Exploring Types of Interaction Styles in Software Interfaces and their Impact on Cognitive Effort

• Ana Emilia de Melo Queiroz UNIVASF

DOI: https://doi.org/10.5753/sbceb.2024.1654

Abstract

The presentations in instructional tasks vary from simple representations such as paper and pencil to more complex dynamic displays found in current interactive devices, through interaction styles. Studies in the field have highlighted that potential mental planning during the execution of these tasks is influenced by the operational cost associated with the interaction style used, affecting both the time and cognitive effort required. Therefore, we suggest an instructional activity for elementary school students, aiming to present different types of interaction styles and discuss the cognitive effort associated with each one.

References

Alshaer, A., Regenbrecht, H., and O’Hare, D. (2017). Immersion factors affecting perception and behaviour in a virtual reality power wheelchair simulator. Applied Ergonomics, 58:1–12.

Bai, L., Liu, X., and Su, J. (2023). Chatgpt: The cognitive effects on learning and memory. Brain-X, 1(3):e30.

Dourish, P. (2001). Where the action is: the foundations of embodied interaction. MIT press.

Firat, M. (2023). How chat gpt can transform autodidactic experiences and open education? Hasan, B. and Ahmed, M. U. (2007). Effects of interface style on user perceptions and behavioral intention to use computer systems. Computers in Human Behavior, 23(6):3025–3037.

Jetter, H.-C., Reiterer, H., and Geyer, F. (2014). Blended interaction: understanding natural human–computer interaction in post-wimp interactive spaces. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 18:1139–1158.

Kothiyal, A., Majumdar, R., Pande, P., Agarwal, H., Ranka, A., and Chandrasekharan, S. (2014). How does representational competence develop? explorations using a fully controllable interface and eye-tracking. In Proceedings of the 22nd international conference on computers in education, pages 738–743. Asia-Pacific Society for Computers in Education Nara.

Kyritsis, M., Gulliver, S. R., and Feredoes, E. (2016). Environmental factors and features that influence visual search in a 3d wimp interface. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 92:30–43.

Michaelidou, N., Gagatsis, A., and Pitta-Pantazi, D. (2004). The number line as a representation of decimal numbers: A research with sixth grade students. International Group for the Psychology of Mathematics Education.

Norman, D. (1986). Cognitive engineering in donald norman and stephen draper (eds.) user-centered design: new perspectives on human-computer interaction.

Shapiro, A. and Niederhauser, D. (2013). Learning from hypertext: Research issues and findings. Handbook of research on educational communications and technology, pages 603–618.

Shneiderman, B., Plaisant, C., Cohen, M., Jacobs, S., Elmqvist, N., and Diakopoulos, N. (2016). Designing the user interface: strategies for effective human-computer interaction. Pearson.

Souza, C. d., Leite, J. C., Prates, R. O., and Barbosa, S. D. (1999). Projeto de interfaces de usuário: perspectivas cognitivas e semióticas. In XIX Congresso da Sociedade Brasileira de Computação, pages 420–470.