Dips and ceilings: understanding and supporting transitions to expertise in user interfaces
Abstract
Interface guidelines encourage designers to include shortcut mechanisms that enable high levels of expert performance, but prior research has demonstrated that few users switch to using them. To help understand how interfaces can better support a transition to expert performance we develop a framework of the interface and human factors influencing expertise development. We then present a system called Blur that addresses three main problems in promoting the transition: prompting an initial switch to expert techniques, minimising the performance dip arising from the switch, and enabling a high performance ceiling. Blur observes the user's interaction with unaltered desktop applications and uses calm notification to support learning and promote awareness of an alternative hot command interface. An empirical study validates Blur's design, showing that users make an early and sustained switch to hot commands, and that doing so improves their performance and satisfaction.
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?
Scarr et al.'s analysis of intermodal performance improvement postulated the existence of an important 'performance dip' that occurs when the user switches to another method.
“However, Scarr et al.'s [2011] analysis of intermodal performance improvement postulated the existence of an important”
From Supporting Novice to Expert Transitions in User Interfaces (2015) · cites this paper as Scarr et al. [2011]
Scarr et al. identify four interface characteristics that contribute to high-performance ceilings.
“Scarr et al. [2011] identify four interface characteristics that contribute to high-performance ceilings, as follows.”
From Supporting Novice to Expert Transitions in User Interfaces (2015) · cites this paper as Scarr et al. [2011]
A performance dip occurs when switching to a new, higher performance ceiling method (intermodal improvement).
“Performance curves characterizing improvement within one interface method (left, intramodal improvement) and the performance dip that occurs when switching to a new, higher performance ceiling method (right, intermodal improvement).”
From Supporting Novice to Expert Transitions in User Interfaces (2015) · cites this paper as Scarr et al. 2011
Cites
Schmidt, R. A., & Bjork, R. A. (1992) · Psychological Science · doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1992.tb00029.x · Cited by 1,582 · see citing works
Triggers and barriers to customizing software
Mackay, W. E. (1991) · Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems Reaching through technology - CHI '91 · doi:10.1145/108844.108867 · Cited by 364 · see citing works
Training wheels in a user interface
Carroll, J. M., & Carrithers, C. (1984) · Communications of the ACM · doi:10.1145/358198.358218 · Cited by 345 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Supporting 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
Self-citationBailly, G., Lecolinet, E., & Nigay, L. (2017) · ACM Computing Surveys · doi:10.1145/3002171 · Cited by 139 · see citing works
- Authors
- Scarr, J., Cockburn, A., Gutwin, C., & Quinn, P.
- Affiliations
- University of Canterbury (NZ)
- University of Saskatchewan (CA)
- Venue
- Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
- Publisher
- ACM
- Published
- 2011-05-07
- Pages
- 2741-2750
- OpenAlex
- W2127555702
- Cited by
- 127
- References
- 3
- Citations by year
- 2026: 7 · 2025: 50 · 2024: 2 · 2023: 1 · 2022: 8 · 2021: 5 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 6 · 2018: 9 · 2017: 5 · 2016: 2 · 2015: 2 · 2014: 7 · 2013: 8 · 2012: 4
- FWCI
- 4.53
- Type
- conference paper
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Locations
- CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (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 › Human-Computer Interaction › Innovative Human-Technology Interaction
- Keywords
- expert performance, interface design, expertise development, performance ceiling, user awareness, learning support, desktop application, user satisfaction
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