skip to main content
10.1145/1518701.1518900acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
short-paper

Finding canonical behaviors in user protocols

Published:04 April 2009Publication History

ABSTRACT

While the collection of behavioral protocols has been common practice in human-computer interaction research for many years, the analysis of large protocol data sets is often extremely tedious and time-consuming, and automated analysis methods have been slow to develop. This paper proposes an automated method of protocol analysis to find canonical behaviors --- a small subset of protocols that is most representative of the full data set, providing a reasonable "big picture" view of the data with as few protocols as possible. The automated method takes advantage of recent algorithmic developments in computational vision, modifying them to allow for distance measures between behavioral protocols. The paper includes an application of the method to web-browsing protocols, showing how the canonical behaviors found by the method match well to sets of behaviors identified by expert human coders.

References

  1. Byrne, M. D., Anderson, J. A., Douglass, S.,&Matessa, M. (1999). Eye tracking the visual search of click-down menus. Proc. CHI 99, 402--409. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  2. Card, S., Moran, T.,&Newell, A. (1983). The psychology of human-computer interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  3. Card, S. K., Pirolli, P., Van Der Wege, M., Morrison, J. B., Reeder, R. W., Schraedley, P. K.,&Boshart, J. (2001). Information scent as a driver of web behavior graphs: Results of a protocol analysis method for web usability. Proc. CHI 2001, 498--505. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  4. Chi, E. H., et al. (2003). The bloodhound project: automating discovery of web usability issues using the InfoScent simulator. Proc. CHI 2003, 505--512. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  5. Cutrell, E.,&Guan, Z. (2007). What are you looking for? An eye-tracking study of information usage in web search. Proc. CHI 2007, 407--416. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  6. Denton, T., Shokoufandeh, A., Novatnack, J.,&Nishino, K. (2008). Canonical subsets of image features. Computer Vision and Image Understanding, 112, 55--66. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. Ericsson, K.A.,&Simon, H.A. (1984). Protocol analysis: Verbal reports as data. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  8. Gary, M.R.,&Johnson, D.S. (1979). Computers and intractability: A guide to the theory of NP--completeness. San Francisco, CA: Freeman. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  9. Hornof, A. J.,&Halverson, T. (2003). Cognitive strategies and eye movements for searching hierarchical computer displays. Proc. CHI 2003, 249--256. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  10. Levenshtein, V. (1966). Binary codes capable of correcting deletions, insertions and reversals. Soviet Physics Daklady, 10, 707--710.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. Paganelli, L.,&Paternòò, F. (2002). Intelligent analysis of user interactions with web applications. Proc. CHI 2002, 111--118. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. Pirolli, P., Fu, W.-T., Reeder, R.,&Card, S.K. (2002). A user-tracing architecture for modeling interaction with the World Wide Web. In Proc. AVI 2002. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  13. Ritter, F.E.,&Larkin, J.H. (1994). Developing process models as summaries of HCI action sequences. Human-Computer Interaction, 9, 345--383. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  14. Salvucci, D.D.,&Anderson, J.R. (2001). Automated eye-movement protocol analysis. Human-Computer Interaction, 16, 39--86. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  15. Sanderson, P., Scott, J., Johnston, T., Mainzer, J., Watanabe, L.,&James, J. (1994). MacSHAPA and the enterprise of exploratory sequential data analysis (ESDA). International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 41, 633--681. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  16. Smith, J.B., Smith, D.K.,&Kuptsas, E. (1993). Automated protocol analysis. Human-Computer Interaction, 8, 101--145. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. Taatgen, N. A.,&Lee, F. J. (2003). Production compilation: A simple mechanism to model complex skill acquisition. Human Factors, 45, 61--76.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  18. Toh, K.C., Todd, M.J.,&Tutuncu, R. (1999). SDPT3: a Matlab package for semidefinite programming. Optimization Methods and Software, 11, 545--581.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref

Index Terms

  1. Finding canonical behaviors in user protocols

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '09: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      April 2009
      2426 pages
      ISBN:9781605582467
      DOI:10.1145/1518701

      Copyright © 2009 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 4 April 2009

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • short-paper

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '09 Paper Acceptance Rate277of1,130submissions,25%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

      Upcoming Conference

      CHI '24
      CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      May 11 - 16, 2024
      Honolulu , HI , USA

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader