Cognitive Abilities and Email: Impact of Interface and Task - Dissertation presentation 2004.05.06

2004-05-06

Cognitive Abilities and Email: Impact of Interface and Task

Jacek Gwizdka

Final Oral Examination – 2004-05-06

Interactive Media LabKnowledge Media Design Institute

University of Toronto

[email protected]

www.emailresearch.org

2004-05-06Jacek Gwizdka

2

Outline

•Motivation & Background•Research Questions•Field study•“TaskView” controlled study•“WebTaskMail” controlled study•Contributions•Future Work


3

Motivation & Background•Information overload in email

•Diversity of information in email à diverse task•Email designed for asynchronous conversations•Email not designed for: − file transfer & management; − contact management; − maintenance of social image; − personal information management;− task and to-do management

MB


4

Issues à Research Opportunities

•Handling messages related to pending tasks problematic

•Effects of email interfaces on behaviour little known•Role of cognitive abilities in email tasks unexplored•More evaluation of email interfaces needed

MB


5

Research Objectives & Questions•More efficient processing of task-laden inboxes

•How are messages related to pending tasks handled in email?

•What are the effects of user interface on email performance?

•How is user performance affected by cognitive abilities?

RQ

à Field Study

à Two Controlled Lab Studies


6

Field Study – Findings• Pending tasks kept in email• User actions compensate for “missing” functionality

(e.g. email to self to keep important tasks on top of inbox)

• Individual differences :

read msg

msg after task

delay

Transfer out of email& Delete

Transfer out of email& Keep in email

Keep Delete

7 users

7+3users

Keep in email 8 users

1+1users

4 users

Message arrives

Future info to PIM applications

FS

n =19 users

do task


7

Controlled User Study #1

• User tasks – information finding :− Header task (H) & Date task (D)

• What are effects of TaskView representation of pending tasks on user performance?

• What are effects of cognitive abilities on user performance?

S1

UI-”Text” – OutlookUI-”Visual” – TaskView

• How can handling of “future” messages be made more efficient?


8

Selected Cognitive AbilitiesWM - working memory:

recall a number of distinct elements for reproductionVM - visual memory:

remember location & orientation of visual informationFC - flexibility of closure:

extract information from distractive background

S1


9

UI * TASK -> time for 1st & 2nd session

0

10

20

30

40

50

Header Date Task

time sec

UI Text 1st sessionUI Visual 1st sessionUI Text 2nd sessionUI Visual 2nd session

•Effect UI * Task on time− Header task faster in UI-Text− Date task faster in UI-Visual

Results: UI*TaskS1


10

Results – Cognitive AbilitiesS1

•Visual Memory & Task

2nd session: Effect of Task * MV2 on time

0

10

20

30

40

50

Header Date Task

time sec

MV2 lowMV2 high

2nd session: Effect of Task * MV1 on time

0

10

20

30

40

50

Header Date Task

time sec

MV1 lowMV1 high

`


11

Results – Cognitive Abilities (cont’d)S1

•Flexibility of Closure & UI * Task

2nd session: Effect of UI * FC on time for Date task

0

10

20

30

40

50

UI-Text UI-Visual UI

time sec

FC lowFC high


12

Controlled User Study #2S2

UI-”Visual” UI-”Text”

• Redesigned interface – WebTaskMail• User tasks: Header, Date & Mixed


13

Results – Subjective Preferences

•UI-Visual easier to use than UI-Text•UI-Visual preferred for: − handling to-do's & events− overview of pending tasks


14

Results – UI Learning (1st session)

Learning curve for UI-Text

00:00

00:10

00:20

00:30

00:40

00:50

01:00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20Question #

time sec Learning curve for UI-Visual

00:00

00:10

00:20

00:30

00:40

00:50

01:00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20Question #

time sec

S2

• Learning effect - both UIs• Difference low/high working memory in UI-Visual

Low WM

High WM

Low WM High WM


15

2nd session: Effect of UI * Task on time

00:00

00:10

00:20

00:30

00:40

00:50

Header Date Mixed Task

time sec

UI TextUI Visual

Results –UI*Task•Effect UI * Task on time

for 2nd session− UI-Text = UI-Visual on Header task− UI-Visual faster on Date task− UI-Text faster on Mixed task

S2


16

WM: short-term store & attention control

− Learning− Interaction− Performance time

Results – Roles of Working Memory

Effect of Working Memory on time

00:00

00:10

00:20

00:30

00:40

00:50

WM low WM high

time sec

1st session2nd session

S2

Effect of Working Memory on sorting

0.0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

WM low WM high

sort/Q

1st session2nd session

Learning curve for UI-Visual

00:00

00:10

00:20

00:30

00:40

00:50

01:00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20Question #

time sec

Low WM

High WM


17

Results – User Clusters

Factorsdiffering between

clusters

Email Handling ClustersCluster #1 – The Cleanerstransfer pending tasks out of

email

Cluster #2 – The Keeperskeep pending tasks

in email

Flexibility of Closure low high

S2

• Two Email Handling Clusters (à Field study)

1) Transfer pending tasks (7 users)2) Keep pending tasks (16 users)

• Differences between clusters:


18

Contributions - 1•Effects of cognitive factors on email tasks− Effects at different interaction stages

– WM à learning & task performance– FC & VM à task performance

− Different performance & interaction measures affected– WM & FC à time, WM & VM à sorting, VMà scrolling

− Opposite direction of effects– WM & VM on sorting

− Multiple roles of working memory in interaction

CO


19

Contributions - 2•Understanding differences in behaviour− In email handling :

flexibility of closure & email experience− In “interaction effort” :

cognitive abilities (CS, WM, VM) & email experience

•Methodological contributions−Developed email reference task and metrics −Demonstrated the effects of tasks on performance

CO


20

Possible Future Work

•Narrow down role of cognitive abilities− eye-tracker & working memory

•Field studies

•UI design− personalized and adaptive UI

FU


21

Acknowledgements

l My academic advisor - Professor Mark Chignelll PhD Committee members: Professors R. Baecker, C.D. Sadleir & E. Tomsl External Examiner: Professor Chris Neuwirthl KMDI l TimeStore: Professor Ron Baecker & Peter Wolfl My colleague - Dr. David Modjeskal Colleagues from Interactive Media Labl Field Study @ Xerox PARC – Dr. Michelle Baldonado, Ken Pier, and othersl This research was financially supported, in part, by NSERC, OGS & BUL

Cognitive Abilities and Email: Impact of Interface and Task - Dissertation presentation 2004.05.06

Education

Transcript of Cognitive Abilities and Email: Impact of Interface and Task - Dissertation presentation 2004.05.06