1887
Volume 25, Issue 3
  • ISSN 0142-5471
  • E-ISSN: 1569-979X
USD
Buy:$35.00 + Taxes

Abstract

Abstract

Developments in information technology during the past 40 years have presented new opportunities for information designers and also posed new challenges. Computer controlled displays are now so ubiquitous that most people in everyday life need to interact with information shown on screens. Many of the characteristics of these readers have not changed: they forget things, get distracted, make assumptions, etc. Research has confirmed that designing an interaction style to reduce the demands made on people’s sensory and cognitive processes helps them accomplish tasks more easily. There has undoubtedly been progress, particularly with mobile devices. Graphical user interfaces and touch screens can make interactions feel intuitive, almost conversational, but interface glitches remain. These arise both from the tension inherent in designing for experienced and novice users, and from design decisions often involving people with differing priorities. The features of interfaces will continue to change but the challenge of finding ways to support people’s sensory, cognitive and conative characteristics will continue.

Loading

Article metrics loading...

/content/journals/10.1075/idj.25.3.06wri
2020-10-22
2021-05-12
Loading full text...

Full text loading...

References

  1. Black, A., Luna, P., Lund, O., & Walker, S.
    (Eds.) (2017) Information design: research and practice. Abingdon, Oxon: Routledge. 10.4324/9781315585680
    https://doi.org/10.4324/9781315585680 [Google Scholar]
  2. Carroll, J. M., Mack, R. L., Lewis, C. H., Grischkowsky, N. L., & Robertson, S. R.
    (1985) Exploring a word processor. Human Computer Interaction, 1(3), 283–307. 10.1207/s15327051hci0103_3
    https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327051hci0103_3 [Google Scholar]
  3. Griffin, J., & Wright, P.
    (2008) Older readers can be distracted by embellishing graphics in text. European Journal of Cognitive Psychology, 21(5), 740–757. 10.1080/09541440802155627
    https://doi.org/10.1080/09541440802155627 [Google Scholar]
  4. Kolers, P. A., Wrolstad, M. E., & Bouma, H.
    (Eds.) (1980) Processing of Visible Language 2. New York, NY: Plenum Press. 10.1007/978‑1‑4684‑1068‑6
    https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4684-1068-6 [Google Scholar]
  5. Lidwell, W., Holden, K., & Butler, J.
    (2003) Universal Principles of Design. Gloucester, MA: Rockport Publishers.
    [Google Scholar]
  6. Nielsen, J.
    (1993) Usability Engineering. San Diego, CA: Academic Press. 10.1016/B978‑0‑08‑052029‑2.50007‑3
    https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-0-08-052029-2.50007-3 [Google Scholar]
  7. Nielsen, J., & Budiu, R.
    (2012) Mobile usability: Synopsis of iPad problems. Berkeley, CA: New Riders.
    [Google Scholar]
  8. Norman, D. A.
    (2011) Living with complexity. Cambridge, MA: The MIT Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  9. Office for National Statistics
    Office for National Statistics (2020) Frequency of internet use by age group, Great Britain: 2019. Release date 18 February 2020. InStatistical bulletin: Internet users 2019. Ref number 11293. Great Britain: Office for National Statistics.
    [Google Scholar]
  10. Raskin, J.
    (2000) The humane interface: New directions for designing interactive systems. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.
    [Google Scholar]
  11. Redish, J.
    (2007) Letting go of the words: Writing web content that works. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
    [Google Scholar]
  12. Sharp, H., Rogers, Y., & Preece, J.
    (2019) Interaction design: beyond human-computer interaction (5th ed.). Chichester, UK: John Wiley and Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  13. Schriver, K. A.
    (1997) Dynamics in document design. New York, NY: John Wiley and Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  14. Soroka, A. J., Wright, P., Belt, S., Pham, D. T., Dimov, S., De Roure, D. C., & Petrie, H.
    (2006) User choices for modalities of instructional information. Proceedings of 4th International IEEE Conference on Industrial Informatics (pp. 16–18). INDIN’06. August 2006, Singapore. 10.1109/INDIN.2006.275835
    https://doi.org/10.1109/INDIN.2006.275835 [Google Scholar]
  15. Te’eni, D., Carey, J., & Zhang, P.
    (2007) Human computer interaction: Developing effective organizational information systems. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley and Sons.
    [Google Scholar]
  16. Tufte, E. R.
    (1983) The visual display of quantitative information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  17. Wong, C. Y., Ibrahim, R., Hamid, T. A., & Mansor, E. I.
    (2020) Measuring expectation for an affordance gap on a smartphone user interface and its usage among older adults. Human Technology, 16(1), 6–34. 10.17011/ht/urn.202002242161
    https://doi.org/10.17011/ht/urn.202002242161 [Google Scholar]
  18. Wright, P.
    (1971) Writing to be understood: Why use sentences?Applied Ergonomics, 2(4), 207–209, 6, 93–134. 10.1016/0003‑6870(71)90106‑2
    https://doi.org/10.1016/0003-6870(71)90106-2 [Google Scholar]
  19. (1977) Presenting technical information: A survey of research findings. Instructional Science, 6, 93–134. 10.1007/BF00121082
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00121082 [Google Scholar]
  20. (1978) Feeding the information eaters: Suggestions for integrating pure and applied research on language comprehension. Instructional Science, 7(3), 249–312. 10.1007/BF00120935
    https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00120935 [Google Scholar]
  21. (1979) The quality control of document design. Information Design Journal, 1(1), 33–42. 10.1075/idj.1.1.05wri
    https://doi.org/10.1075/idj.1.1.05wri [Google Scholar]
  22. (1988) The need for theories of NOT reading: Some psychological aspects of the human-computer interface. InB. A. G. Elsendoorn & H. Bouma (Eds.), Working models of human perception (pp.319–340). London: Academic Press.
    [Google Scholar]
  23. (2006) Talking computers and diversity in older audiences. Gerontechnology, 4(4), 187–189. 10.4017/gt.2006.04.04.002.00
    https://doi.org/10.4017/gt.2006.04.04.002.00 [Google Scholar]
  24. Wright, P., Belt, S., & John, C.
    (2003) Fancy graphics can deter older users: A comparison of two interfaces for exploring healthy lifestyle options. InE. O’Neill, P. Palanque, & P. Johnson (Eds.), People and computers 17: Proceedings of HCI 2003: Designing for society (pp.315–325). London: Springer-Verlag (London) Ltd.
    [Google Scholar]
  25. Wright, P., Creighton, P., & Threlfall, S. M.
    (1982) Some factors determining when instructions will be read. Ergonomics, 25(3), 225–237. 10.1080/00140138208924943
    https://doi.org/10.1080/00140138208924943 [Google Scholar]
  26. Wright, P., Lickorish, A., Hull, A. J., & Umellen, N.
    (1995) Graphics in written directions: Appreciated by readers not by writers. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 9(1), 41–59. 10.1002/acp.2350090104
    https://doi.org/10.1002/acp.2350090104 [Google Scholar]
  27. Wright, P., & Reid, F.
    (1973) Written information: Some alternatives to prose for expressing the outcomes of complex contingencies. Journal of Applied Psychology, 57(2), 160–166. 10.1037/h0037045
    https://doi.org/10.1037/h0037045 [Google Scholar]
  28. Wright, P., Soroka, A. J., & Belt, S.
    (2010) Audio changes how older people follow animations. Gerontechnology, 9(2), 340. 10.4017/gt.2010.09.02.191.00
    https://doi.org/10.4017/gt.2010.09.02.191.00 [Google Scholar]
  29. Wright, P., Soroka, A. J., Belt, S., Pham, D., Dimov, S., DeRoure, D., & Petrie, H.
    (2008) Modality preference and performance when seniors consult online information. Gerontechnology, 7(3), 293–304. 10.4017/gt.2008.07.03.004.00
    https://doi.org/10.4017/gt.2008.07.03.004.00 [Google Scholar]
http://instance.metastore.ingenta.com/content/journals/10.1075/idj.25.3.06wri
Loading
  • Article Type: Research Article
Keyword(s): design team; human cognition; interface design; motivation; older readers
This is a required field
Please enter a valid email address
Approval was successful
Invalid data
An Error Occurred
Approval was partially successful, following selected items could not be processed due to error