logo

SCIENTIA SINICA Informationis, Volume 48, Issue 4: 361-375(2018) https://doi.org/10.1360/N112017-00221

Thoughts on human-computer interaction in the age of artificial intelligence

More info
  • ReceivedNov 3, 2017
  • AcceptedJan 4, 2018
  • PublishedFeb 27, 2018

Abstract

With the rapid development of information technology, the extensive development of artificial intelligence and its successful applications in several industries have given rise to great imaginations of providing computer services to human beings once again. However, as the interface of information communication between humans and computers-human-computer interaction-has not been properly developed, the resulting bottleneck effect has become increasingly evident. The reasons for this can be summarized as follows: (1) lack of learning history of the development experience; and (2) changes in the application scenarios in the age of artificial intelligence result in new demands, which presents a huge challenge to human-computer interaction. This paper presents a review of the history of the development of human-computer interaction, focuses on the core issues of human-computer interaction, and summarizes the important theory of thoughts. Lastly, we present some necessary discussions and reflections on the future development of human-computer interaction.


Funded by

国家重点研发计划(2016YFB10011405)

国家自然科学基金(61232013)

国家自然科学基金(61422212)

国家自然科学基金(61402435)

国家自然科学基金(61572479)

中国科学院前沿科学重点研究计划(QYZDY-SSW-JSC041)


References

[1] Dai G Z, Tian F. Pen-based User Interface. Hefei: University of Science and Technology of China Press, 2014. Google Scholar

[2] Licklider J C R. Man-Computer Symbiosis. IRE Trans Hum Factors Electron, 1960, HFE-1: 4-11 CrossRef Google Scholar

[3] Hewett T T, Baecker R, Card S, et al. ACM SIGCHI Curricula for Human-Computer Interaction. New York: ACM, 1992. Google Scholar

[4] Myers B A. A brief history of human-computer interaction technology. Interactions, 1998, 5: 44--54. Google Scholar

[5] Bush V. As we may think. SIGPC Note, 1979, 1: 36-44 CrossRef Google Scholar

[6] Sutherland I E. Sketchpad: a man-machine graphical communication system. In: Proceedings of Spring Joint Computer Conference, Detroit, 1964. Google Scholar

[7] Eskins D, Sanders W H. The multiple-asymmetric-utility system model: a framework for modeling cyber-human systems. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Quantitative Evaluation of Systems, Aachen, 2011. Google Scholar

[8] Kay A, Goldberg A. Personal dynamic media. IEEE Comput, 1977, 10: 31--41. Google Scholar

[9] Weiser M. The computer for the twenty-first century. Sci Am, 1991, 265: 94--104. Google Scholar

[10] Weiser M. Some computer science issues in ubiquitous computing. Commun ACM, 1993, 36: 75-84 CrossRef Google Scholar

[11] Jacob R J, Girouard A, Hirshfield L M, et al. Reality-based interaction: a framework for post-WIMP interfaces. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Florence, 2008. Google Scholar

[12] Green M, Jacob R. SIGGRAPH '90 Workshop report: software architectures and metaphors for non-WIMP user interfaces. SIGGRAPH Comput Graph, 1991, 25: 229-235 CrossRef Google Scholar

[13] Dai G Z, Wang H. Physical object icons buttons gesture (PIBG): a new interaction paradigm with pen. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, Xiamen, 2004. 11--20. Google Scholar

[14] Ishii H. Tangible bits: beyond pixels. In: Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference on Tangible and Embedded Interaction, Bonn, 2008. Google Scholar

[15] Ishii H, Lakatos D, Bonanni L, et al. Radical atoms: beyond tangible bits, toward transformable materials. Interactions, 2012, 19: 38--51. Google Scholar

[16] Olson J R, Olson G M. The Growth of Cognitive Modeling in Human-Computer Interaction Since GOMS. Human-Comput Interaction, 1990, 5: 221-265 CrossRef Google Scholar

[17] Card S K, Newell A, Moran T P. The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. New York: CRC Press, 2008. Google Scholar

[18] Payne S, Green T R G. Task-Action Grammars: A Model of the Mental Representation of Task Languages. Human-Comp Interaction, 1986, 2: 93-133 CrossRef Google Scholar

[19] Laird J E, Newell A, Rosenbloom P S. SOAR: An architecture for general intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 1987, 33: 1-64 CrossRef Google Scholar

[20] Anderson J R. Rules of the Mind. Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1993. Google Scholar

[21] Zhou F, Wong V, Sekuler R. Multi-sensory integration of spatio-temporal segmentation cues: one plus one does not always equal two.. Exp Brain Res, 2007, 180: 641-654 CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar

[22] Kieras D E, Wood S D, Meyer D E. Predictive engineering models based on the EPIC architecture for a multimodal high-performance human-computer interaction task. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact, 1997, 4: 230-275 CrossRef Google Scholar

[23] Hartson H R, Hix D. Human-computer interface development. ACM Comput Surv, 1986, 21: 5--92. Google Scholar

[24] Mirnig A G, Meschtscherjakov A, Wurhofer D, et al. A formal analysis of the ISO 9241-210 definition of user experience. In: Proceedings of the 33rd Annual ACM Conference Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Seoul, 2015. 437--450. Google Scholar

[25] Hassenzahl M, Tractinsky N. User experience - a research agenda. Behaviour Inf Tech, 2006, 25: 91-97 CrossRef Google Scholar

[26] Roto V, Hassenzahl M, Vermeeren A, et al. Understanding, scoping and defining user experience: a survey approach. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Boston, 2009. 719--728. Google Scholar

[27] Toffler A. Future shock. Am J Sociol, 1970, 429: 104. Google Scholar

[28] Csikszentmihalyi M. Beyond Boredom and Anxiety. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers, 1975. Google Scholar

[29] Law E L C, van Schaik P. Modelling user experience - An agenda for research and practice. Interacting Comput, 2010, 22: 313-322 CrossRef Google Scholar

[30] Norman D A. Natural user interfaces are not natural. Interactions, 2010, 17: 6--10. Google Scholar

[31] Norman D A, Nielsen J. The way I see itGestural interfaces. interactions, 2010, 17: 46-49 CrossRef Google Scholar

[32] Bi X J, Li Y, Zhai S M. FFitts law: modeling finger touch with fitts' law. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Paris, 2013. 1363--1372. Google Scholar

[33] Fitts P M. The information capacity of the human motor system in controlling the amplitude of movement.. J Exp Psychology-General, 1992, 121: 262-269 CrossRef Google Scholar

[34] Schneider D W, Anderson J R. A memory-based model of Hick's law.. Cognitive Psychology, 2011, 62: 193-222 CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar

[35] Miller G A. The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information.. Psychological Rev, 1956, 63: 81-97 CrossRef Google Scholar

[36] Ritter F E, Baxter G D, Churchill E F. Foundations for Designing User-Centered Systems. Berlin: Springer, 2014. Google Scholar

[37] Myers B, Hudson S E, Pausch R. Past, present, and future of user interface software tools. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact, 2000, 7: 3-28 CrossRef Google Scholar

[38] Dan R O, Klemmer S R. The future of user interface design tools. In: Proceedings of CHI'05 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Portland, 2005. 2134--2135. Google Scholar

[39] Glonek G, Pietruszka M. Natural user interfaces (NUI): review. J Appl Comput Sci, 2012, 20: 27--45. Google Scholar

[40] Wigdor D, Wixon D. Brave NUI World: Designing Natural User Interfaces for Touch and Gesture. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers, 2011. Google Scholar

[41] Mann S. Intelligent Image Processing. Hoboken: John Wiley and Sons, 2001. Google Scholar

[42] Liu W Y. Natural user interface- next mainstream product user interface. In: Proceedings of IEEE International Conference on Computer-Aided Industrial Design and Conceptual Design, Yiwu, 2011. Google Scholar

[43] Jacob R J K, Girouard A, Hirshfield L M, et al. Reality-based interaction: unifying the new generation of interaction styles. In: Proceedings of CHI'07 Extended Abstracts on Human Factors in Computing Systems, San Jose, 2007. 2465--2470. Google Scholar

[44] Lv F, Zhang H Q, Hou W J, et al. A natural user interface feedback design method based on reality framework. J Beijing Univ Posts Telecommun (Soc Sci Edit), 2015, 17: 14--21. Google Scholar

[45] Shneiderman B. Technology-mediated social participation: the next 25 years of HCI challenges. In: Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction: Design and Development Approaches, Orlando, 2011. Google Scholar

[46] Preece J, Shneiderman B. The Reader-to-Leader Framework: Motivating Technology-Mediated Social Participation. THCI, 2009, 1: 13-32 CrossRef Google Scholar

[47] Thomas J C, Kellogg W A. Minimizing ecological gaps in interface design. IEEE Softw, 1989, 6: 78--86. Google Scholar

[48] Landauer T K. Let's get real: a position paper on the role of cognitive psychology in the design of humanly useful and usable systems. Des Interact, 1991, 33: 60--73. Google Scholar

[49] Shove E, Pantzar M, Watson M. The dynamics of social practice: everyday life and how it changes. Acta Sociologica, 2012, 65: 1511--1514. Google Scholar

[50] Pierce J, Strengers Y, Sengers P, et al. Introduction to the special issue on practice-oriented approaches to sustainable HCI. ACM Trans Comput-Human Interact, 2013, 20: 1--8. Google Scholar

[51] Bidwell N J, Siya M, Marsden G, et al. Walking and the social life of solar charging in rural africa. ACM Trans Comput-Human Interact, 2013, 20: 499--505. Google Scholar

[52] Wakkary R, Desjardins A, Hauser S, et al. A sustainable design fiction: green practices. ACM Trans Comput-Human Interact, 2013, 20: 23. Google Scholar

[53] Tomlinson B, Blevis E, Nardi B, et al. Collapse informatics and practice: theory, method, and design. ACM Trans Comput-Human Interact, 2013, 20: 24. Google Scholar

[54] Pink S, Mackley K L, Mitchell V, et al. Applying the lens of sensory ethnography to sustainable HCI. ACM Trans Comput-Human Interact, 2013, 20: 499--505. Google Scholar

[55] Disalvo C, Watson M. Commentaries on the special issue on practice-oriented approaches to sustainable HCI. ACM Trans Comput-Human Interact, 2013, 20: 666--684. Google Scholar

[56] Eskins D, Sanders W H. The multiple-asymmetric-utility system model: a framework for modeling cyber-human systems. In: Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Quantitative Evaluation of Systems, Aachen, 2011. Google Scholar

[57] Rehman M, Liew C, Wah T. Mining personal data using smartphones and wearable devices: a survey.. Sensors, 2015, 15: 4430-4469 CrossRef PubMed Google Scholar

[58] Abowd G D, Mynatt E D. Charting past, present, and future research in ubiquitous computing. ACM Trans Comput-Hum Interact, 2000, 7: 29-58 CrossRef Google Scholar

[59] Greenfield A. Everyware: the Dawning Age of Ubiquitous Computing. Berkeley: Peachpit Press, 2006. Google Scholar

[60] Goertz W, Reinhart M. Hype Cycle for Human-Machine Interface. Stanford: Gartner, 2015. Google Scholar

[61] Tong T X. From “man-machine war" to man-machine symbiosis. Study Dialectics Nat, 1997. Google Scholar

[62] Mccarthy J. Artificial intelligence: a general survey. Artif Intel, 1974, 5: 385--392. Google Scholar

[63] Grudin J. AI and HCI: Two Fields Divided by a Common Focus. AIMag, 2010, 30: 48-57 CrossRef Google Scholar

Copyright 2019 Science China Press Co., Ltd. 《中国科学》杂志社有限责任公司 版权所有

京ICP备18024590号-1