Heads-up displays (HUDs) are growing in popularity and utility, providing novel ways to interact with environments and other individuals. HUD interfaces must allow users to quickly view information without distracting them from their primary task. We test the use of an adaptive staircase as a method to investigate the glance legibility of two Google Glass heads-up display interfaces. Glance legibility refers to an interface’s legibility when viewed in short amounts of time (also known as glance-like conditions). We measure glance legibility by the minimum presentation time required to read an interface and respond correctly to a yes-no question. The applications of this research can help inform the design and evaluation of future heads-up display interfaces under glance-like conditions.
References
1.
BainbridgeW.A.IsolaP.OlivaA. (2013). The intrinsic memorability of face images. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 142(4), 1323-1334.
DewarR.KlineD.ScheiberF.SwansonA. (1997). Symbol signing design for older drivers (No. FHWA-RD-94-069).
4.
DobresJ.ChahineN.ReimerB.MehlerB.CoughlinJ. (2014) Revealing Differences in Legibility Between Typefaces Using Psychophysical Techniques: Implications for Glance Time and Cognitive Processing.
5.
DobresJ.ReimerB.MehlerB.ChahineN.GouldD. (2014, September). A Pilot Study Measuring the Relative Legibility of Five Simplified Chinese Typefaces Using Psychophysical Methods. In Proceedings of the 6th International Conference on Automotive User Interfaces and Interactive Vehicular Applications (pp. 1-5). ACM.
6.
FaubertJ. (2002). Visual perception and aging. Canadian Journal of Experimental Psychology, 56(3), 164–176.
7.
GescheiderG. A. (2013). Psychophysics: the fundamentals. Psychology Press.
GovenlockS. W.TaylorC. P.SekulerA. B.BennettP. J. (2009). The effect of aging on the orientational selectivity of the human visual system. Vision Research, 49(1), 164–172.
10.
HartS. G.StavelandL. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX (Task Load Index): Results of empirical and theoretical research. Advances in psychology, 52, 139-183.
11.
LeekM. R. (2001). Adaptive procedures in psychophysical research. Perception & Psychophysics, 63(8), 1279–1292.
12.
LevittH. (1971). Transformed Up-Down Methods in Psychoacoustics. The Journal of the Acoustical Society of America, 49(2B), 467–477.
13.
MatthewsT. (2006). Designing and evaluating glanceable peripheral displays. In Proceedings of the 6th conference on Designing Interactive systems (pp. 343-345). ACM.
MuenstererO. J.LacherM.ZoellerC.BronsteinM.KüblerJ. (2014). Google Glass in pediatric surgery: An exploratory study. International Journal of Surgery, 12(4), 281-289.
16.
RatcliffR.McKoonG. (2008). The diffusion decision model: theory and data for two choice decision tasks. Neural Computation, 20(4), 873–922.
17.
ReimerB.MehlerB.DobresJ.CoughlinJ. F.MattesonS.GouldD.LevantovskyV.Assessing the impact of typeface design in a text-rich automotive user interface (2014). Ergonomics, 57(11), 1643-1658.
18.
RhodesB. J. (1997). The wearable remembrance agent: A system for augmented memory. Personal Technologies, 1(4), 218-224.
19.
WagenmakersE.-J.RatcliffR.GomezP.McKoonG. (2008). A Diffusion Model Account of Criterion Shifts in the Lexical Decision Task. Journal of Memory and Language, 58(1), 140–159.
20.
WatsonA. B.PelliD. G. (1983). QUEST: a Bayesian adaptive psychometric method. Perception & Psychophysics, 33(2), 113–120
21.
WickensC. D.HollandsJ. G. (2000). Engineering Psychology and Human Performance (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
22.
WickhamH. (2009). ggplot2: elegant graphics for data analysis. Springer Science & Business Media.
