Abstract
Interaction research has two goals: a theoretical one and a practical one. The theoretical goal is to discover which factors determine the effectiveness of interaction with technology. The applied goal is to provide designers of technology with recommendations on how they must design them. In order to reach both goals, academic and industrial practitioners traditionally have used methodologies that assume the interface and the user can be studied separately as the only means to discover the rules that relate them. However, empirical evidence shows that interaction is the result of the joint work of human cognitive functions (top–down processes) and system characteristics (bottom–up processes). This joint work implies that the human and the technology depend on each other and cannot be studied separately. Therefore, a methodology is needed that takes into account this mutual dependency of human cognitive functions and system characteristics. Finding such methodology is a task for current and future interaction research.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
References
Ahuja, J. S., & Webster, J. (2001). Perceived disorientation: An examination of a new measure to assess Web design effectiveness. Interacting with Computers, 14, 15–29.
Akoumianakis, D., & Stephanidis, C. (2003). Blending scenarios of use and informal argumentation to facilitate universal access: Experience with the Universal Access Assessment Workshop method. Behavioural and Information Technology, 22, 227–244.
Buschman, T. J., & Miller, E. K. (2007). Top-down versus bottom-control of attention in the prefrontal and posterior parietal corties. Science, 315, 1860–1862.
Cañas, J. J., Salmerón, L., & Fajardo, I. (2005). Toward the analysis of the interaction in the joint cognitive system. In A. Pirhonen, H. Isomäki, C. Roast, & P. Saariluoma (Eds.), Future Interaction Design (pp. 85–104). London: Springer-Verlag.
Carroll, J. M., Mack, C., Lewis, N., Grischkowsky, N. L., & Robertson, S. (1985). Exploring a word processor. Human-Computer Interaction, 1, 283–307.
Charney, D. H., & Reder, L. M. (1986). Designing interactive tutorials for computer users. Human-Computer Interaction, 2, 297–317.
Chen, C., & Rada, R. (1996). Interacting with hypertext: A meta-analysis of experimental studies. Human-Computer Interaction, 11, 125–156.
DeStefano D., & LeFevre, J. A. (2007). Cognitive load in hypertext reading: A review. Computer in Human Behavior, 23, 1616–641.
Di Stasi, L., Alvarez-Valbuena, V., Antoli, A., Gea, M., & Cañas, J. J. (2008). Saccadic peak velocity as an index of cognitive load when interacting with the Web. Manuscript in preparation.
Dillon, A., & Gabbard, R. (1998). Hypermedia as an educational technology: A review of the quantitative research literature on learner comprehension, control, and style. Review of Educational Research, 68, 322–349.
Fajardo, I., Cañas, J. J., Salmerón, L., & Abascal, J. (2006). Improving deaf users’ accessibility in hypertext information retrieval: Are graphical interfaces useful for them? Behaviour and Information Technology, 25, 455–467.
Jameson, A., Schäfer, R., Weis, T., Berthold, A., & Weyrath, T. (1999). Making systems sensitive to the user’s changing resource limitations. Knowledge-Based Systems, 12, 413–425.
Juvina, I., & van Oostendorp, H. (2004). Individual differences and behavioural aspects involved in modelling web navigation. In C. Stary & C. Stephanidis (Eds.), User-centered interaction paradigms for universal access in the information society (pp. 77–95). New York: Springer-Verlag.
Kashihara, A., Hirashima, T., & Toyoda, J. (1994). A cognitive load application in tutoring. User modeling and user-adapted interaction, 4, 279–303.
Kriz, S., & Hegarty, S. (2007). Top-down and bottom-up influences on learning from animations. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 65, 911–930.
Madrid, R. I., & Cañas, J. J. (2007). How reading strategies affect the comprehension of texts in hypermedia systems. In D. A. Alamargot, P. Terrier, & J. M. Cellier (Eds.), Studies in writing: Written documents in the workplace (pp. 205–216). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.
Madrid, R. I., Salmerón, L., Cañas, J. J., & Fajardo, I. (2005). Cognitive factors related to text comprehension with hypertext overviews. In G. Chiazzese, M. Allegra, A. Chifari, & S. Ottaviano (Eds.), Methods and technologies for learning (pp. 597–598). Southampton, UK: WIT Press.
Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. Boston: Academic Press.
Norman, D. A. (1988). The psychology of everyday things. New York: Basic Books.
Ojel-Jaramillo, J. M., & J. J. Cañas. (2006). Enhancing the usability of telecare devices. Human Technology, 2, 103–118.
Pirolli, P., & Card, S. (1999). Information foraging. Psychological Review, 106, 643–675.
Saariluoma, P. (2003). Apperception, content-based psychology and design. In U. Lindemann (Ed.), Human behaviours in design (pp. 72–78). Berlin, Germany: Springer.
Salmerón, L., Baccino, T., Cañas, J. J., Madrid, R. I., & Fajardo, I. (2008). Processing of graphical overviews: Evidence from eye movements. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Salmerón, L., Kintsch, W., & Cañas, J. J. (2006). Reading strategies and prior knowledge in learning from hypertext. Memory and Cognition, 34, 1157–1171.
Shapiro, A., & Niederhauser, D. (2004). Learning from hypertext: Research issues and findings. In D. H. Jonassen (Ed.), Handbook of research on educational communications and technology (2nd ed., pp. 605–620). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Shneiderman, B. (1998). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human–computer interaction (3rd ed.). Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Simon, H. (1969). The science of the artificial. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Sweller, J., van Merriënboer, J., & Paas, F. (1998). Cognitive architecture and instructional design. Educational Psychology Review, 10, 251–296.
Zacks, J. M., & Tversky, B. (2003). Structuring information interfaces for procedural learning. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Applied, 9, 88–100.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Corresponding author
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag London Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Cañas, J.J. (2009). The Future of Interaction Research: Interaction Is the Result of Top–Down and Bottom–Up Processes. In: Isomäki, H., Saariluoma, P. (eds) Future Interaction Design II. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-385-9_3
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84800-385-9_3
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-84800-300-2
Online ISBN: 978-1-84800-385-9
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)