 |
Fifth Workshop on User-Centred Design and Evaluation of Adaptive Systemsin conjunction with AH2006 |
|
| Dublin, Ireland, June 20 - 23, 2006 |
Proceedings |
||||||||
|
The workshop's proceedings are available, as a single file, and as individual papers. Note that these proceedings are part of the single volume that incorporates the proceedings of all workshops held in AH2006. This volume (ISSN 1649-8623) can be downloaded from the AH2006 site (under "Workshop Reports"). You may also want to have a look at the summary presentation of the workshop's results delivered during a special session in AH2006. The normative reference for the UCDEAS06 proceedings is:
Single fileDownload the proceedings
of the workshop ( The proceedings of all workshops held in AH2006 can be downloaded from the AH2006 site (under "Workshop Reports") as a single volume.
Table of contents and individual papers
Invited talk
Long papers
Short papers
Invited talkHow Is User-Centered Design for Adaptive
Systems Different; and How Is It the Same? Abstract. Just about all of the usual methods for the user-centered design and evaluation of interactive systems are in principle applicable to systems that adapt to their users. This talk will first look at some special considerations that arise with user-adaptive systems (in addition to the goal of evaluating the accuracy of the system’s user modeling) such as: the possibility of using relevant human experts either as judges of the appropriateness of the system’s adaptation or as wizards within the Wizard-of-Oz paradigm; the difficulties involved in empirically comparing adaptive and nonadaptive variants of a given system; and the need to deal with the frequently large differences in users’ reactions to system adaptivity. The second part of the talk will illustrate why many research and design methods that are often used for other types of system deserve to be applied to a comparable extent to user-adaptive systems. In particular, it is argued that the designers of a user-adaptive system should be open-minded with regard to the possibility that the goals that they intend to achieve with user-adaptivity can better be achieved by other means. Long papersA User-Centered Approach for Adaptive
Systems Evaluation Abstract. This position paper proposes a user-centered approach for the design and the evaluation of adaptive systems. A list of less common, but useful HCI techniques will be presented. After having introduced the peculiarities that characterize the evaluation of adaptive systems, the paper describes the evaluation methodologies following the temporal phases of evaluation, according to a user-centered approach. [Paper - The Use of Design Patterns for Evaluating
Personalisable Web-based Systems Abstract. This paper presents a method for performing expert-based scenario-driven usability evaluation of personalisable and configurable web-based systems, based on an innovative method called DEPTH (DEsign PaTterns & Heuristics criteria). DEPTH focuses on the specificities of web-based system functionality, emphasises usability issues within the specific context of their use (e.g. e-learning, e-commerce, etc) and adopts the main principles of the scenario-based evaluation techniques. The main idea behind DEPTH is to minimize the preparatory phase of a usability evaluation process, and allow a novice usability expert (i.e. one who is not necessarily familiar with the specific genre/type of the web-based system under evaluation) to perform the usability evaluation study effectively. Towards this goal, we (re)use expert’s design knowledge captured in design patterns for the specific genre of the system under evaluation. Such use of design patterns, which are also associated with scenarios for expert’s inspection, is one of the innovative aspects of our method. In this paper we will describe an example of DEPTH’s application for evaluating adaptive web-based systems, thus clarifying the main points of the method. [Paper - Evaluating Adaptive Generation of
Problems in Programming Tutors – Two Studies Abstract. We have developed an associative mechanism for adaptive generation of problems in tutors. We evaluated the adaptation using both withinsubjects and between-subjects design. In within-subjects evaluation, instead of comparing control and test groups of students, we compared control and test groups of student-concepts: i.e., concepts on which students received practice against those on which they did not receive practice due to limited duration of the practice. We found that adaptation targets the concepts less well understood by students. In between-subjects evaluation, we compared an adaptive tutor against a non-adaptive version, based on the premise that exclusionary adaptation should be compared against the worst-case (all-inclusive case) and inclusionary adaptation should be compared against the best-case (all-exclusive case). We found that students who use the adaptive version learn with fewer problems. We have proposed “gain” of adaptation as the percentage decrease/ increase that results from exclusionary/inclusionary adaptation respectively. [Paper - The user as wizard: A method for early
involvement in the design and evaluation of adaptive systems Abstract. User testing tends to put participants in the role of the user. To evaluate complex systems (such as adaptive systems), a Wizard-of-Oz study may be used, where the role of the system is made easier by allowing somebody on the design team to perform part of it. In this paper, we propose a method whereby participants take the role of the system, allowing early user involvement in the design process. Participants’ actions can inspire the design of adaptive algorithms, and their rationale can inspire evaluation criteria. We illustrate the method with a number of case studies. [Paper - Eliciting Requirements for a Adaptive
Decision Support System through Structured User Interviews Abstract. Eliciting user requirements at an early stage of software development can safe development time and effort. However, identify requirements for adaptivity, such as inter-individual differences in needs or preferences is not trivial. In this paper we revisit results reported in a previous paper from a methodological point of view. Using an example, we argue that scenarios in combination with structured interviews are not able to adequately identify adaptivity requirements due to reasons inherent to the method, such as the users’ trust and their ability to anticipate system funtionality. We suggest that more implicit methods must be used at early development phases to obtain unbiased results. [Paper - Short papersValidating the Evaluation of Adaptive
Systems by User Profile Simulation Abstract. Availability of automated tools and methods to evaluate adaptive systems is a fundamental requirement to promote a wider adoption of these systems. An obstacle in this direction is the difficulty of validating any automatic tool created to help on the evaluation of adaptive systems. In this work a simulation-based technique is proposed as an economic way for testing evaluation tools based on log analysis. Simulog, a tool that implements this simulation technique, is also presented. [Paper - Adaptive Municipal e-forms Abstract. Adaptation of electronic forms seems to be a step forward to reduce the burden for people who fill in forms. Municipalities more and more offer eforms online that can be used to request a municipal product or service. To create adaptive e-forms that satisfy the need of end-users, involvement of those users in design activities and evaluation is necessary. This paper describes the design of adaptive municipal e-forms and the way user-groups were involved in the design activities and will be involved in evaluation. [Paper - User-centered Evaluation of Adaptive
and Adaptable Systems Abstract. Adaptive and adaptable systems provide tailored output to various users in various contexts. While adaptive systems base their output on implicit inferences, adaptable systems use explicitly provided information. Since the presentation or output of these systems is adapted, standard user-centered evaluation methods do not produce results that can be easily generalized. This calls for a reflection on the appropriateness of standard evaluation methods for user-centered evaluations of these systems. We have conducted a literature review to create an overview of the methods that have been used. When reviewing the empirical evaluation studies we have, among other things, focused on the variables measured and the implementation of results in the (re)design process. The goal of our review has been to compose a framework for user-centered evaluation. In the next phase of the project, we intend to test some of the most valid and feasible methods with an adaptive or adaptable system. [Paper -
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
