JGwizdka_PhD601_2008-12-03-sh

  • Upload
    jaceksg

  • View
    214

  • Download
    0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

  • 8/3/2019 JGwizdka_PhD601_2008-12-03-sh

    1/30

    Personalization for Individual DifferencesPersonalization of Interactive Information Systems

    to Match Cognitive Differences Among People

    http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~jacekg/

    http://www.gwizdka.com

    Department of Library & Information ScienceSCILS

    Rutgers University

    New Brunswick, NJ, USA

    PhD 601 - Dec 3, 2008

  • 8/3/2019 JGwizdka_PhD601_2008-12-03-sh

    2/30

    Background

    Electrical engineering

    Software development

    Information systems

    Human factors / industrial engineering

    Human-computer interaction

    Jacek Gwizdka: http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~jacekg/

    http://www.gwizdka.com

  • 8/3/2019 JGwizdka_PhD601_2008-12-03-sh

    3/30

    Research Interests

  • 8/3/2019 JGwizdka_PhD601_2008-12-03-sh

    4/30

    personalization is multi-dimensional

    Facetsof personalization

    Relevance/interest

    Task

    Problem state

    Personal characteristicscognitive characteristics, affect,

    education, demography

    Personal preferencesinteraction styles, info organization

    Context/situationlocation, urgency

    (Belkin, 2006)

    What can be personalized

    content

    source selection; genre

    presentation

    results; documents

    interaction

    search UI; navigation

    help

    form & time of delivery

    user interaction: effective, efficient, pleasurable

  • 8/3/2019 JGwizdka_PhD601_2008-12-03-sh

    5/30

    Overview

    Cognitive differences

    relevance to information interaction

    implications on the design of information systems

    approaches that take them into account

  • 8/3/2019 JGwizdka_PhD601_2008-12-03-sh

    6/30

    Individual Differences - Example 1

    Cognitive differences and

    reading

  • 8/3/2019 JGwizdka_PhD601_2008-12-03-sh

    7/30

    Example 1

    Moud a text-ouly sight bee ideale for soweoue mith a reabing

    bisorber? Harblee, Iwages are uot dab for accessaabilledea. They

    actnally iucreese cowqreheusiou aub nsadililte for wost anbleuces.

    Mhat wuay qeiqle bo uot kuom, throngh, it there is wuch mor at

    the accessability for au iwage theu jnst its alt text. Sowe qeople

    mroughly assnwe that iwages are dab for accessedilite, siuce alt

    text esseutially reqlaces the iwage mith a text-ouly versiou of thatiwage.

  • 8/3/2019 JGwizdka_PhD601_2008-12-03-sh

    8/30

    Example 1

    Would a text-only site be ideal for someone with a reading disorder?

    Hardly, images are not bad for accessibility. They actually increase

    comprehension and usability for most audiences.

    What many people do not know, though, is there is much more to

    the accessibility of an image then just its alt text. Some people

    wrongly assume that images are bad for accessibility, since alt text

    essentially replaces the image with a text-only version of thatimage.

  • 8/3/2019 JGwizdka_PhD601_2008-12-03-sh

    9/30

    Individual Difference Example 1

    Dyslexia

    difference in perceptual and cognitive processing

    Moud a text-ouly sight bee ideale for soweoue mith a

    reabing bisorber? Harblee, Iwages are uot dab for

    accessaabilledea. They actnally iucreese cowqreheusiou

    aub nsadililte for wost anbleuces.

    Mhat wuay qeiqle bo uot kuom, throngh, it there iswuch mor at the accessability for au iwage theu jnst its

    alt text. Sowe qeople mroughly assnwe that iwages are

    dab for accessedilite, siuce alt text esseutially reqlaces

    the iwage mith a text-ouly versiou of that iwage.

  • 8/3/2019 JGwizdka_PhD601_2008-12-03-sh

    10/30

    Individual Differences - Example 2

    Cognitive differences and

    information search

    in web directories

  • 8/3/2019 JGwizdka_PhD601_2008-12-03-sh

    11/30

    Individual Difference Example 2

    Cognitive Style: FD / FI: field-dependence / independence

    Witkin et al. (1971)

    FD FI

    holistic perception (whole objects) analytic perception (parts)

    global focus focus on detail

    external references internal references

    passive in locating information active in locating information

  • 8/3/2019 JGwizdka_PhD601_2008-12-03-sh

    12/30

    Individual Difference Example 2

    Cognitive Style: FD / FI: implications for information systems

    Witkin et al. (1971)

    FD FI

    externally imposed structure own structure

    extra guidance locate info directly

    subject organization

    breadth (more main cats, less sub-cats) depth (less main cats, more sub-cats)

    separate category levels categories together

    sorted by relevance alphabetical organization

  • 8/3/2019 JGwizdka_PhD601_2008-12-03-sh

    13/30

    Example 2

    FD

    FI

    From: Chen, S. Y., Magoulas, G. D., & Macredie, R. D. (2004). Cognitive styles and users responses to structured

    information representation. International Journal on Digital Libraries, V4(2), 93-107.

  • 8/3/2019 JGwizdka_PhD601_2008-12-03-sh

    14/30

    Example 2 Subject Categories

    FD

    FI

    From: Chen, S. Y., Magoulas, G. D., & Macredie, R. D. (2004). Cognitive styles and users responses to structured information

    representation. International Journal on Digital Libraries, V4(2), 93-107.

  • 8/3/2019 JGwizdka_PhD601_2008-12-03-sh

    15/30

    Individual Differences - Example 3

    Cognitive differences and

    information scanning

    (in email)

  • 8/3/2019 JGwizdka_PhD601_2008-12-03-sh

    16/30

    Individual Differences In Email Use

    Email Avoidance Email Addiction

    You should check your e-mail moreoften. I fired you over 3 weeks ago.

    The 12-step program to over-coming addiction to e-mail.

    I will not:- check my email

    more than twice a day- skip meals to spend

    time sending email

    - base my self-worth onthe no of emails I receive

  • 8/3/2019 JGwizdka_PhD601_2008-12-03-sh

    17/30

    Example 3 - Scanning Email Messages

    Scanning Task: find message in inbox based on partial header info

    Differences in cognitive abilities: working memory WM, visual memory

    VM, flexibility of closure CF

    UI-Visual UI-Text

    (Gwizdka, CASCON2002, PhD2004, Interacting with Computers2004)

  • 8/3/2019 JGwizdka_PhD601_2008-12-03-sh

    18/30

    Example 3 - Scanning Email Messages

    better visual memory(mv1 & mv2)

    less scrolling

    better working memory(wm)

    less sorting

    betterflexibility of closure

    (cf2)

    more scrolling

    CF

    WM

    MV2MV1

  • 8/3/2019 JGwizdka_PhD601_2008-12-03-sh

    19/30

    Individual Differences - Example 4

    Cognitive differences and

    information keeping

    (in / around email)

  • 8/3/2019 JGwizdka_PhD601_2008-12-03-sh

    20/30

    Example 4 the Keepers and the Cleaners

    Is there a difference in in email habits?

    Esp. in how people handle todo/task-related messages

    Cognitive difference - flexibility of closure (CF)

    FD ~ low CF FI ~ high CF

    holistic perception (whole objects) analytic perception (parts)

    global focus focus on detail

    external references internal references

    passive in locating information active in locating information

  • 8/3/2019 JGwizdka_PhD601_2008-12-03-sh

    21/30

    Example 4 the Keepers and the Cleaners

    1- The Cleaners: transfer todos from email

    2- The Keepers: keep todos in email

    Email Habit Variablesdetermining clusters

    The CleanersCluster #1

    The KeepersCluster #2

    When email is read at specific times all the time

    Email interrupts other tasks no yes

    Uses search in email no yesKeeps events in email no yes

    Keeps to-do's in email no yes

    Emails self-reminders yes no

  • 8/3/2019 JGwizdka_PhD601_2008-12-03-sh

    22/30

    Example 4 the Keepers and the Cleaners

    Flexibility of closure (CF) differed between the Keepersand the Cleaners:

    Low CF The Cleaners

    High CF The Keepers

  • 8/3/2019 JGwizdka_PhD601_2008-12-03-sh

    23/30

    Individual Differences - Example 5

    Cognitive differences and

    information search

    (difference search engines)

  • 8/3/2019 JGwizdka_PhD601_2008-12-03-sh

    24/30

    Jacek Gwizdka 24

    Individual Differences Example 5

    plainresult list

    Google

    faceted search - ALVIS

  • 8/3/2019 JGwizdka_PhD601_2008-12-03-sh

    25/30

    Results: Person (ID) & interactions

    Working Memory (WM) task performance on ALVIS, but noton Googlehi-WM more search effort on ALVIS (more pages, more

    bookmarks, spent more time) than on Google

    lo-WM less effort on ALVIS than on Google

    Google ALVIS

    searcheffort

    high WM

    low WM

  • 8/3/2019 JGwizdka_PhD601_2008-12-03-sh

    26/30

    Yes, Individual Differences - So What?

  • 8/3/2019 JGwizdka_PhD601_2008-12-03-sh

    27/30

    Yes, Individual Differences - So What?

    Research questions

    1. relationships among: user characteristics,

    info presentation and user performance, preference,

    perception effective, efficient, pleasurable

    2. identification of user types

    3. identification of user states

    e.g., overloaded, lost

  • 8/3/2019 JGwizdka_PhD601_2008-12-03-sh

    28/30

    Yes, Individual Differences - So What?

    Approaches:

    accommodate different users in one interface

    provide alternative interfaces for different users

    create interfaces that adapt to users

  • 8/3/2019 JGwizdka_PhD601_2008-12-03-sh

    29/30

    Identify User: Rich Data Collection

    User model.Interaction pattern processing, etc. (e.g.machine learning)

    Observable useractions

    (including data from input

    devices, e.g., mouse pressure)

    Optionalintervention

    System

    Physiologicaldata (e.g. EEG)

    Notification

    Eye-tracking data

    Identified Usertype or state

  • 8/3/2019 JGwizdka_PhD601_2008-12-03-sh

    30/30

    Jacek Gwizdka 30

    Thank You

    Questions?Jacek Gwizdka

    Dept. of Library & Information Science

    Rutgers UniversityNew Brunswick, NJ, USA

    http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~jacekg/

    http://www.gwizdka.com

    This research was partially funded by a grant from IMLS: LG-06-07-0105-07

    Personalization of the Digital Library Experience