China
Africa
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
IMPROVING THE USABILITY OF MOBILE PHONE SERVICES USING SPATIAL INTERFACE METAPHORS
Published in Paul T. McCabe, Contemporary Ergonomics 2004, 2018
Mark Howell, Steve Love, Mark Turner, Darren Van Laar
The Case made for the use of metaphors is that they reduce the time and effort necessary for new users to leam to use a system (Carroll and Mack, 1985). An effective interface metaphor is one that is appropriate, explicit, and quickly understood, and will lead the user to develop a mental model of the system that is closely related to the system image. Humans have well-developed spatial abilities as a result of navigating real world spatial environments, and a number of studies have reported that users also like to organise computer-based information spatially (e.g. Jones and Dumais, 1986). The only previous work conducted on the use of speech-based spatial metaphors for hierarchically structured automated telephone services was by Dutton et al (1999). They found improvements in usability for a department store metaphor-based service suggesting that interface metaphors may indeed provide a suitable conceptual model for the design of automated mobile phone services.
The FRIEND21 Framework for Human Interface Architectures
Published in Constantine Stephanidis, User Interfaces for All, 2000
The third property of metaware is context sensitivity. The appropriateness of an interface metaphor to a given user task depends on the context. Context sensitivity in Metaware concerns both the semantic and the syntactic level of the interface. At the semantic level, it is called context-sensitive selection, whereas at the syntactic level it is called context-sensitive disclosure. Context-sensitive selection means that a given combination of presentation and function domains is selected so that it is the most appropriate for a specific context; the selection is made within the degrees of freedom allowed by polysemy and synonymy. Context-sensitive disclosure means that interface metaphors are presented to the user in an arrangement that is appropriate to the spatial and temporal context.
M
Published in Phillip A. Laplante, Dictionary of Computer Science, Engineering, and Technology, 2017
metaphor originally, indicating a rhetoric figure. The concept is used in the design of user interfaces for providing an analogy between some domain familiar to the user and the (typically more abstract) functionality of the system. The best-known example is a visual interface metaphor as in the desktop metaphor commonly adopted for personal computers (featuring cursors shaped like pencils, hard disk storage areas represented by pictures).
Navigating the Mobile Applications: The Influence of Interface Metaphor and Other Factors on Older Adults’ Navigation Behavior
Published in International Journal of Human–Computer Interaction, 2023
Metaphor, which originates from the literacy and linguistic concept, has been prevalent since the launch of graphical user interface and even longer. Based on the work of Lakoff and Johnson (1980), interface metaphor could be categorized into three major types: orientational metaphor, ontological metaphor, and structural metaphor. The orientational metaphors describe concepts by spatial orientation. For example, the “next” button could be denoted by an arrow to the right, in order to show the navigating direction of a task progress (Barr et al., 2002). The ontological metaphors employ objects and substances around us to provide basic understanding for specific concepts, such as treating time as an object. They can be found everywhere in graphic user interface design, which aims to refer, identify, or quantify various interface concepts. For instance, the designers compare the file to an object so that it could be considered in terms of size and location. In comparison, the structural metaphor is more specific than the ontological metaphor, because “it moves from X is an object to specifying the object that X is” (Barr et al., 2002). In this way, structural metaphor deals more related to our conscious minds and designers can therefore compare interface concepts with the existences of everyday life, such as the desktops, folders, files, albums, rolls and so forth.