Trevor Lowe - Academia.edu (original) (raw)

Uploads

Conference Papers by Trevor Lowe

Research paper thumbnail of Using Eye Tracking and Task Analysis for Analysing Usability Interactions

Proceedings of 28th IAPRI World Symposium on Packaging (Lausanne, Switzerland), 2017

The objective of this study is to characterize and analyse how affordances of packages are percei... more The objective of this study is to characterize and analyse how affordances of packages are perceived by users and what type of behaviour affordances trigger. In order to characterize the effect of individual design features on user attention and behaviour, a commercially available package for epinephrine was redesigned and tested with a panel of participants (n=39). Each experiment was conducted as a randomized complete block design with three factors: location of opening mechanism (top or bottom), type of opening mechanism (press-in or pull tab), and colour contrast in opening area (with or without). By crossing all possible conditions (2x2x2), eight different folding carton designs resulted. Each participant was treated as a block and presented all eight designs in a random order. Participants stood behind a counter of a fixed height wearing an ASL Mobile 5 glasses and completed eight opening tasks in a lab facility. They were instructed to imagine an emergency scenario where they needed to remove all contents from each package as quickly as possible. Each opening trial was analysed using task analysis (TA) and eye tracking analysis (EA). TA relied on video feeding from the eye-tracker's scene camera and eye movement information to divide the human package interaction in five subtasks (i.e., reaching package, scanning for opening mechanism, improper attempt to open, proper attempt to open, and removing contents). EA used eye-movement data and three areas of interest (i.e., package's opening end, package's body text, package's non-opening end) to determine; overall mean fixation duration, overall number of fixations, number of fixa-tions per AOI, total dwell duration per AOI, percentage of total dwell duration per AOI. The TA revealed significant differences (p<0.008) in time spent in four subtasks (i.e., scanning for opening mechanism, improper attempt to open, proper attempt to open, and reaching for contents) when comparing designs with a pull tab and designs with press-in mechanisms. TA also revealed significant differences (p<0.008) in time spent in two subtasks (i.e., scanning for opening mechanism, improper attempt to open) when comparing designs with an opening mechanism at the top and designs with an opening mechanism at the bottom of the package. The TA revealed no significant differences (p<0.008) for colour contrast (with and without) in the opening area. The EA shed light about the efficiency of different design factors in grabbing the participants' attention and conveying information. Significant differences (p<0.008) were found in overall number of fixations when comparing designs with a pull tab and designs with a press-in mechanism. A closer look at the number of fixations per AOI, revealed significant differences (p<0.008) in number of fixations at pack-age's non-opening end when comparing designs with a pull tab and designs with press-in mechanism. EA also revealed significant differences (p<0.008) in total dwell duration at packages' non-opening end when comparing two design factors; opening mechanism (pull tab vs press-in mechanism), and opening location (top vs bottom). Further analysis comparing percentage of total dwell time spent on each AOI revealed significant differences in packages' opening end and non-opening end when comparing two design factors; opening mechanism, and opening location. All these findings have critical implications to understand how packaging design can guide cognitive efforts effectively towards areas that accurately deliver information to fulfil a task.

Research paper thumbnail of Using Eye Tracking and Task Analysis for Analysing Usability Interactions

Proceedings of 28th IAPRI World Symposium on Packaging (Lausanne, Switzerland), 2017

The objective of this study is to characterize and analyse how affordances of packages are percei... more The objective of this study is to characterize and analyse how affordances of packages are perceived by users and what type of behaviour affordances trigger. In order to characterize the effect of individual design features on user attention and behaviour, a commercially available package for epinephrine was redesigned and tested with a panel of participants (n=39). Each experiment was conducted as a randomized complete block design with three factors: location of opening mechanism (top or bottom), type of opening mechanism (press-in or pull tab), and colour contrast in opening area (with or without). By crossing all possible conditions (2x2x2), eight different folding carton designs resulted. Each participant was treated as a block and presented all eight designs in a random order. Participants stood behind a counter of a fixed height wearing an ASL Mobile 5 glasses and completed eight opening tasks in a lab facility. They were instructed to imagine an emergency scenario where they needed to remove all contents from each package as quickly as possible. Each opening trial was analysed using task analysis (TA) and eye tracking analysis (EA). TA relied on video feeding from the eye-tracker's scene camera and eye movement information to divide the human package interaction in five subtasks (i.e., reaching package, scanning for opening mechanism, improper attempt to open, proper attempt to open, and removing contents). EA used eye-movement data and three areas of interest (i.e., package's opening end, package's body text, package's non-opening end) to determine; overall mean fixation duration, overall number of fixations, number of fixa-tions per AOI, total dwell duration per AOI, percentage of total dwell duration per AOI. The TA revealed significant differences (p<0.008) in time spent in four subtasks (i.e., scanning for opening mechanism, improper attempt to open, proper attempt to open, and reaching for contents) when comparing designs with a pull tab and designs with press-in mechanisms. TA also revealed significant differences (p<0.008) in time spent in two subtasks (i.e., scanning for opening mechanism, improper attempt to open) when comparing designs with an opening mechanism at the top and designs with an opening mechanism at the bottom of the package. The TA revealed no significant differences (p<0.008) for colour contrast (with and without) in the opening area. The EA shed light about the efficiency of different design factors in grabbing the participants' attention and conveying information. Significant differences (p<0.008) were found in overall number of fixations when comparing designs with a pull tab and designs with a press-in mechanism. A closer look at the number of fixations per AOI, revealed significant differences (p<0.008) in number of fixations at pack-age's non-opening end when comparing designs with a pull tab and designs with press-in mechanism. EA also revealed significant differences (p<0.008) in total dwell duration at packages' non-opening end when comparing two design factors; opening mechanism (pull tab vs press-in mechanism), and opening location (top vs bottom). Further analysis comparing percentage of total dwell time spent on each AOI revealed significant differences in packages' opening end and non-opening end when comparing two design factors; opening mechanism, and opening location. All these findings have critical implications to understand how packaging design can guide cognitive efforts effectively towards areas that accurately deliver information to fulfil a task.