Advertisement

Flight Searching – A Comparison of Two User-Interface Design Strategies

  • Antti Pirhonen
  • Niko Kotilainen
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 5612)

Abstract

The most usable user-interface is not necessarily the most popular. For example, the extent to which an interaction is based on graphics can depend highly on convention rather than usability. This study compares contemporary flight search applications in order to investigate whether a more extensive use of graphics can enhance usability. Two user-interfaces are compared: one follows the ideal principles of graphical user-interfaces and direct manipulation, while the second interface requires text to be entered with a keyboard. The results of the comparison indicate that even an early prototype of the graphics based alternative performed better than the typical formula based search application for several measurements of usability.

Keywords

Flight search direct manipulation graphical user interface 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Benckendorff, P.: An exploratory analyisis of traveler preferences for airline website content. Information Technology & Tourism 8, 149–159 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Hazari, S.I., Reaves, R.R.: Student preferences toward microcomputer user interfaces. Computers & Education 22(3), 225–229 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Long, F., Poskitt, H.: Aerlingus.com – A Usability Case Study. In: Proceedings of the Irish Ergonomics Society Annual Conference, pp. 42–47 (2003)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Nardi, B.A., Zarmer, C.L.: Beyond models and metaphors: Visual formalisms in user interface design. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 4, 5–33 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Petre, M., Green, T.R.G.: Is graphical notation really superior to text, or just different? Some claims by logic designers about graphics in notation. In: Proceedings of the Fifth Conference on Cognitive Ergonomics, Urbino, Italy, September 3-6 (1990)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Pirhonen, A.: To simulate or to stimulate? In search of the power of metaphor in design. In: Pirhonen, A., Isomäki, H., Roast, C., Saariluoma, P. (eds.) Future Interaction Design, pp. 105–123. Springer, London (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Shneiderman, B.: Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human-computer interaction. Addison Wesley Longman, Reading (1998)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Takayama, L., Kandogan, E.: Trust as an underlying factor of system administrator interface choice. In: Extended abstracts of CHI 2006, pp. 1391–1396. ACM Press, New York (2006)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2009

Authors and Affiliations

  • Antti Pirhonen
    • 1
  • Niko Kotilainen
    • 2
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science and Information SystemsFinland
  2. 2.Deparment of Mathematical Information TechnologyUniversity of JyväskyläFinland

Personalised recommendations