An empirical assessment of adaptation techniques

Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - Proceedings

Volumn , Issue , 2005, Pages 2009-2012

  Tsandilas, Theophanis ^a   Schraefel, M C ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF TORONTO   (Canada)

^b UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHAMPTON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

Adaptation techniques; Adaptive interfaces; User study

Indexed keywords

ADAPTATION TECHNIQUES; ADAPTIVE INTERFACE; ADAPTIVE USER INTERFACE; EMPIRICAL ASSESSMENT; EMPIRICAL STUDIES; USER PERFORMANCE; USER STUDY;

HUMAN ENGINEERING;

USER INTERFACES;

EID: 84869108276     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: 10.1145/1056808.1057079     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (10)

1. Bederson, B.B. (2000) Fisheye menus. ACM UIST. San Diego, USA. p. 217-225.
2. Brusilovsky, P. (1996). Methods and Techniques of Adaptive Hypermedia. User Modeling and User- Adapted Interaction. 6(2-3). p. 87-129.
3. Findlater, L. and J. McGrenere. (2004) A comparison of static, adaptive, and adaptable menus. ACM CHI. Vienna, Austria. p. 89-96.
4. Fischer, G. (2001). User Modeling in Human- Computer Interaction. User Modeling and User- Adapted Interaction. 11(1-2). p. 65-86.
5. Greenberg, S. and I. Witten. (1985). Adaptive personalized interfaces: A question of viability. Behaviour and Information Technology. 4(1). p. 31-45.
6. Höök, K. (1997) Evaluating the Utility and Usability of an Adaptive Hypermedia System. ACM IUI. Orlando, USA. p. 179-186.
7. Lee, J.D. and K.A. See. (2004). Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance. Human Factors. 46(1). p. 50-80.
8. Mitchell, J. and B. Shneiderman. (1989). Dynamic versus static menus: An exploratory comparison. SIGCHI Bulletin. 20(4). p. 33-37.
9. Tiernan, S.L., E. Cutrell, M. Czerwinski, and H. Hoffman. (2001) Effective Notification Systems Depend on User Trust. INTERACT. Tokyo. p. 684-685.
10. Tsandilas, T. and m.c. schraefel. (2004). Usable Adaptive Hypermedia Systems. New Review of Hypermedia and Multimedia. 10(1). p. 5-29.