Location via proxy:   [ UP ]  
[Report a bug]   [Manage cookies]                
skip to main content
10.1145/2858036.2858174acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
research-article

Getting Users' Attention in Web Apps in Likable, Minimally Annoying Ways

Published: 07 May 2016 Publication History

Abstract

Web applications often need to present the user new information in the context of their current activity. Designers rely on a range of UI elements and visual techniques to present the new content to users, such as pop-ups, message icons, and marquees. Web designers need to select which technique to use depending on the centrality of the information and how quickly they need a reaction. However, designers often rely on intuition and anecdotes rather than empirical evidence to drive their decision-making as to which presentation technique to use. This work represents an attempt to quantify these presentation style decisions. We present a large (n=1505) user study that compares 15 visual attention-grabbing techniques with respect to reaction time, noticeability, annoyance, likability, and recall. We suggest glowing shadows and message icons with badges, as well as more possibilities for future work.

Supplementary Material

ZIP File (pn0805-file4.zip)
pn0805-file4.zip
suppl.mov (pn0805-file3.mp4)
Supplemental video

References

[1]
Piotr D. Adamczyk and Brian P. Bailey. If Not Now, When?: The Effects of Interruption at Different Moments Within Task Execution. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, (2004), 271--278.
[2]
G. Susanne Bahr and Richard A. Ford. How and why pop-ups don't work: Pop-up prompted eye movements, user affect and decision making. Computers in Human Behavior 27, 2 (2011), 776--783.
[3]
Brian P. Bailey and Joseph A. Konstan. On the need for attention-aware systems: Measuring effects of interruption on task performance, error rate, and affective state. Computers in Human Behavior 22, 4 (2006), 685--708.
[4]
Lyn Bartram, Colin Ware, and Tom Calvert. Moving Icons: Detection And Distraction. IFIP TC.13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (INTERACT), (2001), 157--166.
[5]
Jan Panero Benway and David M. Lane. Banner Blindness: Web Searches Often Miss "Obvious" Links. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting, (1998), 463--467.
[6]
Moira Burke, Anthony Hornof, Erik Nilsen, and Nicholas Gorman. High-Cost Banner Blindness: Ads Increase Perceived Workload, Hinder Visual Search, and Are Forgotten. ACM Transactions on ComputerHuman Interaction. 12, 4 (2005), 423--445.
[7]
Edward Cutrell, Mary Czerwinski, and Eric Horvitz. Notification, Disruption, and Memory: Effects of Messaging Interruptions on Memory and Performance. INTERACT, (2001), 263--269.
[8]
Mary Czerwinski, Eric Horvitz, and Susan Wilhite. A diary study of task switching and interruptions. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, (2004), 175--182.
[9]
Laura Dabbish, Gloria Mark, and Victor González. Why do I keep interrupting myself?: environment, habit and self-interruption. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, (2011).
[10]
Andy Field, Jeremy Miles, and Zoë Field. Discovering Statistics Using R. Sage, Los Angeles, (2012), 749--811.
[11]
James Fogarty, Scott E. Hudson, Christopher G. Atkeson, Daniel Avrahami, Jodi Forlizzi, Sara Kiesler, Johnny C. Lee, and Jie Yang. (2005). Predicting Human Interruptibility with Sensors. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 12(1), 119--146.
[12]
Fong-Ling Fu, Rong-Chang Su, and Sheng-Chin Yu. EGameFlow: A scale to measure learners' enjoyment of e-learning games. Computers & Education 52, 1 (2009), 101--112.
[13]
Tony Gillie, and Donald Broadbent. What makes interruptions disruptive? A study of length, similarity, and complexity. Psychological Research 50, 4 (1989), 243--250.
[14]
Jennifer Gluck, Andrea Bunt, and Joanna McGrenere. (2007). Matching attentional draw with utility in interruption. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, 41. http://doi.org/10.1145/1240624.1240631
[15]
Chris Harrison, Brian Amento, Stacey Kuznetsov, and Robert Bell. Rethinking the Progress Bar. ACM Symposium on User Interface Software and Technology, (2007), 115--118.
[16]
Chris Harrison, Zhiquan Yeo, and Scott E. Hudson. Faster Progress Bars: Manipulating Perceived Duration with Visual Augmentations. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, (2010), 1545--1548.
[17]
Weiyin Hong, James Y.L. Thong, and Kar Yan Tam. How Do Web Users Respond to Non-Banner-Ads Animation? The Effects of Task Type and User Experience. Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology 58, 10 (2007), 1467--1482.
[18]
Bernardo A. Huberman and Fang Wu. The Economics of Attention: Maximizing User Value in InformationRich Environments. Advances in Complex Systems 11, 4 (2008), 487--496.
[19]
Ipeirotis, P. Demographics of Mechanical Turk. (2010).
[20]
Shamsi T. Iqbal and Brian P. Bailey. Investigating the Effectiveness of Mental Workload as a Predictor of Opportune Moments for Interruption. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, (2005), 1489--1492.
[21]
Sheree Josephson and Michael E. Holmes. Clutter or content? How on-screen enhancements affect how TV viewers scan and what they learn. Eye Tracking Research & Application Symposium, (2006), 155--162.
[22]
Daniel Kahneman. Attention and effort. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall, (1973).
[23]
Paul P. Maglio and Christopher S. Campbell. Tradeoffs in displaying peripheral information. Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, 1 (2000), 241--248.
[24]
Gloria Mark, Daniela Gudith, and Ulrich Klocke. The cost of interrupted work: more speed and stress. Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, (2008), 8--11.
[25]
Winter Mason and Duncan J. Watts. Financial Incentives and the "Performance of Crowds." HCOMP, (2009).
[26]
D. Scott McCrickard, C.M. Chewar, Jacob P. Somervell, and Ali Ndiwalana. A model for notification systems evaluation--assessing user goals for multitasking activity. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction. 10, 4 (2003), 312--338.
[27]
D. Scott McCrickard and C.M. Chewar. User Goals and Attention Costs. Communications of the ACM 46, 3 (2003), 67--72.
[28]
NASA Task Load Index (TLX). Accessed from http://humansystems.arc.nasa.gov/groups/TLX/downloa ds/TLX.pdf
[29]
Justin W. Owens, Barbara S. Chaparro, and Evan M. Palmer. Text Advertising Blindness: The New Banner Blindness? Journal of Usability Studies 6, 3 (2011), 172--197.
[30]
Zachary Pousman and John Stasko. A taxonomy of ambient information systems: four patterns of design. Proceedings of the working conference on Advanced visual interfaces, (2006), 67--74.
[31]
David A. Savitz and Andrew F. Olshan. Multiple comparisons and related issues in the interpretation of epidemiologic data. American Journal of Epidemiology 142, 9 (1995), 904--908
[32]
Herbert A. Simon. Designing organizations for an information-rich world. Computers, Communication, and the Public Interest, The Johns Hopkins Press (1969).

Cited By

View all
  • (2024)Predicting the Noticeability of Dynamic Virtual Elements in Virtual RealityProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642399(1-17)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
  • (2024)The Effects of Pop-Up Window Position and Gender Difference on the Visual Search of Mobile ApplicationsHuman-Centered Design, Operation and Evaluation of Mobile Communications10.1007/978-3-031-60487-4_18(237-247)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2024
  • (2023)Attentive Notifications: Minimizing Distractions of Mobile Notifications through Gaze TrackingProceedings of the 25th International Conference on Mobile Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/3565066.3608695(1-7)Online publication date: 26-Sep-2023
  • Show More Cited By

Index Terms

  1. Getting Users' Attention in Web Apps in Likable, Minimally Annoying Ways

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Information & Contributors

    Information

    Published In

    cover image ACM Conferences
    CHI '16: Proceedings of the 2016 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
    May 2016
    6108 pages
    ISBN:9781450333627
    DOI:10.1145/2858036
    Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

    Sponsors

    Publisher

    Association for Computing Machinery

    New York, NY, United States

    Publication History

    Published: 07 May 2016

    Permissions

    Request permissions for this article.

    Check for updates

    Author Tags

    1. alerts
    2. attention
    3. notifications
    4. user interface design

    Qualifiers

    • Research-article

    Conference

    CHI'16
    Sponsor:
    CHI'16: CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
    May 7 - 12, 2016
    California, San Jose, USA

    Acceptance Rates

    CHI '16 Paper Acceptance Rate 565 of 2,435 submissions, 23%;
    Overall Acceptance Rate 6,199 of 26,314 submissions, 24%

    Contributors

    Other Metrics

    Bibliometrics & Citations

    Bibliometrics

    Article Metrics

    • Downloads (Last 12 months)69
    • Downloads (Last 6 weeks)4
    Reflects downloads up to 16 Oct 2024

    Other Metrics

    Citations

    Cited By

    View all
    • (2024)Predicting the Noticeability of Dynamic Virtual Elements in Virtual RealityProceedings of the 2024 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3613904.3642399(1-17)Online publication date: 11-May-2024
    • (2024)The Effects of Pop-Up Window Position and Gender Difference on the Visual Search of Mobile ApplicationsHuman-Centered Design, Operation and Evaluation of Mobile Communications10.1007/978-3-031-60487-4_18(237-247)Online publication date: 1-Jun-2024
    • (2023)Attentive Notifications: Minimizing Distractions of Mobile Notifications through Gaze TrackingProceedings of the 25th International Conference on Mobile Human-Computer Interaction10.1145/3565066.3608695(1-7)Online publication date: 26-Sep-2023
    • (2023)NotiFade: Minimizing OHMD Notification Distractions Using FadingExtended Abstracts of the 2023 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3544549.3585784(1-9)Online publication date: 19-Apr-2023
    • (2023)Product emotional design method based on image metaphor: a technical noteJournal of Engineering Design10.1080/09544828.2023.217927634:2(180-201)Online publication date: 21-Feb-2023
    • (2023)Designing for privacy: Exploring the influence of affect and individual characteristics on users' interactions with privacy policiesComputers & Security10.1016/j.cose.2023.103468134(103468)Online publication date: Nov-2023
    • (2022)Online Terms and Conditions: Improving User Engagement, Awareness, and Satisfaction through UI DesignProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3491102.3517720(1-22)Online publication date: 29-Apr-2022
    • (2022)Predicting Opportune Moments to Deliver Notifications in Virtual RealityProceedings of the 2022 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems10.1145/3491102.3517529(1-18)Online publication date: 29-Apr-2022
    • (2022)Informing Users: Effects of Notification Properties and User Characteristics on Sharing AttitudesInternational Journal of Human–Computer Interaction10.1080/10447318.2022.208659239:14(2796-2824)Online publication date: 27-Jun-2022
    • (2021)Overdoselifesavers.org: a mixed-method evaluation of a public information website on experiences of overdose and using take-home naloxone to save livesDrugs: Education, Prevention and Policy10.1080/09687637.2020.1858758(1-11)Online publication date: 22-Jan-2021
    • Show More Cited By

    View Options

    Get Access

    Login options

    View options

    PDF

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader

    Media

    Figures

    Other

    Tables

    Share

    Share

    Share this Publication link

    Share on social media