Abstract
Humans tend to direct their attention toward the left half of their area of vision, which is known as visual pseudo neglect. Most navigational elements are placed at the left side. However, there is neither a theoretical reasoning nor empirical evidence, why these elements should be placed left. In the present study we examined three independent variables (presentation side of elements (left, right), number of elements (one, three, five) and a visual cue prior to selection (with cue, without). Dependent variables were selection times and accuracy of task completion. 50 participants were exposed to elements consisting of single words in bubbles. After clicking on the start element in the middle of the screen a number of elements were presented randomly on the left or right. In 50% of trials the presentation side was announced in advance, by using a visual cue. It was tested, whether and to what extent there is a preference and performance (correct selection time) increase for elements placed on the left side. When the cue was presented, performance increased; without cue information, elements on the left were selected faster. The use of cues resulted in no significant differences between the left and right side. A significantly better performance was found when only one element was presented on the left. With an increasing number of elements, the performance decreased. The results of this study suggest that the presentation of elements on the left side is advantageous for the speed of information processing only in the case of single elements. When selecting between numbers of options (three, five), placing elements on the left does not affect the selection performance.
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
Keywords
References
Kalbach, J., Bosenick, T.: Web page layout: A comparison between left and right-justified navigation menues. Online Journal of Digital Information (2011), http://journals.tdl.org/jodi/article/view/94/93 (last access: January 10, 2011)
Koyani, S.J., Bailey, R.W., Nall, J.R.: Research-Based Web Design & Usability Guidelines (2010), http://usability.gov/pdfs/guidelines_book.pdf (last access: December 20, 2010)
Torres, R.J.: User Interface Design and Development. Prentice Hall, Upper Saddle River (2002)
Preece, J., Sharp, H., Rogers, Y.: Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. Wiley, New York (2002)
Johnson, J.: GUI Bloopers 2. 0: Common User Interface Design Don’ts and DOS. Morgan Kaufmann Series in Interactive Technologies. Morgan Kaufmann, Amsterdam (2007)
Raskin, J.: Intuitive = Familiar. Communications of the ACM 37(9), 17 (1994)
van Schaik, P., Ling, J.: The effects of frame layout and differential background contrast on visual search performance in web pages. Interacting with Computers 13, 513–525 (2001)
Diekamp, B., Regolin, L., Güntürkün, O., Vallortigara, G.: A left-sided visuospatial bias in birds. Current Biology 15(10), 372–373 (2005)
Holzinger, A.: Finger Instead of Mouse: Touch Screens as a Means of Enhancing Universal Access. In: Carbonell, N., Stephanidis, C. (eds.) UI4ALL 2002. LNCS, vol. 2615, pp. 387–397. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)
Porac, C., Searleman, A., Karagiannakis, K.: Pseudoneglect: Evidence for both perceptual and attentional factors. Brain and Cognition 61(3), 305–311 (2006)
Jewell, G., McCourt, M.E.: Pseudoneglect: A review and meta-analysis of performance factors in line bisection tasks. Neuropsychologia 38(1), 93–110 (2000)
McCourt, M.E., Jewell, G.: Visuospatial attention in line bisection: stimulusmodulation of pseudoneglect. Neuropsychologia 37(7), 843–855 (1999)
Rueckert, L., Deravanesian, A., Baboorian, D., Lacalamita, A., Repplinger, M.: Pseudoneglect and the cross-over effect. Neuropsychologia 40(2), 162 (2002)
Fitts, P.M.: The Information Capacity of the Human Motor System in Controlling the Amplitude of Movement. Journal of Experimental Psychology 47(6), 381–391 (1954)
MacKenzie, I.S., Tatu, K., Miika, S.: Accuracy measures for evaluating computer pointing devices. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 9–16 (2001)
Shneiderman, B.: Designing the User Interface. In: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction, 3rd edn., Addison-Wesley, Reading (1997)
Holzinger, A., Höller, M., Schedlbauer, M., Urlesberger, B.: An Investigation of Finger versus Stylus Input in Medical Scenarios. In: Luzar-Stiffler, V., Dobric, V.H., Bekic, Z. (eds.) ITI 2008: 30th International Conference on Information Technology Interfaces, pp. 433–438. IEEE, Los Alamitos (2008)
Hick, W.E.: On the rate of gain of information. Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology 4, 11–26 (1952)
Shannon, C.E., Weaver, W.: The Mathematical Theory of Communication. University of Illinois Press, Urbana (1949)
Card, S.K., Moran, T.P., Newell, A.: The psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. Erlbaum, Hillsdale (1983)
Seow, S.C.: Information theoretic models of HCI: A comparison of the Hick-Hyman law and Fitts’ Law. In: Human-Computer Interaction, vol. 20(3), pp. 315–352 (2005)
Mohr, C., Landis, T., Bracha, H.S., Brugger, P.: Opposite turning behavior in right-handers and non-right-handers suggests a link between handedness and cerebral dopamine asymmetries. Behavioral Neuroscience 117(6), 1448–1452 (2003)
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2011 IFIP International Federation for Information Processing
About this paper
Cite this paper
Holzinger, A., Scherer, R., Ziefle, M. (2011). Navigational User Interface Elements on the Left Side: Intuition of Designers or Experimental Evidence?. In: Campos, P., Graham, N., Jorge, J., Nunes, N., Palanque, P., Winckler, M. (eds) Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2011. INTERACT 2011. Lecture Notes in Computer Science, vol 6947. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23771-3_13
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-23771-3_13
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg
Print ISBN: 978-3-642-23770-6
Online ISBN: 978-3-642-23771-3
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)