Title of Paper: Flexible User Support with the Adaptive Bar
Author: Matjaz Debevec, Dali Donlagic, Rajko Svecko, Janko Spasovski,
	and Beth Meyer


Presented by: Darren Jones
Prsented On: 11/18/94
Notes Taken by: Stuart Nelson

Introduction: The paper basically discusses how to provide user support
	      via an adaptive bar. The example used in the paper was
	      the tool bar in the Microsoft Word Application.

Motivation: Studies show that human performace improves with adaptive
	    interfaces.

I.Discussion of the Paper

A. An outline of Kuhme's interface classification:
The classification of interfaces:

	Initiative - when either agent first arrives at a possible adaptation.
	Proposal - presentation of possible adaptation
	Decision - an agent decides whether to enact the adaptation
	Execution - carrying out the adaptation.

These states of interface interaction delineate phases of decision making
that are made by the agent of the adaptive system.

The Initiative, Proposal, and Execution are all made by the adaptive system 
itself, the user makes the choice of when to perform the adaptation.

B. Possible Combinations to Facalitate Adaptation:

1. Self Adaptation: the system adapts automatically
2. User Controlled Self Adaptation: the user does the adaptation
3. User initiated Adaptation
4. Computer Aided Adaptation: Systems aids in suggesting adaptations for 
   the user
5. System Initiated Adaptation
6. Adaptation

C. Goals of Adaptation

1. Make computer user easier
2. Easier to work with complex systems
3. Faster use
4. Simplified use
5. Consideration of user's increasing experience

D. An Example: The Microsoft Word for Windows Adaptive Tool bar

Benefits: The toolbar saves time by eliminating browsing through windows.
	  It is customizeable. Easy to Use.

Disadvantages: Icon size, icon recognition

Features - The toolbar provides automatic addition and removal of icons.
      Automatic icon resizing based on frequency of use. Storing
      of present icon arrangement.

E. Issued discussed in the paper

1. How do you prioritize icons
2. How do you represent icons
3. The improvements for the next version of the Adaptive Bar.

II. Discussion Questions

1. The interface enhancement addresses issues with 
   toolbar content and icon size,but neglects problems with the 
   recognition of toolbar functions. How could this
   problem be alleviated?

Ans.
 The tool bar could have a keyword displayed explaining 
 an icon if the user leaves the mouse on the icon for a number 
 of seconds without moving it. Issues of how
 to implement this were raised. 
 
 Other related questions: How do you create macros, 
 will you remember what you created? Some answers to these questions 
 are related to the functionality provided
 in framemaker.


2. Will the function of the adaptive bar be clear to 
   novice users, or will it merely add to the frustration of learning?	

Ans. It could be according to some people. Darren found 
     it confusing. To alleviate this, someone suggested that help be 
     be provided to use the icon bar. Also, someone suggested
     that an example function could be provided that allows users to practice
     invoking certain functions with the tool bar, from this, 
     they could see what would actually happen if they invoked that 
     function with the tool bar. A follow up question was asked regarding the 
     usefulness of this functionality if the expert
     users use keyboard short cuts. The answer was maybe not, 
     but it still is a good functionality to have.


3. Should different toolbars be presented to the user 
   with varying subtasks of the program(ie tables, drawings, etc...)?

Ans. Yes, change toolbars that keep the functionality that 
     is still useful in the previous tool bar.
     In other words, if you change a tool bar, the functions which remain
     applicable will remain on the tool bar.


4. What alternative signals could be used to indicate 
   an adaptation is possible to reduce or eliminate intrusiveness?

Ans. We agreed that it has to be somewhat intrusive to 
     inform the user of the potential adaptivity. The issue is
     how intrusive is it. Someone said you could wait until
     an idle moment when the user isn't performing anything, 
     then pose a question or or an assertion. Another issue is if 
     you want to keep the adaptive assertion in that
     session, otherwise it is of no use.


-- 
					
				-John Stuart Nelson Jr (nelsonj@cc.gatech.edu)