Harder to Ignore? Revisiting Pop-Up Fatigue and Approaches to Prevent It
Harder to Ignore? Revisiting Pop-Up Fatigue and Approaches to Prevent It
复制标题
更难以忽视？
DOI：
--
复制
发表时间：
2014
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Manya Sleeper
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cristian Bravo;L. Cranor;Saranga Komanduri;Stuart E. Schechter;Manya Sleeper
在SOUPS 2013上，Bravo-Lillo等人展示了一个阿尔蒂官方实验，他们通过要求参与者重复响应弹出对话框的内容来使参与者习惯于弹出对话框的内容，然后测量参与者注意对话框中文本字段变化的能力。实验处理包括各种吸引器：设计用于吸引或迫使用户注意对话框中的文本字段的界面元素。在所有的治疗中，研究人员在引入参与者应该注意到的变化之前，让参与者接触大量重复的对话。因此，Bravo-Lillo等人无法测量习惯化如何影响注意力，或者测量吸引子对抗这些影响的能力;他们只能比较高水平习惯化下吸引子的表现。我们复制并改进了Bravo-Lillo等人的方法。实验中，增加了低习惯化条件，以测量由于习惯化增加而导致的注意力下降。在没有吸引子的情况下，习惯化的增加导致对对话变化做出反应的参与者比例下降了三倍。与之前的研究一样，更大比例的参与者对使用吸引子的治疗中对话的变化做出了反应，这些吸引子延迟了参与者消除对话的能力。我们发现，与对照组一样，增加习惯性降低了注意到某些吸引物变化的参与者比例。然而，对于迫使用户与包含更改的文本字段进行交互的两个吸引子，提高习惯化水平并没有降低对更改做出反应的参与者比例。这些吸引子
At SOUPS 2013, Bravo-Lillo et al. presented an artificial exper-iment in which they habituated participants to the contents of a pop-up dialog by asking them to respond to it repeatedly, and then measured participants’ ability to notice when a text field within the dialog changed. The experimental treatments included various attractors : interface elements designed to draw or force users’ attention to a text field within the dialog. In all treatments, researchers exposed participants to a large number of repetitions of the dialog before introducing the change that participants were supposed to notice. As a result, Bravo-Lillo et al. could not measure how habituation affects attention, or measure the ability of attractors to counter these effects; they could only compare the performance of attractors under high levels of habituation. We replicate and improve upon Bravo-Lillo et al.’s experiment, adding the low-habituation conditions essential to measure reductions in attention that result from increasing habituation. In the absence of attractors, increasing habituation caused a three-fold decrease in the proportion of participants who responded to the change in the dialog. As with the prior study, a greater proportion of participants responded to the change in the dialog in treatments using attractors that delayed participants’ ability to dismiss the dialog. We found that, like the control, increasing habituation reduced the proportion of participants who noticed the change with some attractors. However, for the two attractors that forced the user to interact with the text field containing the change, increasing the level of habituation did not decrease the proportion of participants who responded to the change. These attractors