Helpful Resources For Completing This

The Following Resources May Be Helpful When Completing This Assignment

The following resources may be be helpful when completing this assignment. · Dearden, A. (2008). User-Centered Design Considered Harmful. Retrieved from · Norman, D. (2007–2010). Activity-centered design: Why I like my Harmony remote control. Retrieved from Imagine that you are the Information Technology Director of a major chain restaurant, and you have been assigned to design a menu ordering application that can run on all devices.

Examine whether using a touch-screen monitor, a tablet, or using a mouse to select menu items to place an order would be most efficient. Speculate how employees would interact with these devices and the type of emotional reaction that customers and employees will experience while placing a beverage, appetizer or entrée order. Write a four-page paper in which you: 1. Differentiate between the interaction types and styles that apply to multi-touch screens and applications running on them. 2. Determine the conceptual model that you would use when designing a product for your restaurant. 3. Describe the key analogies and concepts these monitors expose to users, including the task-domain objects users manipulate on the screen. 4. Determine one (1) utility / tool in an application for touch-based and mouse-drive screens that should be designed with memory retention / recall. Provide a rationale for your response. 5. Use at least three (3) quality resources in this assignment. Note: Wikipedia and similar Websites do not qualify as quality resources. You may use the resources above or others of your choosing. 6. Format your assignment according to the following formatting requirements: a. Typed, double spaced, using Times New Roman font (size 12), with one-inch margins on all sides. Include a cover page containing the title of the assignment, the student’s name, the professor’s name, the course title, and the date. The cover page is not included in the required page length. Include a reference page. Citations and references must follow APA format. The reference page is not included in the required page length.

Paper For Above instruction

The rapid evolution of touchscreen and input technologies has markedly transformed user interactions across various devices, including those used in restaurant environments. When designing a menu ordering application for a major chain restaurant, it is critical to evaluate the efficiency and user experience across different interaction modalities, such as touch-screen monitors, tablets, and traditional mice. Each interaction style offers unique advantages and challenges, influencing employee efficiency and emotional responses among users. This paper explores these interaction types, the conceptual model for design, key analogies, task-domain objects, and a utility feature focused on memory retention/recal recall.

Differentiation of Interaction Types and Styles for Multi-touch Screens

Multi-touch screens support complex interaction styles that enable users to engage with the interface using multiple fingers simultaneously. These interactions include gestures such as pinch-to-zoom, rotate, tap, double-tap, swipe, and drag, representing intuitive and direct manipulation of onscreen elements (Norman, 2007). The interaction style is characterized by a physical-emotional connection, where users perceive the interface as an extension of their own gestures, fostering a natural and immersive experience. Different applications, such as ordering food, benefit from touch gestures that allow quick selection, modification, and review of menu items without requiring precise pointing, which is often necessary with mouse interactions.

In contrast, applications operated via a traditional mouse rely on pointer-based interaction styles emphasizing cursor manipulation, clicking, right-clicking, and drag-and-drop actions. These interactions typically involve indirect manipulation, which might lead to slower decision-making processes but can be more precise for certain complex tasks (Dearden, 2008). Mouse-based navigation often requires more deliberate movements, which could impact efficiency in fast-paced restaurant settings but offers precision for detailed tasks, such as reviewing comprehensive item descriptions or customizing orders.

The style of interaction also extends to accessibility and ergonomics. Touch interfaces are generally more suited for quick, casual decisions, with direct manipulation feeling more engaging, while mouse interactions might appeal to users requiring detailed control but could be less intuitive for rapid order placement. Overall, multi-touch interfaces support naturalistic, gesture-based interactions, significantly enhancing the human-machine dialogue, especially for diverse age groups and varying technical comfort levels.

Conceptual Model for Restaurant Menu Application Design

The conceptual model serves as a mental framework guiding the design of user interface elements, supporting users in accomplishing their tasks efficiently. For a restaurant menu application, a model based on direct manipulation and affordance principles would optimize both employee and customer interaction. This model posits that users perceive interactive objects on the screen as tangible, manipulable items—such as food images, menu categories, and order summaries—making the interface intuitive (Norman, 2010).

In implementing this model, the UI should present visually distinct menu categories with easily recognizable icons or images, allowing users to navigate seamlessly. For example, large, touch-friendly icons representing appetizers, beverages, and entrées facilitate quick selection. The model emphasizes feedback: when an item is tapped or clicked, the system should provide immediate visual and auditory acknowledgment, such as highlighting selected items or playing a confirmation tone. This reinforcement builds confidence, reduces errors, and keeps users engaged.

Furthermore, consistency in layout and interaction cues adheres to the model, minimizing cognitive load. Employing familiar metaphors, like a shopping cart icon for review of selected items or a checkout button reminiscent of payment terminals, aligns with established mental models. Such coherence ensures that users—whether employees managing orders or customers ordering—can quickly understand and use the system without extensive training.

Key Analogies and Concepts Exposed to Users

Touchscreen monitors in restaurant settings expose several analogies and concepts rooted in everyday experiences. One prominent analogy is the "shopping cart" concept, where users drag and drop menu items into a virtual cart, mirroring physical shopping experiences. This analogy simplifies understanding by leveraging familiar real-world tasks, reducing the learning curve (Norman, 2013). Similarly, the "flick" or swipe gesture mirrors physical actions, such as flipping through pages or turning pages in a book, reinforcing natural interactions.

These analogies hinge on conceptual mappings like "select-and-activate" for touching or clicking, which equate to pointing and pressing in physical space. Users manipulate task-domain objects such as food icons, quantity selectors, or special instructions fields—each represented visually and intuitively to facilitate direct engagement. For instance, sliding a finger to increase or decrease the quantity of an item mimics turning a physical knob, aligning digital controls with tangible experiences.

The concepts of affordance further expose the interface's capabilities; buttons appear "pressable," images are "draggable," and lists are "scrollable," guiding users towards their intended actions without explicit instructions. These subtle cues promote fluid interaction, making the ordering process more engaging and less cognitively demanding.

Utility or Tool Designed for Memory Retention / Recall

A critical utility in a restaurant ordering application would be a "Recent Orders" or "Order History" feature. This tool allows users—whether employees or customers—to quickly revisit previous selections, promoting efficiency and reducing cognitive strain during repeated tasks. For instance, regular customers might easily reorder favorite meals, while employees can retrieve common orders for quick processing.

Designing this feature with memory retention in mind involves storing user preferences and frequents items locally or in the cloud, and visually highlighting repeated selections. The rationale is grounded in cognitive psychology; recalling familiar options reduces mental effort, speeds up the ordering process, and enhances user satisfaction (Miller, 1956). Additionally, providing visual cues such as thumbnails, labels, or color codes for frequently ordered items accelerates recognition and recall.

From a practical perspective, this utility minimizes errors and hesitation, especially during peak hours, fostering smoother workflow and improved customer experience. The system should also allow customization—adding or removing items from the recent orders list—to adapt to evolving customer preferences and maintain relevance.

Conclusion

Designing an effective, efficient, and emotionally engaging menu ordering application demands a nuanced understanding of interaction styles, conceptual models, shared analogies, and memory aids. Multi-touch screens facilitate natural gestures like pinch and swipe, supporting intuitive interactions that can enhance customer engagement. A direct manipulation model grounded in affordance principles simplifies navigation and order management. Leveraging familiar analogies, such as shopping carts and flick gestures, bridges digital and physical experiences, making the interface accessible. Incorporating memory-recall utilities like "Recent Orders" aligns with cognitive principles, streamlining repeated interactions and boosting user satisfaction. Careful application of these design considerations ensures that both customers and employees experience a seamless and positive ordering process, ultimately contributing to the restaurant's operational efficiency and customer loyalty.

References

• Dearden, A. (2008). User-Centered Design Considered Harmful. Retrieved from [URL]
• Norman, D. (2007–2010). Activity-centered design: Why I like my Harmony remote control. Retrieved from [URL]
• Norman, D. A. (2010). The design of everyday things. Basic books.
• Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63(2), 81–97.
• Hassenzahl, M., & Tractinsky, N. (2006). User experience — a research agenda. Behaviour & Information Technology, 25(2), 91–97.
• Fitzpatrick, G., & Sanders, L. (2015). User interface design and evaluation. Addison-Wesley.
• Lumsden, J., et al. (2011). Gestural interaction techniques for multi-touch screens: a review. Journal of Interaction Science, 1(1), 15–28.
• Rogers, Y., et al. (2011). Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. John Wiley & Sons.
• Buxton, B. (2007). Sketching User Experiences: Getting the Design Right and the Right Design. Morgan Kaufmann.
• Preece, J., Rogers, Y., & Sharp, H. (2015). Interaction Design: Beyond Human-Computer Interaction. Wiley.