Personalization for Individual Differences

Personalization of Interactive Information Systems to Match Cognitive Differences Among People

Department of Library & Information Science Rutgers University

New Brunswick, NJ, USA SCILS

PhD 601 - Dec 3, 2008

http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~jacekg/ http://www.gwizdka.com

Background
Electrical engineering Software development Information systems Human factors / industrial engineering Human-computer interaction

Jacek Gwizdka: http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~jacekg/ http://www.gwizdka.com

Research Interests

personalization is multi-dimensional
Facets of personalization Relevance/interest Task Problem state Personal characteristics
cognitive characteristics, affect, education, demography

What can be personalized content

source selection; genre

presentation
results; documents

Personal preferences
interaction styles, info organization

interaction
search UI; navigation

Context/situation
location, urgency

help
form & time of delivery

(Belkin, 2006)

user interaction: effective, efficient, pleasurable

Overview
Cognitive differences relevance to information interaction implications on the design of information systems approaches that take them into account

Individual Differences - Example 1

Cognitive differences and reading

Example 1

Moud a text-ouly sight bee ideale for soweoue mith a reabing bisorber? Harblee, Iwages are uot dab for accessaabilledea. They actnally iucreese cowqreheusiou aub nsadililte for wost anbleuces. Mhat wuay qeiqle bo uot kuom, throngh, it there is wuch mor at the accessability for au iwage theu jnst its alt text. Sowe qeople mroughly assnwe that iwages are dab for accessedilite, siuce alt text esseutially reqlaces the iwage mith a text-ouly versiou of that iwage.

Example 1

Would a text-only site be ideal for someone with a reading disorder? Hardly, images are not bad for accessibility. They actually increase comprehension and usability for most audiences. What many people do not know, though, is there is much more to the accessibility of an image then just its alt text. Some people wrongly assume that images are bad for accessibility, since alt text essentially replaces the image with a text-only version of that image.

Individual Difference Example 1

Dyslexia difference in perceptual and cognitive processing

Moud a text-ouly sight bee ideale for soweoue mith a reabing bisorber? Harblee, Iwages are uot dab for accessaabilledea. They actnally iucreese cowqreheusiou aub nsadililte for wost anbleuces. Mhat wuay qeiqle bo uot kuom, throngh, it there is wuch mor at the accessability for au iwage theu jnst its alt text. Sowe qeople mroughly assnwe that iwages are dab for accessedilite, siuce alt text esseutially reqlaces the iwage mith a text-ouly versiou of that iwage.

Individual Differences - Example 2

Cognitive differences and information search in web directories

Individual Difference Example 2

Cognitive Style: FD / FI: field-dependence / independence

FD
holistic perception (whole objects) global focus external references passive in locating information

FI
analytic perception (parts) focus on detail internal references active in locating information

Witkin et al. (1971)

Individual Difference Example 2

Cognitive Style: FD / FI:
implications for information systems

FD
externally imposed structure extra guidance subject organization breadth
(more main cats, less sub-cats)

FI
own structure locate info directly

depth

(less main cats, more sub-cats)

separate category levels sorted by relevance

categories together alphabetical organization

Witkin et al. (1971)

Example 2
FD

FI
From: Chen, S. Y., Magoulas, G. D., & Macredie, R. D. (2004). Cognitive styles and users responses to structured information representation. International Journal on Digital Libraries, V4(2), 93-107.

Example 2 Subject Categories

FD

FI
From: Chen, S. Y., Magoulas, G. D., & Macredie, R. D. (2004). Cognitive styles and users responses to structured information representation. International Journal on Digital Libraries, V4(2), 93-107.

Individual Differences - Example 3

Cognitive differences and information scanning (in email)

Individual Differences In Email Use

Email Avoidance Email Addiction
I will not: - check my email more than twice a day - skip meals to spend time sending email - base my self-worth on the no of emails I receive

You should check your e-mail more often. I fired you over 3 weeks ago.

The 12-step program to overcoming addiction to e-mail.

Example 3 - Scanning Email Messages

Scanning Task: find message in inbox based on partial header info Differences in cognitive abilities: working memory WM, visual memory
VM, flexibility of closure CF

UI-Visual

UI-Text

(Gwizdka, CASCON2002, PhD2004, Interacting with Computers2004)

Example 3 - Scanning Email Messages

better visual memory
(mv1 & mv2)

less scrolling
CF

better working memory

(wm)

less sorting
WM MV1 MV2

better flexibility of closure

(cf2)

more scrolling

Individual Differences - Example 4

Cognitive differences and information keeping (in / around email)

Example 4 the Keepers and the Cleaners

Is there a difference in in email habits? Esp. in how people handle todo/task-related messages Cognitive difference - flexibility of closure FD ~ low CF
holistic perception (whole objects) global focus external references passive in locating information (CF)

FI ~ high CF
analytic perception (parts) focus on detail internal references active in locating information

Example 4 the Keepers and the Cleaners

1- The Cleaners: transfer todos from email 2- The Keepers: keep todos in email

Email Habit Variables determining clusters

When email is read Email interrupts other tasks Uses search in email Keeps events in email Keeps to-do's in email Emails self-reminders

The Cleaners
Cluster #1 no no no no yes at specific times

The Keepers
Cluster #2 yes yes yes yes no all the time

Example 4 the Keepers and the Cleaners

Flexibility of closure and the Cleaners:
(CF)

differed between the Keepers

Low CF The Cleaners High CF The Keepers

Individual Differences - Example 5

Cognitive differences and information search
(difference search engines)

Individual Differences Example 5

plain result list Google

faceted search - ALVIS

Jacek Gwizdka 24

Results: Person (ID) & interactions

Working Memory (WM) task performance on ALVIS, but not
on Google

hi-WM more search effort on ALVIS (more pages, more

bookmarks, spent more time) than on Google

lo-WM less effort on ALVIS than on Google

search effort

high WM

low WM Google ALVIS

Yes, Individual Differences - So What?

Yes, Individual Differences - So What?

Research questions 1. relationships among: user characteristics, info presentation and user performance, preference, perception effective, efficient, pleasurable 2. identification of user types 3. identification of user states e.g., overloaded, lost

Yes, Individual Differences - So What?

Approaches: accommodate different users in one interface provide alternative interfaces for different users create interfaces that adapt to users

Identify User: Rich Data Collection

Eye-tracking data

Physiological data (e.g. EEG)

Optional intervention Observable user actions

(including data from input devices, e.g., mouse pressure)

System

User model.
Interaction pattern processing, etc. (e.g. machine learning)

Identified User type or state

Notification

Thank You Questions? Jacek Gwizdka

Dept. of Library & Information Science Rutgers University New Brunswick, NJ, USA

http://www.scils.rutgers.edu/~jacekg/ http://www.gwizdka.com

This research was partially funded by a grant from IMLS: LG-06-07-0105-07 Personalization of the Digital Library Experience

Jacek Gwizdka

30