2010 International Conference on Computer Applications and Industrial Electronics (ICCAIE 2010), December 5-7, 2010, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia
Cognitive Mapping on User Interface Design Chui Yin Wong Interface Design Program, Faculty of Creative Multimedia, Multimedia University, 63100 Cyberjaya, Malaysia. E-mail:
[email protected]
Abstract—Cognitive mapping has been used to assess spatial knowledge and decodes information about the relative locations and attributes of phenomena in the everyday spatial environment. This paper describes the application of a cognitive mapping technique in relation to user interface design. We refer to Object-Action Interface Model as an underlying principle to draw the relation with cognitive mapping. The most commonly used cognitive mapping technique, namely concept map, has been applied on a bus ticket booking mobile solution using a computer software CMap tool. Keywords — Cognitive Mapping; Concept Map; User Interface Design; Object-Action Interface Model; HumanComputer Interaction
I. INTRODUCTION Today we are living in an era of convergence with rapid technology evolution. We experience tremendous technological advancement and foresee the boundaries between each domain is diminishing and evolving in a ubiquitous society. The impact of ubiquitous society will revolutionize the pattern of one’s lifestyle. One needs to know that we are no longer interacting with conventional products, but surrounded with smart devices and intelligent environments that will gradually ‘invisible’ in our daily lives. It has become an exciting and also challenge for researchers and designers, in particular, interface designer to think of the next generation of user interface design. By understanding this, one needs to understand the history and evolution of user interface design. There are many types of user interfaces that evolve over the decades starting from 1980s of command-based interface to WIMP (Windows, Icons, Menu and Pointing Device) and GUI (graphical user interface), and 1990s of Web, speech, appliance interfaces to the most recent 2000s of mobile, multi-modal, shareable, tangible, augmented and mixed reality, wearable and robotic interfaces [1]. The evolution of user interface uncovers aplenty opportunities for interface designers to think outof-the box of the next user interface design solution. To conceptualize the interaction styles for an interface solution, this can be an uphill task for interface designers when it comes to a more complex and innovative user interface. The cognitive mapping method has been used to assess spatial knowledge and examine how it is created [2], and it has been applied in various disciplines such as anthropology, psychology, disability studies, artificial intelligence and cybernetics, computer science, cognitive
978-1-4244-9053-0/10/$26.00 ©2010 IEEE
287
neuroscience, behavioral economics and finance, ergonomics and user interface design, philosophy of mind, linguistics and geography. In terms of geography, the relation of cognitive mapping is related to pointingdirection and orientation, inter-point distance examination, path integration, landmark navigation and route learning. In this paper, we are particularly interested to focus on the use and application of cognitive mapping on ergonomics and user interface design from a design perspective. However, there are limited studies of applying cognitive mapping into user interface design, in particular on user task-action-object to draw interface design solutions. Therefore, as interface design researchers and practitioners, we are interested to apply how cognitive mapping technique, in particular concept map, can help interface designers to conceptualize the interaction style for interface design solutions. The motivation of this study is to apply a structural graphical diagram using Cmap tool to conceptualize interface design solution for interface designers. II.
COGNITIVE MAPPING AND OBJECT-ACTION INTERFACE MODEL
A. Cognitive Mapping Cognitive mapping is defined as ‘a process of a series of psychological transformations by which an individual acquires, codes, stores, recalls, and decodes information about the relative locations and attributes of phenomena in their everyday spatial environment’ [3]. Cognitive mapping is a neuropsychological process, with both conscious and unconscious aspects. Although cognitive mapping can be generated with or without conscious intent, they are not always self-intimating. Cognitive mapping encompasses the terms of causal mapping [4,5], semantic mapping [6] and concept mapping [7], which usually also refers to mental models, mental maps, cognitive maps, scripts, schemata, and frames of reference. Cognitive mapping techniques are usually used to identify subjective beliefs and to portray these beliefs externally [8]. The general approach is to extract subjective statements from individuals, within a particular problem domain, about meaningful concepts and relations among these concepts, and then to describe these concepts and relations in some kind of graphical layout [4]. The outcome of a cognitive mapping technique is usually referred as a cognitive map. B. Cognitive Map As mentioned earlier, the representation of cognitive mapping is in graphical structure or diagram form to
present information, which is called cognitive map. A cognitive map is defined as ‘an overall mental image or representation of the space and layout of a setting’ [9], which means that the act of cognitive mapping is ‘the mental structuring process leading to the creation of a cognitive map’. Cognitive map is also a term users refer to one’s internal representation of the experienced world. Cognitive mapping includes the various processes used to sense, encode, store, decode, and use this information. Cognitive maps are invariably incomplete and partially distorted, features that can be revealed in external representations or in spatial behaviors. The term of ‘cognitive map’ was developed by Tolman [10] to describe an individual’s internal mental representation of the concepts and relations among concepts. In psychology, this internal mental representation is used to understand the environment and make decisions accordingly. Cognitive maps are regarded as ‘internally represented schemas or mental models for particular problem-solving domains that are learned and encoded as a result of an individual’s interaction with [th]eir environment’ [4]. Therefore, cognitive maps provide a presentation for what is known and believed, and exhibit the reasoning behind purposeful actions [8]. To understand fully the nature and function of a cognitive map, it is required to understand ‘what cognitive maps are’, ‘how they are formed’, and ‘how they work’. Therefore, there are three fundamental questions need to be addressed in the process, which are: (i) what do people need to know? (ii) what do people know? (iii) how do people get their knowledge? • (i) What do people need to know? Given an individual with the limitations and spatial environment complex characteristics, two basic types of information one needs to possess for everyday’s spatial behavior and survival skills are the location and attributes of phenomena [3,11]. A cognitive map consists of both attributes. Since location and attribution are properties of objects as well as of phenomena, we first need to understand what an ‘object’ is. Locational information is a subjective geometry of space, which consists of 2 major components – distance and direction. For instance, we need to know the location we are currently located i.e. Kuala Lumpur and the next destination, Petaling Jaya city, in terms of the distance and direction. To learn the attributes of phenomena, we need to know the attributive information of what kinds of phenomena exist, and is complementary to locational information, which indicates what is at a particular location and why anybody would want to go there. The relationship between and attribute and an object depends on the scale of analysis of the problem at hand which defines what an object is and what an attribute and location information about. An object is usually identified and defined by a set of attributes and bits of locational information. However, what an object is at one spatial scale can become an attribute at another. By understanding the meaning of an object and its attribute of locational information, we denote the relationship to Object-Action Interface (OAI) model [12] in interface design. Section III will illustrate more on how cognitive mapping being applied on an interface design application. • (ii) What do people know?
288
Cognitive maps are complex, highly selective, abstract, and generalized representations in various forms. Cognitive maps are sometimes distorted so that the size (scale) of represented phenomena indicates relative connotative significance. It can be viewed as incomplete, distorted, schematized, and augmented when we find the differences between intergroup and individual exist. For instance, the spatial environment contains many regular and recurrent features; people share common informationprocessing capabilities and strategies; and spatial behavior patterns display similar origins, destinations and frequencies. Therefore, we need to be careful in interpreting the absence of phenomena from cognitive maps as reflecting cognitive discontinuity space. The distortion of cognitive maps indicates the cognitive transformations of both distance and direction. We conclude that we view the world in the way that how we see it because it allows us to view it in that way. Our view accords with our plans or ‘inner mind’ for use of the environment. In other words, the differences between the ‘real world’ and the cognitive maps serve us a useful purpose in spatial behavior. People generally behave in the world ‘as they view it’. Any incompleteness of cognitive maps, these serve as the basis for spatial behavior. • (iii) How do people get their knowledge? People generally gain their knowledge through sensory modalities, and through various interaction style and vicarious sources of information. For instance, we gain knowledge and learn information from different sensory modalities such as sight, sound, touch, smell and taste, which is integrated by our nervous system. Much of our overall conception of the world is based upon information extracted from visual and auditory scanning of the environment. Recently, haptic sensory play an important role to vision and audition to humans, especially in multimedia environment. Such integration of multisensory modalities results in unified perceptual experiences that are coherent across sensory modalities and interpreted by our mind that form perception, information and interpretation of meaning. By understanding these phenomena, we relate how the underlying philosophy of cognitive mapping associate with OAI model [12] and help to inform the interaction style on user interface. C. Concept Map as a Cognitive Mapping Technique The most popular cognitive mapping technique is concept mapping. Concept mapping is developed by [7], which is based on the theory by [13] who emphasized the importance of prior knowledge in being able to learn about new concepts. [7] concluded that ‘meaningful learning involves the assimilation of new concepts and propositions into existing cognitive structures.’ To transform the existing cognitive structure into learning of new concepts, concept map is developed to draw a graphical representation to address such concern. Basically, a concept map is a graphical representation of the structure of knowledge. It is defined as ‘a structured process, focused on a topic or construct of interest, involving input from one or more participants, that produces an interpretable pictorial view (concept map) of their ideas and concepts and how these are interrelated’ [14]. There are several purposes that concept mapping can achieve [7]:
-
To generate ideas (i.e. brainstorming); To design a complex structure (i.e. long texts, hypermedia, large websites, etc.); - To communicate complex ideas; - To aid learning by explicitly integrating new and old knowledge; - To assess understanding or diagnose misunderstanding. A concept map is a graphical representation where nodes (points or vertices) represent concepts, and links (arcs or lines) represent the relationship between concepts. The links, with labels to represent the type of relationship between concepts, can be one-way, two-way, or nondirectional. The concepts and the links may be categorized, and the concept map may show temporal or causal relationships between concepts. [15] defined concept as ‘a perceived regularity in events or objects, or records of events or objects, designated by a label’. Concepts are connected with labeled arrows, in a downward-branching hierarchical structure. The relationship between concepts is articulated in linking phrases such as ‘gives rise to’, ‘results in’, ‘is required by’, or ‘contributes to’. Propositions are statements about some object or event in the universe, either naturally occurring or constructed. Propositions usually contain two or more concepts connected using linking words or phrases to form a meaningful statement. It is sometimes called semantic units, or units of meaning [15]. Another important characteristic of concept map is the inclusion of crosslink. Cross-links are relationships or links between concepts in different segments or domains of the concept map. Figure 1 shows an example of a concept map and its key features [15]:
Figure 1: A concept mapping with its key features [15].
Concept mapping is useful in generating ideas, designing a complex structure, communicating complex ideas, aiding learning by explicitly integrating new and old knowledge, as well as assessing understanding or diagnosing misunderstanding [11,16]. As a consequence, a concept map is a type of cognitive map which is in popular use. In essence, concept map has been used in many industries and disciplines such as healthcare decisionmaking [17], information systems [11], mathematics [18], architecture [19], knowledge management [20] and so forth. There are few studies related in relation of cognitive map with ergonomics and user interface design such as requirement capture of an electronic database [21],
289
information architecture and the web [22], and tangible user interface for wayfinding [23]. D. Object-Action Interface (OAI) Model We refer to Object-Action Interface (OAI) Model as our underlying theory, which is a descriptive and explanatory model that focuses on task and interface objects and actions [12]. The OAI model reflects the higher level of design where most designers dealing with the user interface (UI) tools in creating any interface design solution, and provide valuable guidance for designers of interfaces, online help, and training processes. Graphical User Interface (GUI) has long replaced the command language syntax, and lays the foundation for the current computer operating systems and mobile devices. When interface designers designing an interface solution, it is advisable to use real world ‘object-action’ as metaphor in the user interface process. Thus, GUIs with its direct manipulation attributes coupled with visual appearance of icons and menu represent best solution of real world ‘object-action’ in the interface metaphor. For example, using dustbin as a recycle bin on the desktop of a personal computer is easily recalled and associated by users for throwing unwanted files into a bin. As a result, the emphasis now is on the visual display of user-task objects and actions. It is important to understand user tasks in order to do an object-action design. The task includes the universe of real-world objects with which users work to accomplish their intentions and the actions that they apply those objects [12]. Task actions usually start from high level intentions that are decomposed into intermediate goals and individual steps. Tasks include hierarchy of objects and actions at high and low levels. Tasks may not be perfect at the first place, but they are comprehensive and useful, and interface designers are advised to improve the tasksactions from time to time in the design process. Users generally accept a separation of their tasks into high-and low-level objects and actions. Like tasks, interfaces also include hierarchy of objects and actions at high and low levels. For instance, an interface ‘object’ like the concept of ‘storage’ is usually referred as computers or a workstation that store information at a high-level concept. To decompose it, the stored information can then be refined into a set of directory entities and each file is then an object that has a lower-level structure consisting of lines, fields, characters, fonts and so on [12]. Figure 2 below shows the task and interface concepts depicted in OAI model:
Objects
Actions Objects
Actions
Figure 2: Task and interface concepts with hierarchies of objects and actions [12].
Designers are encouraged to emulate the ‘real-world objects’ such as books, pen, notes, and ‘actions’
performed in daily activities such as chatting with friends, answering telephones. It is best to create the metaphoric representations of the interface objects and actions based on the common user tasks-activities and objects we are familiar with in our environment. Once the task-objects and actions and their decompositions are defined, designers need to make the interface actions ‘visible’ to the users, so that users can decompose their plans into a series of intermediate actions such as clicking a file, moving the file, and copying a document, and decompose into more details user actions on that particular object. III.
APPLICATION OF COGNITIVE MAPPING TECHNIQUE ON INTERFACE DESIGN
A. Cmap Tools for Interface Design Concept map, as a graphical tool, is the most commonly used of cognitive mapping technique for organizing and representing knowledge. Concepts map are a powerful tool for capturing, representing, and archiving knowledge of individuals, but also a useful tool to create new knowledge. Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition (IHMC) had developed the Cmap Tools, a computer software program for concept map [15]. It allows flexibility and collaboration between individuals around the world to produce a concept map synchronously or asynchronously. In constructing a good concept map, one has to go through several steps such as identify a focus question [15], where the question clearly specifies the problem or issues the concept map should help to resolve. Given a selected domain and a defined question or problem in this domain, the next step is to identify the key concepts that apply to this domain, within 15-25 concepts. These concepts could be listed down, and then from this list a rank ordered list should be established from the most general and most inclusive concepts. Then, the next step is to choose the explicit linking words to relate to concepts in order to form good proposition, and continue building concept hierarchy. This can be done writing using the
conventional way of Post-its™ notes, or computer generated IHMC Cmap Tools. As in constructing a preliminary concept map, both allow for moving the concepts around easily, but the latter allows for more flexibility and quicker iteration in the process. Usually one round of concept map construction is to form the understanding ground. It requires several revisions to make the final concept materialized. Once the preliminary map is built, cross-links should be sought; those are links between concepts in different segments or domains of knowledge on the map that help to illustrate how these domains are related to one another. It is important to understand the relationship of cross-links between the subdomains in the concept map. As interface design researchers and practitioners, we are interested to apply the principle of concept map using Cmap Tools with the underlying Object-Action Interface (OAI) model for interface design solutions. Using the same abovementioned approach, we first identify an interface design project instead of a focus question. The ‘concept’ usually refers to objects on interface such as mobile screens, user interface (UI) elements i.e. controls, buttons, menus, search boxes, icons, and so forth. To visualize the overall concept map, an interface designer usually works together with users to formulate a Task Analysis [24, 25] by understanding the user tasks before constructing a concept map. Hence, the proposition here refers to action that will be triggered by the users such as touch, click, press, select, and so forth. In many situations, interface designers find bottlenecks to conceptualize how many screen pages, and also the UI elements appear in the interface. Hence, concept map comes in handy as a design tool to assist them to visualize an interaction style, in relation to input methods and output display for an interface solution. In this particular case, a bus ticket booking mobile solution, namely TRA-K, is drawn as an example (see Figure 3).
Figure 3: A cognitive mapping developed using Cmap Tool for TRA-K, a bus ticket booking mobile solution. (Courtesy from Interface Design Department).
290
In TRA-K bus ticketing mobile solution, for example, the user will need to trigger an ‘action’ of using ‘touch’ (an interaction style) for a main menu display (‘concept’) on a mobile device. This is followed by ‘touching’ (action) another mobile screen (object) entitles ‘promotion discount’ (concept). To check out the ‘latest updates’ (concept), the user needs to ‘scroll’ down (action) the scroll bar for ‘more information’ (concept). The interface designers can use different color coding to differentiate the high-level tasks, which are usually associated with the interface hierarchies that reflect how many categories of mobile screens will appear on an interface solution. In TRA-K, there are five color codings being used to differentiate the high-level interface hierarchies of objects and actions. For instance, light blue is used for ‘device settings’ (i.e. language preferences, on/off button), pink for ‘transport information’, purple for ‘promotion discount’, green for ‘user sign-up’, yellow for ‘current activities’ and ‘latest updates’. Each high-level interface hierarchy is cross-linked with an action, and consists of sub-interface or sub-tasks (sub-domain). For interface designers, a concept map assists them to conceptualize interaction styles, in relation to input methods and output display for an interface solution. As the design project moves along, designers usually can propose several alternatives of interaction style of how a user will interact and trigger an action on one ‘concept’ (an UI element) to another ‘concept’. For instance, instead of using ‘touch’ (action) from the ‘main menu’ screen (concept) to ‘promotion discount’ screen (concept), interface designers can provide an alternative interaction style of triggering another action such as ‘sliding’ (action) between both concepts. IV. CONCLUSION In summary, cognitive mapping concerns who we think about space, and how those thoughts are used and reflected in human spatial behavior. In order to traverse space, we make hundreds of complex spatial choices and decisions, in most cases without any references to source such as maps, instead relying on our knowledge of where places are. Cognitive mapping provides a guide of how people learn, process, and use spatial information that relates to the environment that surrounds them. We apply the concept map using Cmap Tools as one of the most commonly use cognitive mapping techniques on user interface design. In essence, Cmap Tools serves as an effective design tool for interface designers in conceptualizing interaction styles and designing user tasks-objects-actions for interface solutions. Despite the benefit as mentioned earlier, given the time constraints during the development, interface designers find challenges in juggling between their design skills of creating creative interface solutions, task analysis and cognitive mapping. Thus, we are keen in finding out how useful for interface designers in translating task analysis into cognitive mapping in the real scenario in the future. Future studies will also compare both task analysis and cognitive mapping as to which tool is more effective in decomposing user task-object-action scenarios for interface design.
The author would like to thank Janet Choo, Khong Chee Weng and Kimberly Chu from Interface Design as part of the TRA-K design project. In addition, the author also likes to acknowledge the use of CmapTools developed by Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition (IHMC) in this paper. Disclaimer. The authors wish to emphasize that the names and images shown in this paper are only for training and educational purposes, and does not intentionally infringe the rights of individuals or organisations. Any company names, registered trademarks or commercial names mentioned or shown in the text solely belong to their respective owners, organisations and institutions. REFERENCES [1] [2]
[3]
[4] [5] [6] [7] [8]
[9] [10] [11]
[12]
[13] [14]
[15]
[16] [17]
[18]
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
[19]
291
J. Preece, H. Sharp and Y. Rogers, Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction (2nd.) West Sussex, England: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd., 2007. Intraspec.ca, “Cognitive Mapping: Definition, Examples and Resources”, [Online] Available at: http://intraspec.ca/cogmap.php [access on 21st May 2008] RM Downs, and D. Stea. “Cognitive Maps and Spatial Behavior: Process and Products,” in Image and Environment, RM Downs and D. Stea, Eds. Chicago: Aldine Publishing Company, 1973, pp. 8- 26. J. Swan, “Using cognitive mapping in management research: Decisions about technical innovation”, British Journal of Management, vol. 8, 2, pp. 183-198, 1997. GA. Kelly, The Psychology of Personal Constructs, New York: Norton & Company Inc., 1955. T. Buzan, The Mind Map Book, London: BBC Books, 1993. JD. Novak, “How do we learn our lesson? Taking students through the process”, The Science Teacher, vol. 60, 3, pp. 50-55, 1993. CM. Fiol and AS. Huff, “Maps for managers: where are we? Where do we go from here?”, Journal of Management Studies, vol. 29, 3, pp. 267-285, 1992. P. Arthur and R. Passini, Wayfinding: People, Signs and Architecture. Toronto: McGraw-Hill Ryerson, 1992. E. Tolman, “Cognitive maps and rats and men”, Psychological Review, vol. 55, 4, pp. 189-208, 1948. K. Siau and X. Tan, “Use of Cognitive Mapping Techniques in Information Systems Development”, The Journal of Computer Information Systems, July 2008. [online] Available at: http://www.allbusiness.com/company-activitiesmanagement/company-strategy/11565366-1.html [access on 20th May 2010] B. Shneiderman and C. Plaisant, Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction (4th ed.). Boston, USA: Pearson Education, Inc., 2005. D. P. Ausubel, Educational Psychology: A Cognitive view. New York: Holt, Rinehart and Wisnton, 1968. W. M.K. Trochim, Concept Mapping, 2006. [online] Available at: http://www.socialresearchmethods.net/kb/conmap.htm [access on 19 April 2008] JD Novak and AJ. Cañas. “The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to Construct and Use Them”, Technical Report IHMC CmapTools 2006-01, Rev 01-2008, Florida Institute for Human and Machine Cognition, 2008. DH. Jonassen, K. Beissner and MA Yacci, Structural Knowledge: Techniques for conveying, assessing, and acquiring structural knowledge, Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1993. M. Kane and P. Q. McMahon, “Using Concept Mapping to Improve Health Care Decision Making”, Health care Biller, pp.45, July 2002. K. Afamasaga-Fuata’i, Concept Mapping in Mathematics: Research into Practice. New York: Springer, 2009. M. L. Lehman, Why a Mental Map is important for architects to understand. [online] Available at:
http://sensingarchitecture.com/2400/why-a-mental-map-isimportant-for-architects-to-understand/ [access on 24th May 2010] [20] J.W. Coffey, R.R. Hoffman, A.J. Caňas and K.M. Ford, “A Concept Map-based knowledge Modeling Approach to Expert Knowledge Sharing,” IKS 2002: The IASTED International International Conference on Information and Knowledge Sharing, 2002. [21] A. Pallant, P. Timmer and S. McRae, “Cognitive Mapping as a Tool for Requirement Capture”, in Contemporary Ergonomics 1996, S.A. Robertson, Eds. London: Taylor and Francis, 1996, pp. 495-500. [22] L. Bollini and G. Palma, “Cognitive Maps: New Paradigms in Information Architecture and Interface Design for the Web”, In
292
Concept Maps: Theory, Methodology, Technology, Proc. Of the First Int. Conference on Concept Mapping, A.J. Caňas, J.D. Novak, F.M. González, Eds, Pamplona, Spain, 2004. [23] E. Sharlin, B. Watson, S. Sutphen, L. Liu, R. Lederer, J. Frazer, “A tangible user interface for assessing cognitive mapping ability”, International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, vol. 67, Elsevier, 2008, pp. 269-278. [24] J. Hackos and J.C. Redish. User and Task Analysis for Interface Design. US: Wiley, 1998. [25] B. Kirwan and L. Ainsworth (Eds.) A Guide to Task Analysis. London: Taylor and Francis.
