Animated Versus Static User Interfaces: A Study of Mathsigner™

In this paper we report a study aimed at determining the effects of animation on usability and appeal of educational software user interfaces. Specifically, the study compares 3 interfaces developed for the Mathsigner™ program: a static interface, an interface with highlighting/sound feedback, and an interface that incorporates five Disney animation principles. The main objectives of the comparative study were to: (1) determine which interface is the most effective for the target users of Mathsigner™ (e.g., children ages 5-11), and (2) identify any Gender and Age differences in using the three interfaces. To accomplish these goals we have designed an experiment consisting of a cognitive walkthrough and a survey with rating questions. Sixteen children ages 7-11 participated in the study, ten males and six females. Results showed no significant interface effect on user task performance (e.g., task completion time and number of errors); however, interface differences were seen in rating of appeal, with the animated interface rated more 'likeable' than the other two. Task performance and rating of appeal were not affected significantly by Gender or Age of the subjects.

Authors:

• Scott Dyer
• Nicoletta Adamo-Villani

Keywords:

• Animation
• Animated interfaces
• EducationalSoftware
• Human Computer Interaction
• Multimedia.

References:

[1] N. Adamo-Villani, J. Doublestein, and Z. Martin, "The MathSigner: An
interactive learning tool for American Sign Language K-3
mathematics," Proceedings of 8th International Conference on
Information Visualization (IV04), London, July 14-16 2004, pp. 713-
716.
[2] J. Lasseter, "Principles of traditional animation applied to 3D computer
animation," ACM SIGGGRAPH computer graphics, vol. 21, issue 4,
1987, pp. 35 - 44.
[3] F. Thomas, and O. Johnston, Disney animation: The illusion of life,
Abbeville Press: New York, 1981.
[4] B. W. Chang, and D. Ungar, Animation: From cartoons to the user
interface. Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH Symposium on user
interface software and technology, 1993, pp. 45-55.
[5] A. Agarawala and R. Balakrishnan, "Keepin- it real: Pushing the
desktop metaphor with physics, piles, and the pen" Proceedings of the
CHI 2006 interacting with large surfaces, 2006, pp. 1283-1292.
[6] R. Baecker, I. Small, and R. Mander, Bringing icons to life.
Proceedings of ACM CHI -91 Conference on human factors in
computing system, 1991, pp. 1-6.
[7] M. Donskoy, and V. Kaptelinin, Window navigation with and without
animation: a comparison of scroll bars, zoom, and fisheye view.
Proceedings of the ACM -97 conference on human factors in computing
systems, 1997, pp. 279 - 280.
[8] B. Thomas, and V. Demczuk, Which animation effects improve indirect
manipulation? Interacting with computers, vol. 2, 2002, pp. 211-229.
[9] B. Bederson and A. Boltman, Does animation help users build mental
maps of spatial information? In Proceedings of the 1999 IEEE
symposium on information visualization, 1998, pp. 28-35.
[10] B. H. Thomas and P. Calder, "Applying cartoon animation techniques
to graphical user interfaces," ACM transitions on computer human
interaction, vol. 8, issue 3, 2001, pp. 198 - 222.
[11] P. Baudisch, D. Tan, M. Collomb, D. Robbins, K. Hinckley, M.
Agrawala, et al. Phosphor: Explaining transitions in the user interface
using afterglow effects. Proceedings of the ACM SIGGRAPH
symposium on user interface software and technology, 2006, pp.169 -
178.
[12] J. Rieman, M. Franzke, D. Redmiles, Usability evaluation with the
cognitive walkthrough. CHI -95 Mosaic of creativity, 1995, pp. 387-
388.
[13] Adobe Flash, Adobe Systems Incorporated, 2005.