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