Design principles and guidelines for authoring hypermedia language learning applications

System, Vol. 25, No. 1, pp. 9 27, 1997

Pergamon Pll: S0346-251 X(96)00057-7

© 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd All rights reserved. Printed in Great Britain 0346-251X/97 $17.00+0.00

DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES FOR AUTHORING HYPERMEDIA LANGUAGE LEARNING APPLICATIONS D . P . HEMARD

Department of Language Studies, London Guildhall University, Calcutta House, Old Castle Street, London E1 7NT, U.K. The recent popularity and potential of hypermedia authoring shells are increasingly generating high-profile developments of hypermedia courseware in higher education. However, whilst such projects are currently widely encouraged, very little help in the form of design and technical support is being made available to individual authors with little or no design expertise. Furthermore, the commercially produced hypermedia authoring software, which was never initially intended and therefore conceived for delivering learning applications, is not a particularly helpful design tool within the learning environment. Against this background, the purpose of this paper is to provide keen, computer literate language specialists in higher education with a manageable set of domain-specific design principles and guidelines with a view to alleviating the complexity of design issues arising out of authoring hypermedia language learning applications. © 1997 Elsevier Science Ltd. All rights reserved

INTRODUCTION Recently, the successful development of hypertext software supports coupled with emerging multimedia technology have led to the creation of hypermedia authoring platforms conceived to enable users-turned-authors to design their own hypertext applications with additional multimedia extensions. However, designing such support applications within their intrinsic programming environments places severe demands on the designers, partly as a result of their limited or non-existent skills in user-interface design and lack of computer-based knowledge, but above all because of the complexity of the hypermedia presentation of both the material to be supported with its necessary links and the potentially rich interactive mode such a platform offers. Such an intricate combination of static and dynamic design issues is further compounded by the need to provide ultimate end-users, in this case foreign language students, with optimal interaction and navigation facilities with, as yet, very little domain-specific help or guidance. Therefore, the aim of this paper is to present design guidelines specifically addressing such design issues related to hypermedia authoring within the confines of computer-assisted

10

D.P. H E M A R D

language learning underpinned by the relevant design principles representing the concepts governing hypermedia. The proposed set of guidelines is the result of a selection process which originated from the initial extraction of relevant high-level principles, the subsequent grouping of general design guidelines under each selected principle, their tailored presentation to match previously established usability goals and finally, their translation into the field of language learning authoring.

DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES The design of user-interface software will often involve a considerable investment of time and effort. Design guidelines can help ensure the value of that investment (Smith and Mosier, 1986). Design principles and guidelines are often considered and defined as important and valuable sources of specialist information destined to help the user-interface designer throughout the design process. This conveniently presented specialist knowledge essentially stems from three areas of expertise: the domain of cognitive psychology concerned with human-computer interactions such as visual perception, attention, information processing, memory, learning and mental models (Preece et al., 1993), expert knowledge on data input and display and user support mechanisms, and finally empirical data drawn heuristically from experience in user-interface design. Generally, design guidelines presented in the human-computer interaction (HCI) literature derive from high-level and universal principles and are conceived to provide design advice, insights and rules. However, their intrinsic non-contextual nature and general applicability entail that guidelines cannot provide readily available solutions to specific design problems. Careful interpretation and subsequent use by the designer can only, at best, provide complementary and helpful advice (Marshall et al., 1987). To be effective, guidelines must therefore be interpretable and usable by designers with no specific background in behavioural science. On a more realistic or cautionary note, Gould and Lewis (1985) warn that "existing guidelines are often based on informed opinion rather than on data or established principles". Furthermore "guidelines should be viewed as an informal collection of suggestions, rather than as a distilled science". Along similar lines, Clarke (1992) defines guidelines as representing "a hypothesis or a generalization" which, in turn, lead to the establishment of reliable principles. The nature of the original domain, be it psychological theory or experiential evidence, the degree of interpretation from general applicability to specific design instructions and the varying presentational styles adopted inevitably mean that design guidelines appear in many different guises and can be found from as many sources, such as specialist journals, general handbooks and company guides (Preece et al., 1994). Although they are valuable and useful tools with a definite potential to help designers to concentrate on design issues and trade-offs, guidelines should, nevertheless, come with an

A U T H O R I N G HYPERMED1A L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G APPLICATIONS

11

appended note of warning. Whilst making explicit and helping to put into practice broad and complex human factor principles (Marshall et al., 1987), they are, by their very nature, extracted from empirical evidence. Such an experiential dimension, in addition to the sheer range of areas and concepts covered, can make the initial identification process somewhat problematic. Difficulties arising out of such an approach are further compounded by the strong overlapping element within guidelines stemming from human factors concepts. Moreover, the comprehensive and professionally coherent nature of guidelines, linked to their adaptability and design tool status, makes their formulation imprecise or, at times, plainly unintelligible to the unskilled author-turned-softwaredesigner. Finally, given the multiplicity of ill-defined user-interface designers, special attention must be paid to the many potentially contrastive interpretations which could result from such vast and seemingly authoritative recommendations. The above considerations have been taken into account when deciding upon the form design guidelines for authors of hypermedia language learning applications should take. On the premise that "the best kinds of guidelines are general principles" (Preece et al., 1994), it was felt that a useful and environmentally acceptable set of guidelines would combine three main characteristics: a strong cognitive psychological basis derived from established principles, a general applicability to a comprehensive spectrum of specific authoring issues and, last but not least, an adaptability to the needs and level of expertise of the targeted designing authors. Sources of general design principles and guidelines The primary set of high-level design principles and guidelines applicable to hypermedia specificity was drawn mainly from Smith and Mosier (1986), Marshall et al. (1987) and Brown (1988). These three documents provide a thorough and comprehensive collection of generally applicable design principles and guidelines which, once interpreted and subsequently translated into specific rules by user-interface designers, become potentially valuable design tools to be used in the design process. Differences in styles and formats of guideline presentations are highlighted by Gaines and Shaw's (Gaines and Shaw, 1984) original and practical checklist of proverbs conveniently summarizing advice and techniques supporting computer dialogue. Smith and Mosier (1986) present guidelines for design of user-interface software in six discrete functional areas: data entry, data display, sequence control, user guidance, data transmission and data protection. General issues related to human factors are discussed and guidelines are proposed with adjoining examples, exceptions, comments, and possible references. Marshall et al. (1987) offer guidelines "cast into a framework of concepts introduced as ~sensitive dimensions' in human-computer interaction design". Guidelines are derived from broad psychological principles through a process of simplification which filters, groups, interprets and translates them, through examples, into guidelines. These guidelines are then presented under 14 "sensitive dimensions": design of procedures and tasks; analogy and metaphor; training and practice; task user match; feedback; selecting terms, wording and objects; consistency; screen design; organization; multimodal and multimedia interaction; navigation; adaptation; error management; and locus of control.

12

D.P. H E M A R D

Gaines and Shaw's guidelines (Gaines and Shaw, 1984) are presented in the form of general "proverbs" which, despite showing their age in a number of cases and resulting obsolescence due to technological achievements in the last 10 years, are nonetheless useful and interesting as they provide design issues and considerations, encompassing technological advice still valid at present and not addressed elsewhere. Finally, Brown (1988) proposes a set of practical suggestions and guidelines to help interface designers. These are presented under the following headings: designing display formats, effective wording, colour, graphics, dialogue design, data entry, control and display devices, error messages and on-line assistance, and implementation of human-computer interface guidelines.

Hypermedia design guidelines In spite of the recent and noticeable increase in the development and use of hypermedia applications, few studies have so far been conducted into the reading, let alone the authoring, of hypermedia or hypertext within the confines of HCI (Nielsen, 1990a). Aside from the apparently short existence of the software, such a dearth of informative and supportive material can be attributed, first, to a lack of adequate and reliable evaluation data of existing hypermedia developments and experiments, and second, to the added difficulties of having to study and evaluate both the usability for end-users reading the interface and for the authors developing the hypermedia structures. Indeed, a dual test that would purport to evaluate the quality of the authored interface in tandem with the assessment of its learnability and usability would not be feasible insofar as sufficiently valid and tested criteria do not yet exist to fully appreciate "what makes a good hypertext structure in the first place" (Nielsen, 1990a). This design problem becomes even more relevant when hypermedia development is brought into the field of education. Similarly, specifically applicable guidelines in this field are not prominent in the HCI literature. On the whole, they take the form of advice and recommendations tailored to suit and remedy the specific design need and deficiencies of authors. Often based on combined personal experience and HCI expertise, these proposed suggestions and guidance are typically provided as part of an approach designed to make the hypermedia author aware of problems and possible solutions which, if applicable and verified, could become potential guidelines. Interestingly, such recommendations seem to fall into four reasonably distinct categories depending on how narrow or broad a view of the interface the author of the document takes and his/her areas of expertise. The first category, which could be tagged the two-dimensional perspective, includes screen design, data display and basic ergonomics. Clarke (1992) considers screen design features for computer-based learning material such as use of space, text, graphics and colour. Special attention is given to overall screen layouts, on-line text, colour in general, graphics, animation, video and sound. The second and third categories, which squarely belong to the field of HCI, view the interface and the human interaction, respectively, three-dimensionally. When primarily

A U T H O R I N G H Y P E R M E D I A L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G APPLICATIONS

13

concerned with the interface, the emphasis rests predominantly on the design of hierarchies, access structures (such as searching mechanisms, link buttons, commands) and information structures (mental models of structures, navigation aids) (Dillon, 1991; Hardman and Sharratt, 1990; Martin, 1990). When the interface is seen as intricately linked to and encompassing purposeful user interaction with the system, special considerations are given to design objectives, users, user tasks and learning concepts related to both the interface and the information data provided (see Dillon, 1991; Hammond, 1993; Jonassen and Grabinger, 1989; Nielsen, 1990b; Shneiderman, 1992). Finally, the fourth category of advice and potential recommendations, which could be called hypermedia and teaching, essentially deals with experiential evidence and issues raised by authors from the teaching profession in the course of their practical authoring experience. These issues tend to address more specifically, thus emphasizing, the teaching/ learning process and the validity of hypermedia technology in education (see Blin, 1992; Emery and Ingraham, 1992; Foelsche, 1990; Fox et al., 1992; Hammond, 1993; Marcus, 1993).

METHOD TO SELECT DESIGN PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES Researching design principles and guidelines in the HCI literature was conducted in three stages. Initially, high-level principles were singled out as a result of their conspicuousness and general prominence in HCI. This ubiquitous and recurrent nature made it then possible to streamline such an original set whilst avoiding the overlap and redundancies resulting from multiple and parallel representations and formulations. The second stage consisted in selecting and grouping general design principles under each previously selected high-level principle according to relevance and applicability to interactive user interfaces in general and potential suitability to hypermedia authoring platforms in particular. The aim of this second stage was to arrive at a manageable and representative set of general design guidelines which, although far from exhaustive, helped to crystallize and highlight the stronger and weaker areas of expertise, experience and research and their translation into actual guidelines. Additionally, it was ensured, at that point, that a reasonable match existed with previously established usability goals. Finally, functionality related to hypermedia authoring were drawn from the generally applicable functional areas provided by the guideline documents leading to the presentation of design guidelines which could be both derived from the general design principles and applicable to hypermedia functionality. The subset of design principles and guidelines was primarily selected from Smith and Mosier (1986), Marshall et al. (1987), Gaines and Shaw (1984) and Brown (1988). Grouping of selected guidelines

To increase the ease of use of the proposed design guidelines amongst authors, the hypermedia-specific set was presented according to the four highlighted categories. These are related to screen design and data display, access structures, information structures and hypermedia and language teaching.

14

D.P. H E M A R D

Evaluation of the proposed guidelines Evaluating guidelines is complex due to the skills and expertise required. To the question "How does one evaluate guidelines?" Preece et al. (1994) give the following answer: "become an HCI expert". Such an expertise, according to Preece, can be acquired from existing and recognized knowledge as well as personal experience. Two types of techniques are subsequently suggested. General guidelines, based on inductive reasoning, are best evaluated on the basis of the available data supporting their broad adjacent arguments. Conversely, prescriptive guidelines, based on deduction, are more likely to require specialist knowledge to be both adequately argued and satisfactorily evaluated. By presenting domain-specific guidelines essentially derived from the acknowledged and authoritative HCI literature as well as personal experience, it was considered that such a combined expertise could be used as basis and potential reference for evaluation purposes. Indeed, the selection process chosen for this project eliminated or greatly reduced the degree of overlap and contradictory nature guidelines could present and highlight depending on the characteristics of the users, ta~ks and targeted environment. Therefore, it was decided to concentrate on testing the guidelines with a view to ascertaining their applicability and comprehensiveness as well as their relevance and explicitness. This evaluation was conducted by using the checklist designed by Ravden and Johnson (1989) and adapted to identify and match general principles with the general applicability of the guidelines provided. Areas of particular interest included visual clarity, consistency, compatibility, informative feedback, explicitness, appropriate functionality, flexibility and control, error prevention and correction, user guidance and support and system usability problems. Furthermore, the relevance and appropriateness of guidelines to specific design issues, in addition to overall clarity and user friendliness, was evaluated by means of user walk-throughs.

SELECTION OF HIGH-LEVEL DESIGN PRINCIPLES The following core of underlying high-level design principles derived from a selection process stemming from and highlighting both their general applicability to interactive user interfaces and their ubiquity and highly recurrent nature in general, professional and academic books and journal articles (Brown, 1988; Marshall et al., 1987; Gaines and Shaw, 1984; McGraw, 1992; Preece et aL, 1993; Shneiderman, 1992; Smith and Mosier, 1986). Whilst general design principles highlighted some important concepts underlying the design process in a wide range of situations and as such fulfilled the need to provide context-free adaptability, their suitability for appropriate and domain-specific applications remained to be established. Consequently, high-level design guidelines from the HCI literature were subsequently selected according to a process of elimination based on inapplicability, duplication and overlapping. This initial set of high-level goals was used, in turn, to extract appropriate domain-specific guidelines.

A U T H O R I N G H Y P E R M E D I A L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G APPLICATIONS

15

Know and appreciate the intended users' needs Although indisputable, the goal of identifying and defining the targeted user group is difficult to achieve successfully. Shneiderman (1992) stipulates that "all design should begin with an understanding of the intended users, including profiles of their age, gender, physical abilities, education, cultural or ethnic background, training, motivation, goals and personality", adding further that the process of defining such a profile is endless when considering the volatility of the subject matter, the vast range of skills to take into account and the multiplicity of potential user groups. Knowing the users results in developing a greater appreciation of their needs, the tasks to be performed and ultimately helps to conceive differing design goals to match their specific characteristics. Interestingly, Shneiderman illustrates this point on three appropriately differentiated generic groups: novice or first-time users, knowledgeable intermittent users, and expert frequent users allowing for different levels of experience and matching tasks.

Such an important principle initially rests upon two specific but intricately interrelated levels of expertise and knowledge. Whilst the designer must develop and appreciate a model of the targeted users in order to conceive and provide functions matching the required user tasks, inevitably s/he must possess the necessary design skills and appropriate software development tools to build and deliver the desired functionality. User-task feasibility. Functions and facilities designed to match the degree of expectancy and the requirements of users are invariably circumscribed by the scope and versatility of the chosen technology whilst similarly being predicated upon the range and depth of experience and design skills provided to develop the required applications. Such early considerations and adjacent inventories attempting to ascertain the degree of feasibility of the design project must be seen as an essential starting point. User-task match. Marshall et al. (1987) suggest that the structure and arrangement of tasks and procedures should be compatible with known cognitive abilities. The more information on the potential users, the greater the designer can match the demands placed on the users with their known cognitive characteristics, adding that a better understanding of tasks to be performed must inevitably lead to improved learnability and increased performance. This principle is also prevalent in Smith and Mosier's (Smith and Mosier, 1986) high-level objectives for data display and data entry, recommending that there should be clear duality between the format of the display and the users and user tasks to be performed. Strong emphasis is placed on the concept of flexibility allowing for reduced or greater user control of data display and data entry according to the characteristics and levels of skills of the potential users. Correspondingly, Marshall et al. (1987) develop the notions of adaptive and adaptable interfaces to suit the users' needs, preferences and varying degrees of skills with a view to providing greater adaptability between users, tasks and problem-solving strategies. Syntax and semantics. Good human--computer interaction is predicated upon appropriate physical presentations of information such as textual, audio and visual material and features. Marshall et al. (1987) state that "command language, menu design, icons, synthetic speech messages, etc., must be selected to be comprehensible, easy to learn and compatible with known user characteristics". Furthermore, the optimization of the physical interface and

16

D.P. HEMARD

its syntax based on the users' known cognitive and perceptual faculties increase performance. Similarly, McGraw (1992) advocates the use of user-centred feedback mechanisms in order to provide potential users with system explanations and messages they can understand. Be consistent and clear Consistency is the most conspicuous principle to be found in the HCI literature, although the most often ignored by designers (Shneiderman, 1992). It is essentially related and applicable to standard and recurrent operations taking place in comparable situations. There should be consistency in the terminology, the metaphors and the commands used with a view to helping users to further develop their own model of the application. A consistent user interface, by reducing errors and improving learnability, enhances its usability. Additionally, concision and clarity are both associated with the level of accuracy of identified users' needs and their relevant skills. This reciprocity can only be put to the test by implicating users through a process of iterative design and prototyping (Preece et al., 1993).

This principle is omnipresent in the display organization and data entry procedures that follow. Consistency of data display. Smith and Mosier (1986) advocate the systematic standardization and strict control of the data display, such as terminology, formats and styles by means of a "written or computer-managed dictionary of these items". Consistency affects many aspects of the display such as screen positioning, colours, types, fonts, character sizes and styles used. Designed in a consistent manner, they will increase the functionality of the system by providing clear meaning and expectations through unequivocal typographical and graphical cues. Consistency of data entry transactions. Consistency of data entry transactions requires that "similar sequences of actions should be used under all conditions" (Smith and Mosier, 1986). Similarly, identified types of messages, be they error or explanatory information, should be standardized and appear the same and in the same place within any given category. Minimize the cognitive load on users The reduction of the users' cognitive load can best be achieved by minimizing both the process of memorization and the process of learning undertaken by users to complete tasks. Adequate use of input devices and commands coupled with mnemonic techniques and principles, such as Miller's (Miller, 1956) often referenced theory limiting short-term memory to seven items, can be used if properly applied (Preece et al., 1993). Simple displays, general consistency, appropriate metaphors and relevant analogies should facilitate the learning process and lighten the cognitive load. Analogies and metaphors. The above principle spans both concepts of usability and learnability. By facilitating the user interaction by means of easily recognizable and identifiable analogies and metaphors Marshall et al. (1987) argue that users are encouraged to develop their own mental models of a system's functionality. Furthermore, it should

A U T H O R I N G H Y P E R M E D I A L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G APPLICATIONS

17

enable them to demythify the system, to relate to and understand the complexity of the user interface more quickly. Therefore, users should benefit from employing their existing knowledge through the use of metaphors in terms of comprehension, recognition, reaction and adaptability to new situations. Finally, the chosen metaphor must fully relate to the resulting functionality of the system. Training and learning. Smith and Mosier (1986) support the need for a "minimal memory load on users" for easy mobility between screens and minimal task completion. Reducing the memory load should facilitate the users' learning process and increase the learning curve. Similarly, productivity is equally increased by reducing the number of input actions required by users. Such data entry should not necessitate "complex lists of codes and syntactic command strings". Marshall et al. (1987) add that "a task procedure which the user understands, and is fully capable of performing, will be performed better and learned more easily than a procedure which causes difficulty". Task procedures and commands could be "organized into the structure" to help the memorization and learning process. On-line help and guidance. According to Marshall et al. (1987), "the objectives of effective training are to promote smooth, error-free performance and a good conceptual understanding of the system model". HELP information and or on-line tutorial facilities coupled with above mentioned design features can reduce training needs by providing knowledge and information about relevant features and facilities to users often identified as inexperienced. Provide easy error-solving devices "Nothing makes a user feel out of control more than a "fatal' error--by the system, or unintended by the user" (McGraw, 1992). The notion of "human error" is rife in the context of HCI and although users necessarily learn by their mistakes, serious errors must be prevented from happening by the system and users alike if they are to remain confident and competent when completing required tasks. The provision of such error-solving devices includes good and clear error messages, easy restoration of the system following an error and reversible actions to allow for correction.

DESIGN GUIDELINES APPLICABLE TO HYPERMEDIA FOR LEARNING ENVIRONMENTS On the basis of the adopted method the following set of specific guidelines was derived from the framework of high-level principles and guidelines and was established according to previously identified considerations including comprehensibility, coherence, adaptability and intelligibility. The originality of its presentation stemmed from the important dual prerogative of highlighting the intrinsic characteristics of the guidelines, such as their strong cognitive rationale, their applicability and adaptability to the needs and level of expertise of the targeted users, whilst purposefully presenting them in clearly defined sections relevant and related to the design process. As a result, the first two sections attempted to cover predesign issues linked to technical, practical and pedagogical considerations, particularly focusing on the validity and feasibility of the design project. This was followed by more specific predesign considerations linked to task requirements and

18

D.P. H E M A R D

structure planning whilst subsequent sections essentially concentrated on design issues such as screen layouts, text, images, animation, sound, video, within the agreed structure of the user interface and expected user interaction. Finally, being conscious of the previously mooted practical limitations of guidelines, it was decided to adopt a formulation which would both provide advice and recommendations as well as raise as much awareness as possible of a comprehensive range of issues identified within the authoring process.

DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR AUTHORING HYPERMEDIA LANGUAGE LEARNING APPLICATIONS

Predesign considerations Technical and practical authoring requirements Market: Survey the existing market; clearly ascertain the availability and potential suitability of similar commercial packages specifically authored to be used in language learning or teaching environments. Warning: although at first glance, such applications might appear to be attractive and suitable, they might not necessarily provide an authoring mode. Approach: Choose an appropriate hypermedia approach; the range of features and versatility of the shell will vary according to the chosen hypermedia approach. For instance, do not confuse frame-based platforms supporting hierarchical structures, data abstraction and orientation with relational databases and sophisticated Windows-based applications such as desktop publishing. Specifications: Ensure that the existing hardware specifications match that of the desired software. The full functionality and expected performance of the chosen technology are predicated upon the right combination of processing power to provide adequate speed, random access memory to manipulate large amounts of data and, finally, important memory saving capacity to store sizeable data. Potential: As language specialists, ensure that you fully appreciate the potential and the limitations of the selected hypermedia authoring software before considering it as a suitable design tool. Match its functionality with the desired usability of the application to be authored within a learning environment. Planning: Ensure that the planned design and development process of the application to be authored is adequately and realistically timed and affordable. Do not underestimate the value of a feasibility study even if it is initially seen as counterproductive. Expertise: Establish the existing level and range of expertise that can be called upon as well as the technical and design support that can be made available when considering the validity and feasibility of the design project. Whilst the design tools are tailored to the adopted learning strategies by the language specialist, as subject expert author and course design specialist, the ultimate success of the project lies in the adequate combination of specialist knowledge to reflect areas of expertise, such as software engineering, graphic design and user-interface design. Although hypermedia development is best achieved by a design team comprising professional developers, it is feasible for one author to combine the necessary knowledge to conceive and build appropriate and satisfactory educational applications.

A U T H O R I N G H Y P E R M E D I A L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G APPLICATIONS

19

Aims and objectives

Learning context: Clearly establ&h the learning context within which the application is to be designed and subsequently used as this will have important repercussions on the design of the interface. For instance, will the application to be authored be used under teacher supervision or, conversely, will it be designed for selfaccess? Learning strategy: Ascertain which learning strategy is more appropriate and suitable to potential students given the chosen or imposed learning context. For example, certain aspects of language learning, by encouraging a memorization process based on exploratory modes and generally inductive methods, will tend to favour the implicit learning approach with its emphasis on student-controlled interaction. Conversely, a more traditional deductive approach, emphasizing rules and direct applications, will be more appropriate for an explicit learning method. Learning goals: Clearly identify the language learning or teaching goals to be achieved by the application. These should suit the needs of the prospective students in relation to the linguistic skills to be acquired. Task requirements Task support: Clearly ascertain that the range of tasks to be undertaken by the targeted learners are adequately supported by the chosen hypermedia system. For instance, will the authored hypermedia courseware be able to promote a languagebased exploratory environment if an inductive approach is chosen? Learning environment: Consider the most suitable learning or teaching environment that can be provided, both feasibly and realistically, by hypermedia in conjunction with the clear presentation of stated aims and objectives. Usability study: Define the projected usability of the application to be designed with a view to optimizing the expected language learning process within the above mentioned learning goals. Remember that such a process cannot be sustained by simply providing students with navigation facilities and information retrieval mechanisms. The discrepancy which may arise out of a tendency to offer a multiplicity of choice or, indeed, too much peripheral user control to customize the interface whilst paying too little attention to the necessary supporting guiding mechanisms might undermine the expected learning process. Student requirements: Ensure that the information, tasks and interaction meet the needs of prospective students in terms of acquired language skills and levels of language attainments. Student support: Provide an acceptable level of support tailored to the available range of built-in learning strategies offered to students. For instance, authors should pay particular attention to the provision of adequate support, such as on-help facilities, tutorials and error messages, for all students with a view to reducing the frontloaded cognitive load likely to be experienced by such learners. Task metaphor: Consider the need to provide students with an easily and readily recognizable metaphor encapsulating the nature of the tasks offered with a view to increasing usability and learnability.

20

D.P. H E M A R D

Structure planning Organization: Consider the hypermedia shell essentially as an explicit, organizing structure designed to support a broad, albeit finite, selection of learning tasks. Plan such a structure, be it linear, hierarchical, web, tree, linked to outside component, according to its suitability to the chosen learning strategy and task requirements. Conceptualization: As an unskilled software designer, initially adopt a top-down approach to structure design as opposed to premature bottom-up thinking. An early paper-based conceptualization of the structural dimensions and considerations will stimulate and facilitate the subsequent design process of the given structure. Conversely, the bottom-up approach, by concentrating on detailed aspects of the structure, is more likely to obscure the necessary conceptual overview. It will also undermine the author's position by making it more vulnerable to design expediencies such as design shortcuts and ready-made technological facilities. Mapping: Map out a clear and manageable overall structure for the application to be authored, matching the previously adopted learning strategy and conceived within the well-established technological constraints imposed by the chosen system. Adopt a clear conceptual approach to the document structure highlighting its configuration. If incompatibility is discovered at this predesign stage, go back to earlier findings of the feasibility study. This could apply in cases when structures are required for large and complex documents. Navigation: Establish a clear distinction between navigational facilities. Navigation should stimulate informational, macro level controls, locating information within the whole structured data, whilst browsing should emphasize node links and attributes. User-interface design considerations Compatibility: Ensure that the design of the user interface is specifically tailored to match and reciprocate the expected context of use and the chosen learning modes. For instance, students must be given appropriate means to control the expected interaction in relation to the chosen learning approach and context, be it self-directed, laboratory-based, etc. Effectiveness: Design a user interface, including learning data, activities and their screen presentation, capable of delivering the most effective learning strategy. For instance, do not unjustifiably highlight auxiliary features which may create unnecessary distraction leading to a slower, shallower learning process and reduced interactive potentiality. Design considerations Screen layout Optimization: Plan the visual display of information so that students scanning the screen make the most of the display as quickly and as usefully as possible. Wagner (1988) suggests that the scanning sequential order is predicated upon the eye movement, often conditioned to go from top to bottom and from left to right, which additionally "naturally moves from a larger image to a smaller; a saturated colour to

A U T H O R I N G H Y P E R M E D I A L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G APPLICATIONS

21

an unsaturated colour; a bright colour to a dull colour; from colour to black and white; from a non-symmetrical to a symmetrical form; from moving object to a stationary object". Therefore, the screen display fulfils two important functions: it triggers the visual behaviour of users whilst providing important visual interactive cues. Presentation: Establish appropriate screen divisions and design clear and consistently positioned functional areas on screen according to the content they display, i.e. text, graphics, image, video. The larger informational areas should ideally occupy a central position. The display patterns as shown in Fig. 1 could apply. Allowing for additional control menu bars at top, bottom or sides, Fig. 1 illustrates how texts A and C can be presented in conjunction with a general illustration B. Customization: Group functions and design customized screens for main and peripheral interactive modes linked to specific task requirements, Functional modes should be labelled and clearly identifiable, on the basis of their own specific layout and display features, for easy recognition and ease of use. For instance, such modes could include text-based activities, interactive dialogue and recording facilities, video displays and ICALL language-based exercises. Standardization: Standardize all permanent screen information, such as interactive fields, menus, command buttons and recurrent features like help notes, references and error messages, within each of the identified interactive modes. Consistency: Consistently display all permanent screen information, such as interactive fields, menus, command buttons and recurrent features like help notes, references and error messages, within each of the identified interactive modes. Clarity: Ensure that the display is clear and uncluttered. Do not provide too much information at any one time. Avoid cramming too many commands and unnecessary items onto the screen. Colour: Colour should be used sparingly and only when it is justified. Clarke (1992) proposes a number of guidelines related to the use and functions of colour in a learning environment, derived from individual pieces of research. The selection below was felt to be particularly relevant: (a) avoid incompatible colour combinations such as red/green; blue/yellow; green/ blue; and red/blue. (b) set short-term memory limits of five to nine colours; (c) more than seven colours may cause learners to access less material;

B

B

A

A

C

C

Fig. 1. Presentation display patterns.

22

D.P. HEMARD

(d) (e) (f) (g)

use shape as well as colour to overcome colour blindness; learners prefer a dark foreground on a light background; increasing density of display will make the identification of information more difficult; and consistency in the functional use of colour is important.

Design process: Sketch out the screen layout or create an early prototype of it. Get a feel for the selected layout, consider potential alternatives and seek reactions, impressions and recommendations from colleagues and students alike. If available, seek and heed professional advice as you progress. Proceed iteratively: keep going back to the drawing board until you are reasonably satisfied with the layout.

On-line text

Characters: Rely on small characters. Do not subscribe to the well-established view that big is beautiful when it comes to inputting text on screen. Evidence indicates that the greater eye fixation required to read large characters is not rewarded by increased cognition and comprehension. Presentation: Optimize the readability and comprehension of the textual material by appropriately choosing the most suitable typeface, font size, line spacing and linebreaks. Specific design guidelines related to typeface, size, lines, lines spacing, margins, linebreaks case and colours are proposed by Clarke (1992), H o r t o n (1990), and Wagner (1988), a selection of which are presented below: (a) 80 character text, using a slab-serif or a sans-serif font, is best suited to continuous reading; (b) lines should be reasonably short--between 8 and 10 words; it is recommended to use columns to break down a high-density text, although the content matter or the student screen-reading ability might influence such an approach; (c) line spacing should be 1.5 or double line, depending on the length of the displayed text; (d) within reason, break down the information to be displayed into chunks, such as short meaningful statements or recognizable paragraphs; and (e) use lower and upper cases but avoid full capitalization of text.

Length: Provide authentic textual material. Texts do not have to be necessarily rewritten or simplified for the screen with shorter and simpler sentences. Even if, as claimed Gould et al. (1987), longer sentences slightly reduce reading speed, they do not have an adverse effect on the more relevant comprehension and memory retention. However, note that high text density on screen may alter perception. Scrolling: Long texts can be scrolled. Ensure that the scrolling facility is used appropriately, under the student's control, for the display of informational databases and search devices. For instance, avoid scrolling a text which is the basis of specific interactive activities. Use a frame-based approach instead. Emphasis: Emphasize text moderately using familiar conventions such as bold, underlining and italics. Alternatively, colour can be used. Horton (1990) suggests that not more than three should be used per display and not more than four should be used per document.

AUTHORING HYPERMEDIA LANGUAGE LEARNING APPLICATIONS

23

Contrasts: Restrict and justify the need for eolours. Use them economically to create contrasts and emphasis. According to Clarke (1992) comprehension of continuous texts is enhanced by "keeping a high contrast between text colour and background". Too great a concentration ofcolours will only blur the display and confuse the students.

Images Images, illustrations and graphics should not be used for decorative purposes. Horton describes their need as a means: "to explain and describe; to express visual and spatial concepts; to help learners imagine complex processes; to highlight important points; to attract and focus attention; to show complex relationships; to motivate and attract users; NOT for decoration...". For a further study of effects and display presentation of pictures see Clarke (1992). Animation Use animation recording facilities to highlight learning. Use functions such as zooming in and out to present specific and general information: animated displays of learning processes like substitutions, language alternatives and progressions; and provision of animated display commands like play, replay, recording, etc. Sound Good sound facilities are crucial to hypermedia applications for foreign language learning. Use sound for integrated interactive dialogues and general aural and oral exercises. Provide a customized and recognizable display with its relevant, dedicated functions replicating, for example, a conventional audiocassette recorder. Video Being the latest multimedia resource to be made available in recent hypermedia shells, a good video facility is still very much predicated upon technological and professional considerations in terms of equipment, storage, quality and additional skills. However, and in lieu of guidelines, Horton (1990) makes the following recommendations: (f) use moving pictures for subjects that teach psychomotor skills or demonstrate three-dimensional devices in motion. Do not use them to discuss abstract concepts and philosophies; (g) show things moving, not just people talking; and (h) keep segments short.

Structure

Consistency: When designing the application structure, refrain from being unduly influenced by technology-led solutions purposefully enhanced by the software manufacturer to the point of losing sight of stated objectives. Typical examples of design consequences such a direction might generate can be found in the predominant use

24

D.P. H E M A R D

of link facilities, unwarranted proliferation of nodes, confusingly wide range of displayed commands, highlighted interactive fields and colours. Orientation: Limit the number of explicit outlinks from any one node. It is suggested that no more than five such links should be used so as to prevent disorientation and additional cognitive strains. Data recognition: Ensure that the knowledge base is sufficiently recognizable and manageable for the range of targeted students and their required tasks. A large database with a seemingly wide choice of links may confuse and disorientate them. Information: Provide structural information and access facilities embedded into the knowledge base to enable students to relate to and appreciate the nature and extent of the available database. On-line help: Provide clear overviews, guiding mechanisms and tutoring facilities such as maps, indexes as well as suggested tours and learning approaches. Make access to such structure-based devices always available and applicable. A consistent and systematic display of orientational cues and navigational information will increase the usability and potentiality of the designed hypermedia application. Maps or browsers are particularly suited to provide necessary navigation information. Indexes are more likely to be required in directed learning situations. Alternatively, "soft tutoring" such as tours are particularly designed to cater for beginners or near-beginners who are more easily prepared to trade off control in exchange for speedier and easier language acquisition. Data accessing: Ensure that the selected interaction, expected of and controlled by students, to access specific information according to their level of proficiency is predictable and unambiguous. Whilst allowing for potential structural and informational shortcuts, remember that too many alternative choices make a structure artificially complex and inevitably lead to confusion, demoralization and error-prone responses. Interaction

Linguistic interaction: Optimize the level of linguistic interaction by ensuring that students can control their own appropriate progression through customized nodes and learning tasks. These can take the form of reading textual material in the target language, playing a participatory role in structured and fully interactive dialogues, preparing language-based exercises and drills and taking tests. Interactive match: Tailor the nature of the interaction and instructional control to the level of language proficiency of targeted students. The more knowledgeable, the more likely students will benefit from self-directed learning approaches. Quality: Ensure that students are actively engaged in the process of understanding and learning and not just passive recipients of a large quantity of informational data. Introduce a wide range of additional interactive activities such as quizzes, gap-filling exercises, text and phrase jumbling facilities and audio-visual interactive exchanges. Add-ons: Avoid unnecessary and overtly distractive displayed attractions which, as a result of being too easily construed as potential cues or attention-seekers, might mislead learners. Make wise and restricted use of peripheral devices, such as the wide range of "live" activated objects and customizable animations chosen for their convenient availability and potential to "liven up" the screen, as they will invariably distract attention away from required goals if used artificially.

A U T H O R I N G H Y P E R M E D I A L A N G U A G E L E A R N I N G APPLICATIONS

25

Evaluation Iteratively evaluate the authored application throughout the design process. Adopt evaluation methods, such as user walk-throughs involving colleagues and students, to assess the usability and learnability of the application. Evaluate repeatedly and adjust the design accordingly.

EVALUATION OF GUIDELINES The evaluation of the above guidelines was based on a two-pronged approach designed to focus on an assessment of their comprehensiveness, comprehensibility and ease of use. The comprehensive nature of the proposed guidelines was evaluated by means of a checklist designed by Ravden and Johnson (1989) and adapted for the purpose of testing the relevance and subsequent applicability of the guidelines to a wide range of design issues. In other words, could the guidelines, if relevant and adequately applied, satisfactorily meet a comprehensive set of design criteria? The comprehensibility and ease of use of the proposed guidelines were evaluated by means of walk-throughs involving identified language experts with an interest and some experience in hypermedia authoring. Each walk-through comprised two parts clearly linked to both notions of relevance to a given design issue and general explicitness and friendliness of all the proposed guidelines in the selection process.

CONCLUSION The main objective of this research was to present a manageable set of hypermediaoriented design guidelines, specifically tailored to suit the needs of language specialists venturing into hypermedia authoring with a view to developing customized language learning applications. As such, the set of guidelines was intended to fulfil two crucial functions: its main role was to provide clear and concise guidance throughout the various stages of the design process whilst, similarly, it was also conceived as a potential checklist providing authors with a valuable evaluation tool for existing and newly developed applications. However, even if the customization of guidelines generally improves the subsequent process of identification, selection and ease of use of the given guidelines, it does not alter, in any way, their empirical dimension, essentially derived from complex human factors principles and experiential evidence. As such, domain-specific guidelines are still open to differing interpretations. Similarly, their comprehensiveness, predicated upon above mentioned principles and evidence, is not, realistically, fully achievable as there are too many potential combinations of imponderables such as design supports, design objectives, expertise and contexts. Notwithstanding their applicability, these design guidelines will still be limited to simply providing advice and guidance, albeit valuable, with a fluctuating degree of suitability.

26

D.P. HEMARD

F i n a l l y , it m u s t be r e i t e r a t e d t h a t there is a g r e a t n e e d for m u c h research to be c a r r i e d o u t in the a r e a s o f h y p e r m e d i a a u t h o r i n g a n d h y p e r m e d i a user i n t e r a c t i o n w i t h a view to p r o v i d i n g g r e a t e r d a t a a n d m o r e a c c u r a t e e v i d e n c e i n a d o m a i n w h i c h , despite h a v i n g b e e n t a g g e d the e l e c t r o n i c G u t e m b e r g o f t o m o r r o w , is still p r o g r e s s i n g b y d e f a u l t , d o m i n a t e d as it is b y h a r d w a r e d e v e l o p m e n t s a n d c o n s i d e r a t i o n s .

REFERENCES Blin, F. (1992) Parlez-vous banque 2: an approach to LSP course design and CALL. In Computersand Language, eds C. Davis and M. Deegan, pp. 43-55. Office of Humanities Communication Publications No. 2, Oxford University Computing Services, Oxford. Brown, C. M. (1988) Human-Computer Interface Design Guidelines. Ablex, New York. Clarke, A. (1992) The Principles of Screen Designfor Computer Based Learning Materials, 2nd edn. Learning Methods Branch, Employment Department, Moorfoot, Sheffield. Dillon, A. (1991) Human factors issues in the design of hypermedia interfaces. In Hypermedia/Hypertext And Object-Oriented Databases, ed. H. Brown, pp. 93-106. Chapman and Hail, London. Emery, C. and Ingraham, B. (1992) France interactive: developing hypermedia CALL. In Computers and Language, eds C. Davis and M. Deegan, pp. 13-20. Office of Humanities Communication Publications No. 2, Oxford University Computing Services, Oxford. Foeische, O. (1990) Hypertext/hypermedia-like environments and language learning. In Designing Hypermedia for Learning, ed. D. J. Jonassen, pp. 291-310. Springer, Berlin, Heidelberg and New York. Fox, J., Labett, B., Matthews, C., Romano-Hvid, C. and Sehostak, J. (1992) New Perspectives in Modern Language Learning. Learning Methods Branch of the Department of Employment, University of East Anglia, East Anglia. Gaines, B. R. and Shaw, M. L. G. (1984) The Art of Computer Conversation: A New Mediumfor Communication. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. Gould, J. D. and Lewis, C. (1985). Designing for usability: key principles and what designers think. Communications of the ACM, 21t, 300-311. Gould, J. D., Alfaro, L., Barnes, V., Finn, R., Grischkowsky, N. and Minuto, A. (1987). Reading is slower from CRT displays than from paper: attempts to isolate a single variable explanation. Human Factors, 293, 269-299. Hammond, N. (1993) Learning with hypertext: problems, principles and prospects. In Hypertext: A Psychological Perspective, eds C. McKnight, A. Dillon and J. Richardson, pp. 5t-70. Ellis Horwood, Chichester. Hardman, L. and Sharratt, B. (1990) User-centred hypertext design: the application of HCI design principles and guidelines. In Hypertext: State of the Art, eds R. McAleese and C. Green, pp. 252-259. Intellect, Oxford. Horton, W. K. (1990) Designing and Writing On-line Information. Wiley, New York. Jonassen, D. H and Grabinger, R. S. (1989) Problems and issues in designing hypertext/hypermedia for learning. In Designing Hypermediafor Learning, eds D. H. Jonassen and H. Mandl, pp. 3-26. Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Research Workshop on Designing Hypertext/Hypermedia for Learning held in Ronenburg, 3-8 July 1989--NATO Advanced Study Institutes Series. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, London. Marcus, S. (1993) Multimedia, hypermedia and the teaching of English. In Computers and Language, ed. M. Monteith, pp. 21-43. Intellect, Oxford. Marshall, C., Nelson, C. and Gardiner, M. M. (1987) Design guidelines. In Applying Cognitive Psychology to User-lnterface Design, eds M. M. Gardiner and B. Christie, pp. 221-278. Wiley, Chichester and New York. Martin, J. (1990) Hyperdocuments and How to Create Them. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ. McGraw, K. (1992) Designing and Evaluating User Interfaces for Knowledge-based Systems. Ellis Horwood, Chichester. Miller, G. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 60, 81-97. Nielsen, J. (1990a) Evaluating hypertext usability. In Designing Hypermediafor Learning, eds D. H. Jonassen and H. Mandl, pp. 147-168. Proceedings of the NATO Advanced Workshop on Deisgning Hypertext/Hypermedia for Learning held in Rottenburg, 3-8 July 1989--NATO Advanced Study Institutes Series. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, Heidelberg and New York.

AUTHORING HYPERMEDIA LANGUAGE LEARNING APPLICATIONS

27

Nielsen, J. (1990b) Hypertext and Hypermedia. Academic Press, London, U.K. Preece, J. (ed.), Benyon, D., Davies, G., Keller, L. and Rogers, Y. (1993) A Guide to Usability. Human Factors in Computing. Addison-Wesley, Wokingham. Preece, J., Rogers, Y., Sharp, H., Benyon, D., Holland, S. and Carey, T. (1994) Human Computer Interaction. Addison-Wesley, Wokingham. Ravden, S. and Johnson, G. (1989) Evaluating Usability of Human Computer Interfaces. A Practical Method. Ellis Horwood, Chichester. Shneiderman, B. (1992) Designing the User Interface," Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction. Addison-Wesley, Chichester. Smith, S. L. and Mosier, J. N. (1986) Guidelines for Designing User Interface Software. Report ESD-TR-86-278, Electronic Systems Division, MITRE Corporation, Bedford. Wagner, E. (1988) The Computer Display Designers Handbook. Studentlitteratur, Lund, Chartwell-Bratt, Bromley, Sweden.