Advertisement

Interface Basics

  • Joseph Frantiska Jr.
Chapter
Part of the SpringerBriefs in Educational Communications and Technology book series (BRIEFSECT)

Abstract

The Merriam-Webster dictionary defines an interface as “the place at which independent and often unrelated systems meet and act on or communicate with each other.” In the case of humans interfacing with computer systems, interfaces have become more and more complex. This can be both good and bad with the good being derived from the vast information that can be represented to the user. The bad aspect is that the instructional designer must be cognizant of both the information available and how to present it to the user. This two pronged approach ensures that both ends of the human–computer interface are considered. The interface acts as a bridge between the human and machine and needs to act as a translator between the two. The signals generated by the machine are radically different from the images and text that the human understands. Not only is the interface required to select the necessary information but display it in formats that are optimally useful and intelligible.

The designer needs to assess the information available and not only how to present it to the user insofar as the efficient usage of screen area but also with respect to the user’s inherent learning style and abilities. In order to do this, a structured approach that properly addresses both aspects is needed. This brief aims to fill this need.

Keywords

Interface Assessment 

References

  1. Baecker, R., & Small, I. (1995). Animation at the interface. In B. Laurel (Ed.), The art of human-computer interface design. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar
  2. Beeman, W. O., Anderson, K. T., Bader, G., Larking, J., McClard, A. P., McQuillan, P., & Shields, M. (1987). Hypertext and pluralism: From linear to non-linear thinking. In J. B. Smith, F. Halasz, N. Yankelovich, M. Schwartz, & F. Weiss (Eds.), Hypertext ’87 (pp. 67–81). Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Berg, G. (2000). Human-computer interaction (HCI) in educational environments: Implications of understanding computers as media. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 9(4), 347–368. Charlottesville, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  4. Davidson-Shivers, A. G. V., & Rasmussen, K. L. (2018). Web-based learning: Design, implementation, and evaluation (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Dove, I. (2011). Visual analogies and arguments. In F. Zenker (Ed.), Argumentation: Cognition and community. Proceedings of the 9th international conference of the Ontario Society for the Study of Argumentation (OSSA), May 18–21, 2011. Windsor, ON (CD ROM) (pp. 1–16).Google Scholar
  6. Driscoll, M. P. (2005). Psychology of learning for instruction (pp. 384–407, Chap. 11-Constructivism). Toronto, ON: Pearson.Google Scholar
  7. Gagne, R. M., Briggs, L., & Wager, W. (1992). Principles of instructional design (4th ed.). Fort Worth, TX: HBJ College Publishers.Google Scholar
  8. Gagne, R. M., Wager, W. W., Golas, K. G., & Keller, J. M. (2005). Principles of instructional design. Toronto, ON: Thomson Wadsworth.Google Scholar
  9. Hunt, E. B. (1978). Mechanics of verbal ability. Psychological Review, 85(2), 109–130.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Isman, A. (2005). The implementation results of new instructional design model: Isman model. Turkish Online Journal of Educational Technology, 4(4), 7.Google Scholar
  11. Jones, M. G., & Farquhar, J. D. (1997). User interface design for web-based instruction. In B. H. Khan (Ed.), Web-based instruction (pp. 239–244). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology Publication.Google Scholar
  12. Khan, B. H. (Ed.). (1997). Web-based instruction. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Educational Technology.Google Scholar
  13. Lohr, L. (2003). Creating graphics for learning and performance: Lessons in visual literacy. Columbus, OH: Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  14. Mayer, R. E., & Anderson, R. B. (1992). The instructive animation: Helping students build connections between words and pictures in multimedia learning. Journal of Educational Psychology, 84(4), 444–452.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. McClelland, D., Eisman, K., & Stone, T. (2000). Web design studio secrets. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
  16. McKnight, C., Dillon, A., & Richardson, J. (1991). Hypertext in context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University.Google Scholar
  17. Nakaska, K., & VanDusen, C. (2017). Best practices in online course design. In J. Dron & S. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of E-learn: World conference on E-learning in corporate, government, healthcare, and higher education (pp. 416–419). Vancouver, BC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).Google Scholar
  18. Nielsen, J. (2000). Designing web usability: The practice of simplicity. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders Publishing.Google Scholar
  19. Norman, D. A. (1998). The invisible computer: Why good products can fail, the PC is so complex, and information appliances the answer. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
  20. Osgood, R. E. (1994). The conceptual indexing of conversational hypertext (Technical Report #52). Evanston, IL: Institute for the Learning Sciences, Northwestern University.Google Scholar
  21. Saxena, A., Kothari, D., Jain, S., & Khurana, A. (2002). Understanding consumer navigation behavior. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 11(4), 403–417. Norfolk, VA: AACE.Google Scholar
  22. Shneiderman, B. (1993). Education by engagement and construction: Experiences in the AT&T teaching theater. Keynote for ED-MEDIA93, Orlando, FL. In H. Maurer (Ed.), Educational multimedia and hypermedia annual (pp. 471–479). Charlottesville, VA: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education.Google Scholar
  23. Shneiderman, B., et al. (2016). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human-computer interaction, 6th, Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.Google Scholar
  24. Zhu, M., Bonk, C. J., & Sari, A. (2017). Instructor experiences in designing and delivering interactive MOOCs in higher education. In J. Dron & S. Mishra (Eds.), Proceedings of E-learn: World conference on E-learning in corporate, government, healthcare, and higher education (pp. 509–515). Vancouver, BC: Association for the Advancement of Computing in Education (AACE).Google Scholar
  25. Zhu, L., & Grabowski, B. (2006). Web-based animation or static graphics: Is the extra cost of animation worth it? Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 15(3), 329–347. Chesapeake, VA: AACE.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Association for Educational Communications and Technology 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • Joseph Frantiska Jr.
    • 1
  1. 1.School of EducationWalden UniversityNorth ChelmsfordUSA

Personalised recommendations