searching

13

contextual searching• in interactive terms

– identification of individual• but also group (collaborative filtering)• some personalised interaction

– takes time to create relationships• not just recommendations but reviewers

– relatively longer term interaction• and interface support for increased engagement

– values implicit interaction• emphasis on browsing• and non-verbal communication

– tendency to ‘spiral logic’ in interaction

14

interface• affordances

– possibilities made available (or at least perceived abilities)

• also used for interfaces that suggest/encourage particular interaction

• still (I think) under-investigated in IR

• in IR (I think)– interactive work has laudable aim of making

interaction easier cognitively • (relevance feedback, interactive query expansion,

metaphors such as document piles)– but not really tackled making search more

enjoyable or interesting• motivated searchers always do better

– not suggesting we YouTube everything

15

persuasive interaction• interfaces that encourage (persuade) people

to behave differently– either macro-persuasion (stop smoking, drive

more carefully,..) or micro-persuasion (customer reviews, ‘more like this’)

• many techniques, including– reduction – making complex tasks simpler (Google

suggest vs interactive query expansion)– tunnelling - (leading users into a step by step

process or particular strategy, e.g. dialogue models of search)

• although may not be an effective strategy!• force vs persuasion

– self-monitoring – giving feedback to users (e.g. Query Performance Analyser)

16

persuasive interaction• can we design interfaces that help

people interact more usefully?– make interaction (that we believe to be

useful) more enjoyable and likely to happen?

– either • in a ‘big’ sense – whole interaction model• or in ‘small’ ways – individual interactive

tasks

17

18

19

20

emotional• emotional aspects of searching still under-

investigated– not only what we do with emotions

• we can recognise emotions

– but how to design to help create emotions• different emotions have different effects

– can help people be more creative– can help people focus

• different emotions can be imaginatively used in different search situations

21

emotional design• Don Norman

– visceral level of design (appearance)– behavioural level of design (pleasure and

effectiveness of use)– reflective level of design (self-image, personal

satisfaction, memories)• argues, in part, that objects designed to be

emotionally appealing are more likely to be used• but also more likely to forgive an object that does not

work well if we like it!• this is important for an area like IR

– especially for more difficult tasks– and tasks that are unlikely to work every time

22

engagement• functionality is important

– in IR we have tended to concentrate on functionality and effectiveness

– less on usability (although interlinked with effectiveness)

– still less on engagement• engagement, of course, not a substitute for

effectiveness• but tendency to see IR as an intellectual challenge

– O’Brien and Toms• useful language to talk about engagement• need to respond to this with new designs

23

engagement• very important commercially • there is a flip-side for academic

researchers • users do bring expectations• design and perceived quality is

increasingly important

24

summary• interactive IR has created some great

systems• we still have many challenges

– creating complex search requests– analysing complex search results

• lots of very useful ‘under-the-bonnet’ work– perhaps still not quite sure what to do with

it!• but need to consider excitement and

pleasure of search