Gender Differences in Interface Type Task Analysis
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The three pillars of usability are efficiency, effectiveness and satisfaction. Today’s human-computer interface (HCI), used in cellular phone, software, Internet, personal digital assistants and others should be designed to meet these three pillars. This research investigates the influence of two different interfaces on usability as they relate to gender. An experiment was conducted such that objective data were first captured while participants were performing specific image editing tasks, followed by a subjective evaluation of the participants’ experience. The independent variables were gender and the interface. The dependent variables were task completion time, perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness. Results suggest that males outperform females in new tasks while using a menu driven interface and both new and common tasks while using an icon based interface. Both genders seem to take longer time to complete the same task (for both common and new) using an icon based interface. It was also found that there was general agreement among gender and interface type on the level of perceived ease of use and perceived usefulness of the image editing software used. Important differences in the distribution characteristics were noted. Implications for researchers and software developers are discussed.
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 distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.002 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 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 teacher head, 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".