As our Editor-in-Chief Ahmet Çakir retires after many years in the ‘hot seat’ with an essay entitled ‘A Farewell to Pens and Keyboards’ (at the end of this issue), I have been thinking about the changes in the technology which have been used to create Behaviour & Information Technology over its 35 years. I am not talking about the printing or production technology or the transition to electronic publishing (where printed copies are only produced on a quarterly basis). I am reflecting on the technology that I have used to process submissions, solicit reviews, feedback comments and finalise copy.
My personal editorial office at home started with an electronic typewriter attached to a simple computer which allowed me to print out labels and letters along with a simple copier which allowed me to reproduce standard forms. Papers came in bulky envelopes and if there were not the required three copies (latterly four copies) we would painstakingly copy the additional paper required. I say ‘we’ because acting as my secretary was a good way for my daughter Amy (then nine) to earn some money without leaving home. I always remember the occasion when I was agonising over a choice of referee when she piped up ‘what about Donald Broadbent?’ I never did find out why she thought of him but he was in fact the perfect reviewer! I guess the fact that she is now a paediatric oncologist indicates just how long ago this was.
As technology progressed and emailed submissions became the norm, the role of paper diminished and it was finally possible to see some of the surfaces in my home office. It was the transition to full online submission that prompted me to hand over the reins to Ahmet – he was always better with the technology! However, I was delighted when he invited me to continue to write editorials. When I first started this practice, I used to select the papers for an issue in order to write a specific editorial. When Ahmet took over, we decided that it made more sense for him to select the papers and for me then to fashion an editorial linking them in some way. I have been pleased to receive some feedback over the years that my editorials have encouraged some people to read some papers they might not otherwise have thought of interest.
The journal is now in a far better state than it was when I handed over with an impact factor of 1.211 and the ability to be highly selective in what we publish. I will say a few more words of thanks to Ahmet at the end of this editorial after his essay.
Making technology work
Touch interfaces have transformed the way we interact with digital technology. Only the other day I commented on how amazing it was to watch young children happily swipe, pinch, zoom and drag icons on a tablet long before they have learned the words to describe what they do. But we all know that some touch interfaces seem a lot better than others without us understanding what it is that makes the difference. The first paper in this issue of Behaviour & Information Technology aims to shed some light on this by reporting some modelling of touch-interaction time on smartphones. Sean Hayes from the Computer Science Department, Charleston Southern University, Charleston, SC, James Steiger from the Psychological Sciences Department and Julie Adams from the Electrical Engineering and Computer Science Department, both at Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA, consider the performance impact of target visibility on mobile smartphone applications that provide on- and off-screen content with the commonly used direct-touch interactions and four cursor-based interaction methods for precise selection. Three existing and 12 novel performance models were experimentally validated. Fitts’ Law, which was not designed for modelling selection of off-screen targets, did not predict interaction times for mobile interaction methods as accurately as is commonly observed with desktop interaction with onscreen targets. Target visibility was found to greatly impact interaction times (particularly for direct-touch interaction). They present models that incorporate variables related to target visibility which greatly improved predicted interaction times. The use and merits of the top models are discussed, emphasising the importance and implications of accepted user-interface design guidelines.
Feedback is another key feature of a successful interface, especially one incorporating gestures.
Anne Köpsel and Anke Huckauf from General Psychology, Ulm University, Ulm, Germany, Päivi Majaranta and Poika Isokoski from the School of Information Sciences, University of Tampere, Tampere, Finland, report two studies on the effects of auditory, haptic and visual feedback on performing gestures by gaze or by hand. The authors were interested in the effects of feedback modality (auditory, haptic or visual) and its combined effect with input modality on user performance and experience in such interactions. They conducted two exploratory experiments where numbers were entered, either by gaze or hand, using gestures composed of four stroke elements (up, down, left and right). In Experiment 1, a simple feedback was given on each stroke during the motor action of gesturing: an audible click, a haptic tap or a visual flash. In Experiment 2, a semantic feedback was given on the final gesture: the executed number was spoken, coded by haptic taps or shown as text. With simultaneous simple feedback in Experiment 1, performance with hand input was slower but more accurate than with gaze input. With semantic feedback in Experiment 2, however, hand input was only slower. Effects of feedback modality were of minor importance; nevertheless, semantic haptic feedback in Experiment 2 appeared to be useless at least without extensive training. Error patterns differed between both input modes, but again not dependent on feedback modality. Taken together, the authors conclude that in designing gestural systems, choosing a feedback modality can be given a low priority; it can be chosen according to the task, context and user preferences.
One area where gesture interfaces are particularly powerful is in surgery where conventional interfaces risk contaminating the sterile conditions. Duncan Stevenson and Henry Gardner from the Research School of Computer Science, Australian National University, and Wendell Neilson, Edwin Beenen, Sivakumar Gananadha, James Fergusson, Phillip Jeans, Peter Mews and Hari Bandi from The Canberra Hospital, all in Canberra, Australia, gathered ethnographic evidence from surgeons about the concept of gesture-based control over the display of their patients’ radiographic scan data during surgery. Such control would give the surgeons direct access to their patients’ scan data without compromising their sterile working field and without needing to rely on other clinicians to interpret display instructions. The authors interviewed surgeons and observed them in the operating theatre. They included evidence from earlier publications in this field and used a grounded theory approach to analyse the data. Their findings revealed diversity across the surgical specialties, preoperative versus intraoperative use of the data, preferences for simple natural gestures, the role of another person controlling the display, broad system constraints and the willingness of surgeons to collaborate with their time and effort in this research.
In the next paper, Tina Øvad and Lars Bo Larsen from the Radiometer Medical, Copenhagen, and the Department of Electronic Systems, Aalborg University, Aalborg, also in Denmark, argue that traditional usability methods are not easily applied to today’s agile, industrial environments. They propose to simplify well-known methods and to train software developers to perform the UX work. They report the results of training software developers in three companies in these methods to assess the approach. They found that it was feasible to update and tailor existing usability and UX methods to fit into an agile, industrial environment. They trained developers to perform the usability and UX methods via one-day, in-situ sessions using an ‘instructor’-teaching approach. The training was based on hands-on exercises and real-life tasks. These boosted the developers’ confidence in performing UX work and promise a better consideration of UX in the development phases.
One of the recurring problems that great interfaces encourage is that most people can use extremely powerful digital technology without having the slightest idea how it works. I call it a problem, not because I think it is in itself a ‘bad thing’ but because fewer and fewer people need to know how to write code. Various efforts have been made to encourage young people to code but we need to do much more to ensure that enough people can create digital output. If I cast my mind back far enough, I can remember my early attempts to wrestle with FORTRAN and although it was satisfying to complete a small program, it was never really enjoyable for me. Jean A. Pratt and Liqiang Chen from the Department of Information Systems, University of Wisconsin-Eau Claire, WI, and Carey Cole from the Department of Computer Information Systems and Business Analytics, James Madison University, Harrisonburg, VA, all in the USA, report a study on the influence of goal clarity, curiosity and enjoyment – dimensions of flow theory – on the intention to write programming code. They argue that their research refines and extends previous information systems (IS) research in two significant ways: first, this research is focused specifically on systems development behaviour; second; this is the first research that isolates specific flow theory constructs associated with systems development behaviour. The authors used SmartPLS to test their model. They surveyed participants in computer IS classes at two different universities. They found that goal clarity and curiosity independently and significantly contributed to enjoyment when programming, which significantly and positively influenced a future intention to code. They make recommendations for practitioners and teachers to include testing for curiosity characteristics, providing clear goals, and providing stimuli to pique curiosity.
The next paper addresses a quite different topic – the design of a persuasive physical activity application for older workers. Hazwani Mohd Mohadis and Nazlena Mohamad Ali from the Institute of Visual Informatics, Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia, Bangi, Malaysia, and Alan Smeaton from the Insight Centre for Data Analytics, Dublin City University, Dublin, Ireland, report a study to investigate the perceptions of older workers towards persuasive principles of Persuasive System Design (PSD) that was integrated into an application specifically designed to encourage physical activity. Ten older workers aged 50–64 years with different physical activity levels participated in this study. Using a think-aloud technique, the participants interacted with a physical activity application, while verbally expressing their perceptions towards the persuasive elements. The results indicated that the older worker participants had positive views towards persuasive design principles that fell under the categories of primary task, dialogue support and credibility support. However, the persuasive principle of the social support category received contradictory views. Further, it was discovered that the personalisation of persuasive principles, the credibility of tailored contents and the establishment of a sense of similarity are imperative in the designing of effective persuasive physical activity applications targeting older workers.
One of the peculiarities of the World Wide Web is that almost anyone can set up an attractive and convincing website. Of course, various criminals know this only too well, but luxury brands have a different problem. Luxury brands can adapt printed media to reflect luxury and quality using thick embossed card or premium printing and packaging. However, on the internet, this is far harder to achieve. They cannot afford to ignore the internet but differentiating themselves is difficult. Kathy Ning Shen and Prakash Vel from the Faculty of Business, University of Wollongong in Dubai and Mohamed Khalifa from the College of Business, Al Ghurair University, all in Dubai, UAE, conducted a study to investigate the effect of website design on the customer-based brand equity (CBE) of luxury brands. They developed a research model proposing that two aesthetic design dimensions (aesthetic formality and aesthetic appeal) can stimulate a strong sense of luxury, which in turn would lead to a positive evaluation of CBE. Furthermore, they believe that the effect of aesthetic design on the sense of luxury is contingent upon brand familiarity prior to the exposure of a luxury brand website. To validate their research model, they conducted a survey of 201 participants. The paper includes implications for website design to deliver online brand experience and develop CBE with specific online consumer groups.
The last regular paper in this issue of Behaviour & Information Technology reports a bibliometric analysis of research development in IT innovation. Xi Zhang and Hui Chen from the College of Management and Economics, Tianjin University, People’s Republic of China, Weiguang Wang from the Department of Decision, Operations and Information Technologies (DO&IT), R.H. Smith School, University of Maryland, MD, USA and Patricia Ordóñez de Pablos from the Department of Business Administration, University of Oviedo, Oviedo, Spain, used CiteSpace to conduct their bibliometric analysis. Influential references, hot topics, top-tier journals and important institutes were all detected, and the intellectual structure of recent studies was also mapped. The authors found that research on IT innovation came mainly from two directions, which they call ‘innovation study group’ and ‘information systems study group’. From their analysis, the authors found that most studies treated IT as an enabler of innovation. Although some recent studies try to pay attention to the role of IT as a trigger for innovation and give some rationale for the IT–innovation relationship, the authors argue that further studies are still required to uncover the trigger effect mechanism.
The final paper is a retrospective by the retiring Editor-in-Chief Ahmet Çakir entitled ‘A Farewell to Pens and Keyboards’. I have had the privilege of working with Ahmet in various endeavours from research to international standards for more than 40 years. As he explains at the beginning of his farewell article, he took over from me in 2007. Not only has he successfully handled the transition to fully electronic submission magnificently, he has maintained our focus on people before technology, coped with the increasing volume of submissions and raised the impact factor to an amazing 1.211. I commend his farewell essay to you and wish to thank him sincerely for his support and friendship and his outstanding efforts for Behaviour & Information Technology. Enjoy your ‘retirement’.
As a new editor takes over, it is also time for me to ‘hang up my keyboard’. I have enjoyed the opportunity, and sometimes the challenge, of writing something relevant for the kind of diverse papers which BIT has attracted over the years. I wish the new editor well and hope they continue the tradition of writing editorials, but that, of course, is their decision. I look forward to BIT continuing to thrive.