The Image of the Interface: How People Use Landmarks to Develop Spatial Memory of Commands in Graphical Interfaces
Why this work is in the frame
A frame that forgets how it found something cannot be audited. These are the routes that admitted this work.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Graphical User Interfaces present commands at particular locations, arranged in menus, toolbars, and ribbons. One hallmark of expertise with a GUI is that experts know the locations of commonly-used commands, such that they can find them quickly and without searching. Although GUIs have been studied for many years, however, there is still little known about how this spatial location memory develops, or how designers can make interfaces more memorable. One of the main ways that people remember locations in the real world is landmarks – so we carried out a study to investigate how users remember commands and navigate in four common applications (Word, Facebook, Reader, and Photoshop). Our study revealed that people strongly rely on landmarks that are readily available in the interface (e.g., layout, corners, and edges) to orient themselves and remember commands. We provide new evidence that landmarks can aid spatial memory and expertise development with an interface, and guidelines for designers to improve the memorability of future GUIs.
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.
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 | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| 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 it