An eye tracking study was conducted to evaluate specific design features for a prototype web portal application. This software serves independent web content through separate, rectangular, user-modifiable portlets on a web page. Each of seven participants navigated across multiple web pages while conducting six specific tasks, such as removing a link from a portlet. Specific experimental questions included (1) whether eye tracking-derived parameters were related to page sequence or user actions preceding page visits, (2) whether users were biased to traveling vertically or horizontally while viewing a web page, and (3) whether specific sub-features of portlets were visited in any particular order. Participants required 2-15 screens, and from 7-360+ seconds to complete each task. Based on analysis of screen sequences, there was little evidence that search became more directed as screen sequence increased. Navigation among portlets, when at least two columns exist, was biased towards horizontal search (across columns) as opposed to vertical search (within column). Within a portlet, the header bar was not reliably visited prior to the portlet's body, evidence that header bars are not reliably used for navigation cues. Initial design recommendations emphasized the need to place critical portlets on the left and top of the web portal area, and that related portlets do not need to appear in the same column. Further experimental replications are recommended to generalize these results to other applications.

Article HCI standards on trial: you be the jury Share on Authors: Jaclyn R. Schrier View Profile , Evelyn L. Williams View Profile , Kevin S. MacDonell View Profile , Larry A. Peterson View Profile , Paulien F. Strijland View Profile , Anna M. Wichansky View Profile , James R. Williams View Profile Authors Info & Claims CHI '92: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsJune 1992 Pages 635–638https://doi.org/10.1145/142750.143058Published:01 June 1992 1citation321DownloadsMetricsTotal Citations1Total Downloads321Last 12 Months2Last 6 weeks0 Get Citation AlertsNew Citation Alert added!This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.Manage my AlertsNew Citation Alert!Please log in to your account Save to BinderSave to BinderCreate a New BinderNameCancelCreateExport CitationPublisher SiteGet Access

Voice technology is just beginning to gain a foothold in the information processing world. Applications such as voice mail, credit verification, order entry and airline reservation systems are slowly being introduced. Critics of voice systems frequently point out their limitations with little understanding of their power or advantages. One key determinant of the success or failure of voice systems is the USER INTERFACE. It is important that the dialogue structure, prompts, system feedback and error messages be designed based on user input, testing and evaluation.Another key determinant of the success of voice systems is the careful matching of users, tasks and environment to the technology. Voice technology is often broken down into 3 major categories.Speech compression. Processing allows analog patterns of human speech to be digitized. Once stored in digital form, the information can be transmitted and played back.Common Applications: Voice Mail, Voice Annotation.Text-to-Speech. Processing allows computer-stored text to be translated and retrieved via a “synthesized” voice.Common applications: Remote retrieval of information (E-Mail, Calendar Appointments), Aids to Visually or Vocally Handicapped.Speech Recognition. Processing allows analog patterns of human speech to be translated into their text-based equivalent or into computer commands.Common Applications: Data Entry, Voice Activated Typewriter.

article Free Access Share on Usability testing in the real world Authors: C. Mills American Institutes for Research, Washington, DC American Institutes for Research, Washington, DCView Profile , K. F. Bury IBM Corporation, Santa Teresa, California IBM Corporation, Santa Teresa, CaliforniaView Profile , T. Roberts Xerox Coporation, Palo Alto, California Xerox Coporation, Palo Alto, CaliforniaView Profile , Bruce Tognazzini Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, California Apple Computer Inc., Cupertino, CaliforniaView Profile , A. Wichansky Hewlett-Packard, Palo Alto, California Hewlett-Packard, Palo Alto, CaliforniaView Profile , P. Reed AT&T Bell Laboratories, whippany, New Jersey AT&T Bell Laboratories, whippany, New JerseyView Profile Authors Info & Claims ACM SIGCHI BulletinVolume 17Issue 4April 1986 pp 212–215https://doi.org/10.1145/22339.22373Published:01 April 1986Publication History 3citation816DownloadsMetricsTotal Citations3Total Downloads816Last 12 Months29Last 6 weeks5 Get Citation AlertsNew Citation Alert added!This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.Manage my AlertsNew Citation Alert!Please log in to your account Save to BinderSave to BinderCreate a New BinderNameCancelCreateExport CitationPublisher SiteeReaderPDF