...
首页> 外文期刊>Procedia Manufacturing >Predicting Human Performance Differences on Multiple Interface Alternatives: KLM, GOMS and CogTool are Unreliable
【24h】

Predicting Human Performance Differences on Multiple Interface Alternatives: KLM, GOMS and CogTool are Unreliable

机译:预测多种接口替代方案上的人为性能差异:KLM,GOMS和CogTool不可靠

获取原文
   

获取外文期刊封面封底 >>

       

摘要

Cognitive modeling tools, such as KLM, GOMS and CogTool, can be used to predict human performance on interface designs before they are implemented and without the need for user testing. The model predictions can inform interface design, because they allow designers to quantitatively compare multiple interface alternatives. However, little research has been done to determine how accurately cognitive modeling tools can predict human performance differences on interface alternatives. It is also unclear whether different modeling tools produce practically significantly different results. The goal of this study was to evaluate the accuracy of KLM, GOMS and CogTool for predicting human performance differences on multiple interface alternatives. Three tasks on three interface alternatives were modeled using KLM, GOMS and CogTool. The model predictions of each tool were compared to performance data of 20 expert users performing the tasks on the interfaces. For all tasks and all modeling tools, the model-predicted trend did not correspond to the trend in the human performance data. For the six statistically significant differences between the interfaces, all tools predicted the direction of difference correctly in four cases, and incorrectly in two cases. The average difference between the predicted and the observed magnitude of difference between the interfaces was 5.49 s for KLM (range: 0.8 – 13.35), 3.98 s for GOMS (range: 0.8 – 9.75) and 3.49 s for CogTool (range: 0.13 – 10.65). These differences between the tools were not statistically significant. In conclusion, KLM, GOMS and CogTool cannot reliably predict human performance differences on multiple interface alternatives. Our results indicate that if the models predict faster performance on interface A than on interface B, humans actually perform faster on interface B than on interface A in one third of the cases. This raises questions about the validity of these cognitive modeling tools in interface design practice.
机译:认知建模工具,例如KLM,GOMS和CogTool,可用于在实现界面设计之前预测其人类绩效,而无需用户测试。模型预测可以为界面设计提供信息,因为它们允许设计人员定量比较多个替代界面。但是,很少有研究来确定认知建模工具如何准确地预测人机界面替代品的性能差异。还不清楚不同的建模工具是否会产生实际上显着不同的结果。这项研究的目的是评估KLM,GOMS和CogTool的准确性,以预测多种界面替代品上的人为性能差异。使用KLM,GOMS和CogTool对三个接口替代方案上的三个任务进行了建模。将每个工具的模型预测与在界面上执行任务的20位专家用户的性能数据进行比较。对于所有任务和所有建模工具,模型预测的趋势与人类绩效数据中的趋势并不对应。对于界面之间的六个统计学上显着的差异,所有工具在四种情况下正确预测差异的方向,在两种情况下错误地预测差异的方向。界面之间的预测差异值和观察到的差异值之间的平均差异为:KLM为5.49 s(范围:0.8 – 13.35),GOMS为3.98 s(范围:0.8 – 9.75)和CogTool为3.49 s(范围:0.13 – 10.65) )。工具之间的这些差异在统计上并不显着。总之,KLM,GOMS和CogTool无法可靠地预测多种接口替代方案上的人为性能差异。我们的结果表明,如果模型预测接口A的性能比接口B的性能快,那么在三分之一的情况下,人类实际上在接口B上的性能要比在接口A上的性能快。这就提出了关于这些认知建模工具在界面设计实践中的有效性的问题。

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号