Development of a dual-modal presentation of Texts for small screens

International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction

Volumn 24, Issue 8, 2008, Pages 776-793

  Xu, Shuang ^a   Fang, Xiaowen ^a,b   Brzezinski, Jacek ^a   Chan, Susy ^a  

^a DEPAUL UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b NONE   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

USER INTERFACES;

ANALYTICAL PROBLEMS; COMPREHENSION PERFORMANCE; MULTIMODAL INTERFACE DESIGNS; SMALL SCREENS; SPATIAL INFORMATIONS; TEXTUAL INFORMATION; VERBAL INFORMATION; WORKING MEMORY MODEL;

HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION;

EID: 57349174425     PISSN: 10447318     EISSN: 15327590     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/10447310802537566     Document Type: Article

References (41)

1. Baddeley, A. D. (1986). Working memory. New York: Oxford University Press.
2. Baddeley, A. D. (1992). Working memory. Science, 225, 556-559.
3. Brewster, S. (2002). Overcoming the lack of screen space on mobile computers. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing, 6(3), 188-205.
4. Broadbent, D. (1958). Perception and communication. London: Pergamon.
5. Chan, S., Fang, X., Brzezinski, J., Zhou, Y., Xu, S., & Lam, J. (2002). Usability for mobile commerce across multiple form factors. Journal of Electronic Commerce Research, 3(3), 187-199.
6. Cook, M. J., Cranmer, C., Finan, R., Sapeluk, A., & Milton, C. (1997). Memory load and task interference: Hidden usability issues in speech interfaces. Engineering Psychology and Cognitive Ergonomic, 3, 141-150.
7. Coull, J., & Tremblay, L. E. (2001). Examining the specificity of practice hypothesis: Is learning modality specific? Research Quarterly for Exercise & Sport, 72(1), 345-354.
8. Curtis, R. V. (1988). When is a science analogy like a social studies analogy? A comparison of text analogies across two disciplines. Instructional Science, 13, 169-177.
9. Davis, F. D. (1989, September). Perceived usefulness, perceived ease of use, and user acceptance of information technology. MIS Quarterly, pp. 319-340.
10. Dubois, M., & Vial, I. (2000). Multimedia design: The effects of relating multi-modal information. Journal of Comupter Assisted Learning, 16, 157-165.
11. Eimer, M. (1999). Can attention be directed to opposite locations in different modalities? An ERP study. Clinical Neurophysiology, 110, 1252-1259.
12. Elting, C., Zwickel, J., & Malaka, R. (2002). Device-dependant modality selection for user-interfaces: An empirical study. In Proceedings of the 7th International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces IUI '02 (pp. 55-62). New York: ACM Press.
13. Hede, A. (2002). An integrated model of multimedia effects on learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 11(2), 177-191.
14. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1983). Mental models. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
15. Johnson-Laird, P. N. (1989). Mental models. In M. I. Posner (Ed.), Foundations of cognitive science (pp. 469-499). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
16. Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
17. Koufaris, M. (2002). Applying the technology acceptance model and flow theory to online consumer behavior. Information systems research, 23(2), 205-233.
18. Logie, R., Gilhooly, K., & Wynn, V. (1994). Counting on working memory in arithmetic problem solving. Memory & Cognition, 22, 395-410.
19. Mayer, R. E. (1989). Models for understanding. Review of Educational Research, 59(1), 43-64.
20. Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1991). Animations need narrations: An experimental test of the dual-coding hypothesis. Journal of Educational Psychology, 83(4), 484-490.
21. Mayer, R. E., & Gallini, J. K. (1990). When is an illustration worth thousand words? Journal of Educational Psychology, 82(4), 715-726.
22. Mousavi, S. Y., Low, R., & Sweller, J. (1995). Reducing cognitive load by mixing auditory and visual presentation modes. Journal of Education Psychology, 87(2), 319-334.
23. Navon, D., & Gopher, D. (1979). On the economy of the human-processing system. Psychological Review, 86(3), 214-255.
24. Paivio, A. (1971). Imagery and cognitive processes. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
25. Paivio, A. (1986). Mental representations: A dual-coding approach. New York: Oxford University Press.
26. Paternò, F., & Giammarino, F. (2006). Authoring interfaces with combined use of graphics and voice for both stationary and mobile devices. In Proceedings of the Working Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (pp. 329-335). New York: ACM Press.
27. Poison, M. C., & Friedman, A. (1988). Task-sharing within and between hemispheres: a multiple-resources approach. Human Factors, 30(5), 633-643.
28. Proctor, R., & Van Zandt, T. (1994). Human factors in simple and complex systems. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
29. Solon, A., McKevitt, P., & Curran, K. (2004). Mobile multimodal presentation. In Proceedings of the 12th annual ACM international conference on Multimedia table of contents (pp. 440-443). New York: ACM Press.
30. Stock, O., Strapparava, C., & Zancanaro, M. (1997). Multi-modal information exploration. Journal of Educational Computing Research, 17(3), 277-295.
31. Travers, M. (1989). A visual representation for knowledge structures. In Proceedings of the Second Annual ACM Conference On Hypertext (pp. 147-158). New York: ACM Press.
32. Treviranus, J., & Coombs, N. (2000). Bridging the digital divide in higher education. In Proceedings of the EDUCAUSE 2000 Conference. Nashville Tennessee, http://net.educause. edu/ir/library/pdf/EDU0028.pdf (last accessed November 15,2008).
33. Venkatesh, V. (2000). Determinants of perceived ease of use: Integrating control, intrinsic motivation, and emotion into the technology acceptance model. Information systems research, 11(4), 342-365.
34. Venkatesh, V., & Davis, F. D. (2000). A theoretical extension of the technology acceptance model: Four longitudinal field studies. Management Science, 46(2), 186-204.
35. Webster, J., & Ho, H. (1997). Audience engagement in multimedia presentations. ACM SIGMIS Database., 28(2).
36. Wickens, C. (1980). The structure of attentional resource. In R. S. Nickerson (Ed.), Attention and performance VIII (pp. 239-257). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
37. Wickens, C. (1984). Processing resources in attention. In R. Parasuraman & R. Davies (Eds.), Varieties of attention (pp. 63-102). New York: Academic Press.
38. Wickens, C. D., Gordon, S. E., & Liu, Y. (1998). An introduction to human factors engineering. New York: Addison Wesley Longman.
39. Wickens, C. D., & Liu, Y. (1988). Code and modalities in multiple resources: A success and a qualification. Human Factors, 30(5), 599-616.
40. Yee, P., Hunt, E., & Pellegrino, J. (1991). Coordinating cognitive information: Task effects and individual differences in integrating from several sources. Cognitive Psychology, 23, 615-680.
41. Yoo, H. Y., & Cheon, S. H. (2006). Visualization by information type on mobile device. In Proceedings of the 2006 Asia-Pacific Symposium on Information Visualization (Vol. 60, pp. 143-146). Darlinghurst, Australia: Australian Computer Society, Inc.