Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Effects of time affordance and operation mode on a smart microwave oven touch-sensitive user Interface design

  • Published:
Multimedia Tools and Applications Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

Smart homes have revolutionized our daily lives. With today’s fast-paced lifestyle, pursuing a high quality of life has become many people’s goal and motivation. The purpose of this study is to investigate the user interface design of smart microwave ovens pertinent to time affordance and operation mode. A 2 × 3 mixed factorial design was planned to help explore whether different time affordances (i.e., high and low) and operation modes (i.e., traditional, touch, and smart) may affect users’ task performance and subjective evaluation. Using the convenience sampling method, 24 adults were recruited to participate in the experiment. The experimental data were collected pertinent to task performance, the system usability scale, and through questionnaires created using a 7-point Likert scale, and semi-structured interviews. The generated results revealed that: (1) there was a significant difference in the time affordance. Multiple time information cues can help reduce uncertainty, providing high time affordance to the participants. (2) There were significant differences among different operation modes. A simple and intuitive “smart” type is in line with user expectations. (3) The overall analysis of task performance and satisfaction consistently showed that high time affordance is better than low time affordance in all aspects, and the “smart” type had the best task performance. (4) The user interface design should be followed by users’ experience and the features of the touch product. Partially smart and custom function adjustments may effectively improve the user’s control of smart products.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Log in via an institution

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Fig. 1
Fig. 2
Fig. 3

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Apple Reinvents the Phone with iPhone (2007) Retrieved from https://www.apple.com/newsroom/2007/01/09Apple-Reinvents-the-Phone-with-iPhone/. Press Release by Apple Inc.

  2. Chebat JC, Gelinas-Chebat C, Filiatrault P (1993) Interactive effects of musical and visual cues on time perception: an application to waiting lines in banks. Percept Mot Skills 77(3):995–1020

    Article  Google Scholar 

  3. Chen LH, Liu YC (2017) Affordance and intuitive Interface Design for Elder Users with dementia. Procedia CIRP 60:470–475

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Chen AN, Lee Y, Hwang Y (2018) Managing online wait: designing effective waiting screens across cultures. Inf Manag 55(5):558–575

    Article  Google Scholar 

  5. Conn AP (1995) Time affordances: the time factor in diagnostic usability heuristics. In: proceedings of the 1995 SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. May 7-11. Denver Colorado USA. 186–193. ACM

  6. Evans SK, Pearce KE, Vitak J, Treem JW (2016) Explicating affordances: a conceptual framework for understanding affordances in communication research. J Comput-Mediat Commun 22(1):35–52

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Gaver WW (1991) Technology affordances. In: proceedings of the 1991 SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. April 27-May 2. New Orleans Louisiana USA. 79–84. ACM

  8. Gaver WW (1992) The affordances of media spaces for collaboration. In: proceedings of the 1992 ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work. May 3-7. Monterey California USA. 17–24. ACM

  9. Gibson JJ (1978) The ecological approach to the visual perception of pictures. Leonardo 11(3):227–235

    Article  Google Scholar 

  10. Harrison C, Amento B, Kuznetsov S, Bell R (2007) Rethinking the progress bar. In: proceedings of the 20th annual ACM symposium on user interface software and technology. October 7-10. Newport Rhode Island USA. 115–118. ACM

  11. Hye KJ, Gon KJ, Hak LK (2016) A study on utilization plan for affordance theory-based virtual reality contents. Indian J Sci Technol 9(24):1–7

    Google Scholar 

  12. Johnson EA (1965) Touch display: a novel input/output device for computers. Electron Lett 1(8):219–220

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Kang H, Shin G (2014) Hand usage pattern and upper body discomfort of desktop touchscreen users. Ergonomics 57(9):1397–1404

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Klügl F (2014) Affordance-based interaction design for agent-based simulation models. In: European conference on multi-agent systems. Springer, Cham, pp 51–66

    Google Scholar 

  15. Leahy M, Hix D (1990) Effect of touch screen target location on user accuracy. In proceedings of the human factors society annual meeting (Vol. 34, no. 4, pp. 370-374). SAGE CA: Los Angeles, CA: SAGE publications

  16. Lee CS (2010) Managing perceived communication failures with affordances of ICTs. Comput Hum Behav 26(4):572–580

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Li H, Chen CH (2020) Progress Bar Effects as a Time Clue for the Touch-Sensitive User Interface of a Smart Microwave Oven. In International Conference on Applied Human Factors and Ergonomics. AHFE 2020. Advances in intelligent systems and computing, Vol 1217. Springer, Cham https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-51828-8_11

  18. Li H, Chen CH (2021) Effect of the affordances of the FM new media communication Interface Design for Smartphones. Sensors 21(2):384.1–14. https://doi.org/10.3390/s21020384

  19. Li H, Chen CH (2021) Effects of affordance state and operation mode on a smart washing machine touch sensitive user Interface design. IEEE Sensors J 21:21956–21967. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2021.3101666

  20. Myers BA (1985) The importance of percent-done progress indicators for computer-human interfaces. In proceedings of the 1985 SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems. April. San Francisco California USA. 11–17. ACM

  21. Norman DA (1988) The psychology of everyday things. Basic books, New York, NY

    Google Scholar 

  22. Orphanides AK, Nam CS (2017) Touchscreen interfaces in context: a systematic review of research into touchscreens across settings, populations, and implementations. Appl Ergon 61:116–143

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Osuna EE (1985) The psychological cost of waiting. J Math Psychol 29(1):82–105

    Article  MathSciNet  Google Scholar 

  24. Roy S, Singh PP, Padun A (2021) Game-based learning for the awareness of Culture & Tradition: an exploratory case study on the indigenous Naga tribe. In: Chakrabarti A, Poovaiah R, Bokil P, Kant V (eds) Design for Tomorrow-Volume 2: proceedings of ICoRD 2021. Springer, Singapore, pp 293–304

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  25. Schulz L, Ischebeck A, Wriessnegger SC, Steyrl D, Müller-Putz GR (2018) Action affordances and visuo-spatial complexity in motor imagery: an fMRI study. Brain Cogn 124:37–46

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Shin DH (2017) The role of affordance in the experience of virtual reality learning: technological and affective affordances in virtual reality. Telematics Inform 34(8):1826–1836

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Shin G, Zhu X (2011) User discomfort, work posture and muscle activity while using a touchscreen in a desktop PC setting. Ergonomics 54(8):733–744

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Siek KA, Rogers Y, Connelly KH (2005) Fat finger worries: how older and younger users physically interact with PDAs. In IFIP conference on human-computer interaction (pp. 267-280). Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg

    Google Scholar 

  29. Still JD, Dark VJ (2013) Cognitively describing and designing affordances. Des Stud 34(3):285–301

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Wang Q, Zhang Y, Chen G, Chen Z, Hee HI (2021) Assessment of heart rate and respiratory rate for perioperative infants based on ELC model. IEEE Sensors J 21(12):13685–13694. https://doi.org/10.1109/JSEN.2021.3071882

    Article  Google Scholar 

  31. Wang Q, Liu W, Chen X, Wang X, Chen G, Zhu X (2021) Quantification of scar collagen texture and prediction of scar development via second harmonic generation images and a generative adversarial network. Biomedical Optics Express 12(8):5305–5319

    Article  Google Scholar 

  32. You HC, Chen K (2007) Applications of affordance and semantics in product design. Des Stud 28(1):23–38

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Young JG, Trudeau M, Odell D, Marinelli K, Dennerlein JT (2012) Touch-screen tablet user configurations and case-supported tilt affect head and neck flexion angles. Work 41(1):81–91

    Article  Google Scholar 

  34. Zakay D (1989) Subjective time and attentional resource allocation: An integrated model of time estimation. In: Levin I, Zakay D (eds) Time and human cognition: A life-span perspective. North-Holland, pp 365–397

  35. Zhen ZZ (1993) Cognitive psychology: theory and practice. Laureate, Taipei

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Design, National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, 106335, Taiwan

    Chien-Hsiung Chen & Hongyu Li

Authors
  1. Chien-Hsiung Chen
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Hongyu Li
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Hongyu Li.

Ethics declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.

Consent to participate

Informed consent was obtained from all participants for being included in the study.

Additional information

Publisher’s note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Highlights

1. Accurate countdown numbers and progress bars can help present higher time affordance to the

participants.

2. Participants’ task performance with the "smart" type was better than with the other two types.

3. The overall analysis of task performance and satisfaction consistently showed that high time

affordance is better than low time affordance in all aspects, and the "smart" type had the best task

performance.

4. The "smart" type has the highest usability, and the time affordance has a better visual guidance

function.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Chen, CH., Li, H. Effects of time affordance and operation mode on a smart microwave oven touch-sensitive user Interface design. Multimed Tools Appl 81, 28633–28650 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-022-12818-y

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Revised:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11042-022-12818-y

Keywords

Search

Navigation