Towards analytical evaluation of human machine interfaces developed in the context of smart homes
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Designing human machine interfaces that respect the ergonomic norms and following rigorous approaches constitutes a major concern for computer systems designers. The increased need on easily accessible and usable interfaces leads researchers in this domain to create methods and models that make it possible to evaluate these interfaces in terms of utility and usability. Two different approaches are currently used to evaluate human machine interfaces, empirical approaches that require user involvement in the interface development process, and analytical approaches that do not associate the user during the interface development process. This paper presents a study of user performance on two principal tasks of the contextual assistant’s interface, developed in the context of smart homes, to assist persons with cognitive disabilities. We use three different methods to analyze and evaluate this interface, focusing basically on time of execution. Two of the models developed are based on cognitive models, which are ACT-R and GOMS and the third one is based on the Fitts’ Law model. The results show that, all models give a good prediction of user performance, even if the cognitive models show better accuracy of the user performance. Furthermore, they provide a better insight into cognitive abilities required to interact with the interface.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.021 | 0.092 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.004 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Open science | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".