Advertisement

How Animation Improve Children’s Cognition in User Interface: A Study of the Kids VOD Application

  • Wei Li
  • Xuan Zhang
  • Yi Shen Zhang
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 10920)

Abstract

There have been many studies of cognitive and affective benefits from incorporating the animation in user interfaces, thus, only a few have investigated that how animation in user interface affects children’s cognition while they interact with interfaces in their different growing stage. In this paper, we want to figure out if the animation in user interface can benefit the cognition, interaction, and emotion of children at different age range. A study was carried out by comparing a series user interface demos with and without animation based on typical tasks in the Kids VOD APP among two groups of children ages 4–6 years and 7–12 years. The result of this study shows that the two groups of children have differences on the task completion rate, task completion efficiency, and emotion preference. This suggest that applying animation to user interface for children needs consideration of children’s age and animation usage scenarios.

Keywords

Animation User interface Cognition Video on demand Usage scenario 

References

  1. 1.
    Dessart, C.-E., Genaro Motti, V., Vanderdonckt, J.: Showing User Interface AdaptivityGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Liddle, D.: Emerging Guidelines for Communicating with Animation in Mobile User Interfaces, pp. 1–9 (2016)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Johnston, O., Thomas, F.: The Illusion of Life: Disney Animation (1981)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Chang, B.-W., Ungar, D.: Animation: From Cartoons to the User Interface (1995)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Apple: iOS Human Interface Guideline. Visual Design: Animation. https://developer.apple.com/ios/human-interface-guidelines/visual-design/animation. Accessed 4 Jan 2018
  6. 6.
    Google: Android Material Design: Motion. https://material.io/guidelines/motion/material-motion.html. Accessed 4 Jan 2018
  7. 7.
    Microsoft: The Fluent Design System: Motion. https://docs.microsoft.com/zh-cn/windows/uwp/design/fluent-design-system/index#motion. Accessed 4 Jan 2018
  8. 8.
    Novick, D., Rhodes, J., Wert, W.: The communicative functions of animation in user interface. In: Proceedings of the 29th ACM International Conference on Design of Communication (SIGDOC 2011). ACM, New York (2011).  https://doi.org/10.1145/2038476.2038478
  9. 9.
    Idler, S.: 5 Key Difference between Kids and Adults (2013)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Piaget, J., Inhelder, B.: The psychology of the child. Br. Med. J. 1753–1755 (1913)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Nielson, J.: Children’s Websites: Usability Issues in Designing for Young People (2010)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hanna, L., Risden, K., Alexander, K.: Guidelines for Usability Testing with Children (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Sim, G., MacFarlane, S., Read, J.: All work and no play: measuring fun, usability, and learning in software for children. Comput. Educ. 235–248 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Crain, W.: Theories of Development: Concepts and Applications, 6th edn. Pearson Education, Inc., Upper Saddle River (2011). ISBN 978-0-205-81046-8Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Taslim, J., Wan Adnan, W.A., Abu Bakar, N.A.: Investigating children preferences of a user interface design. In: Jacko, J.A. (ed.) HCI 2009. LNCS, vol. 5610, pp. 510–513. Springer, Heidelberg (2009).  https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-642-02574-7_57CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    McKnight, L., Read, J.C.: Designing the record button: using children’s understanding of icons to inform the design of a musical interface. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Interaction Design and Children. ACM (2009)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Leif Azzopardi, D.D., Marshall, K.A.: YooSee: a Video Browsing Application for Young Children (2012)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Dyer, S., Adamo-Villani, N.: Animated Versus Static User Interfaces: A Study of MathsignerTM (2008)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Jin, Q.C.: Experimental study on threshold of moto perception. Acta Psychol. Sinica (1957)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Burroughs, B.: YouTube Kids: the App Economy and Mobile Parenting (2017)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Livingstone, S., Haddon, L., Görzig, A., Ólafsson, K.: Risks and safety on the internet: the perspective of European children (2013)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Neumann, M.M., Neumann, D.L.: Touch screen tablets and emergent literacy. Early Childhood Educ. J. 42, 231–239 (2013)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    iResearch: Research about the Use of Internet of Chinese teenager and children in 2015. http://www.iresearch.com.cn/report/2383.html#chart. Accessed 4 Jan 2018
  24. 24.
    Bradwell, J.: Does User Experience Match User Expectation in VOD Services? (2015)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Krefetz, N.: User experience: to keep viewers, online video must be a joy (2015)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Bederson, B.B., Angela, B.: Does animation help users build mental maps of spatial information? In: Proceedings of 1999 IEEE Symposium on Information Visualization, Info Vis 1999 (1999)Google Scholar
  27. 27.
    Thomas, B.H., Victor, D.: Evaluation of animation effects to improve indirect manipulation. In: First Australasian User Interface Conference, AUIC 2000. IEEE (2000)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ognjanovic, S., Jason, R.: Don’t talk to strangers! peer tutoring versus active intervention methodologies in interviewing children. In: Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, CHI 2013. ACM (2013)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Erikson, E.: The problem of ego identity. J. Am. Psychoanal. Assoc. 4, 56–121 (1956).  https://doi.org/10.1177/000306515600400104. Accessed 28 Jan 2012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Sauro, J., Lewis, J.R.: Quantifying the User Experience: Practical Statistics for User Research. Morgan Kaufmann, Burlington (2015)Google Scholar
  31. 31.
    Jin, Y.J., Du, Z.F., Jiang, Y.: Sampling Techniques, pp. 29–30. China Renmin University Press, Beijing (2015)Google Scholar
  32. 32.
    Questmobile 2017: Q2 Summer Report of the Internet. http://www.questmobile.com.cn/blog/blog_98.html. Accessed 4 Jan 2018
  33. 33.
    Jin, Q.C.: Experimental study on threshold of moto perception. Acta Psychol. Sinica (1957)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Angold, A., et al.: Development of a short questionnaire for use in epidemiological studies of depression in children and adolescents. Int. J. Methods Psychiatr. Res. (1995)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
  36. 36.
    Lewis, J.R., Sauro, J.: The factor structure of the system usability scale. Paper Presented at the First International Conference on Human Centered Design (2009)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    QUIS: Questionnaire for User Interaction Satisfaction. About the QUIS, version 7.0. http://lap.umd.edu/quis/. Accessed 4 Jan 2018
  38. 38.
    Lewis, J.R.: IBM computer usability satisfaction questionnaires: psychometric evaluation and instructions for use. Int. J. Hum.-Comput. Interact. (1995)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Wong, D.L., Baker, C.M.: Pain in children: comparison of assessment scales. Pediatr. Nurs. 14(1), 9–17 (1988)Google Scholar
  40. 40.
    Huifang, C., Huashan, C.: Experimental study on the development of attention span between 4 and 14 years old. Psychol. Sci. 1, 47–49 (1989)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Tsinghua UniversityBeijingChina
  2. 2.IQIYI, Inc.BeijingChina

Personalised recommendations