Exploring the design space for adaptive graphical user interfaces
Abstract
For decades, researchers have presented different adaptive user interfaces and discussed the pros and cons of adaptation on task performance and satisfaction. Little research, however, has been directed at isolating and understanding those aspects of adaptive interfaces which make some of them successful and others not. We have designed and implemented three adaptive graphical interfaces and evaluated them in two experiments along with a non-adaptive baseline. In this paper we synthesize our results with previous work and discuss how different design choices and interactions affect the success of adaptive graphical user interfaces.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Gajos et al. found an adaptive interface to be faster than a static one, but no adaptable alternative was evaluated.
“Gajos et al. [Gajos, Czerwinski, Tan, & Weld, 2006] found an adaptive interface to be faster than a static one, but no adaptable alternative was evaluated.”
From A field evaluation of an adaptable two-interface design for feature-rich software (2007) · cites this paper as Gajos, Czerwinski, Tan, & Weld, 2006
Cites
Trust in Automation: Designing for Appropriate Reliance
Lee, J. D., & See, K. A. (2004) · Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society · doi:10.1518/hfes.46.1.50_30392 · Cited by 6,605 · cited 1× · see citing works
“This is consistent with previous studies on trust [[6],[12]].”
ResultSplit menus: effectively using selection frequency to organize menus
Sears, A., & Shneiderman, B. (1994) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/174630.174632 · Cited by 293 · cited 5× · see citing works
“The extremely slow pace of adaptation in [[11]] (once per session) resulted in strongly positive results while the fast pace in [[2]] (up to once per interaction) caused the same interface to fare worse than the non-adaptive baseline.”
BackgroundMethodResultInfluentialA comparison of static, adaptive, and adaptable menus
Findlater, L., & McGrenere, J. (2004) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/985692.985704 · Cited by 291 · cited 3× · see citing works
“The extremely slow pace of adaptation in [11] (once per session) resulted in strongly positive results while the fast pace in [ 2 ] (up to once per interaction) caused the same interface to fare worse than the non-adaptive baseline.”
MethodResultInfluentialAn evaluation of a multiple interface design solution for bloated software
McGrenere, J., Baecker, R. M., & Booth, K. S. (2002) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/503376.503406 · Cited by 169 · see citing works
Pros and Cons of Controllability: An Empirical Study
Jameson, A., & Schwarzkopf, E. (2002) · Lecture Notes in Computer Science · doi:10.1007/3-540-47952-x_21 · Cited by 77 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Guidelines for Human-AI Interaction
Amershi, S., Weld, D., Vorvoreanu, M., Fourney, A., Nushi, B., Collisson, P., Suh, J., Iqbal, S., Bennett, P. N., Inkpen, K., et al. (2019) · Proceedings of the 2019 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems · doi:10.1145/3290605.3300233 · Cited by 2,439 · see citing works
Self-citationSupporting Novice to Expert Transitions in User Interfaces
Cockburn, A., Gutwin, C., Scarr, J., & Malacria, S. (2015) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/2659796 · Cited by 193 · see citing works
The Placebo Effect of Artificial Intelligence in Human–Computer Interaction
Kosch, T., Welsch, R., Chuang, L., & Schmidt, A. (2022) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/3529225 · Cited by 137 · see citing works
The Influence of Personality Traits and Cognitive Load on the Use of Adaptive User Interfaces
Gajos, K. Z., & Chauncey, K. (2017) · Proceedings of the 22nd International Conference on Intelligent User Interfaces · doi:10.1145/3025171.3025192 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Self-citationA field evaluation of an adaptable two-interface design for feature-rich software
McGrenere, J., Baecker, R. M., & Booth, K. S. (2007) · ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction · doi:10.1145/1229855.1229858 · Cited by 52 · see citing works
- Authors
- Gajos, K. Z., Czerwinski, M., Tan, D. S., & Weld, D. S.
- Affiliations
- Microsoft (United States) (US)
- University of Washington (US)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the working conference on Advanced visual interfaces - AVI '06
- Publisher
- ACM Press
- Published
- 2006
- Pages
- 201
- OpenAlex
- W2034511689
- Cited by
- 198
- References
- 5
- Citations by year
- 2026: 8 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 5 · 2021: 4 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 12 · 2016: 11 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 12 · 2013: 10 · 2012: 8
- Type
- conference abstract
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- International Conference on Advanced Visual Interfaces (AVI) (publishedVersion)
- Topics
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Usability and User Interface Design
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Human-Computer Interaction › Interactive and Immersive Displays
- Physical Sciences › Computer Science › Artificial Intelligence › Advanced Software Engineering Methodologies
- Keywords
- adaptive user interfaces, graphical user interface, design space, user satisfaction, task performance, design decisions, interaction design
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
