Simplified user interfaces (SUIs) refer to a new design technique in technical communication that simplifies screenshots by removing irrelevant elements and highlighting only the essential information. While there is consensus on the benefits of signaling in multimedia learning, there is currently no empirical evidence on the effects of SUIs on user performance. This study reports an eye-tracking experiment that examined whether users can work more effectively and efficiently with a software tutorial containing SUIs instead of unedited pictures without signaling or pictures using conventional signaling techniques. The study also aimed to clarify whether SUIs draw user attention to relevant areas of a picture. Eye tracking and performance measures indicate that SUIs draw user attention successfully, but do not improve user performance compared to unedited screenshot in a tutorial scenario. The results contribute to the question of whether design principles of multimedia learning can be successfully transferred to action-oriented texts.

<bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Background</b> : Procedures are an important part of instructional materials. To support practitioners in designing effective procedures, research is needed on how users select information from a procedure and put it to use. This study demonstrates how eye tracking can be used to inform such research. Eye tracking is used to study effects of adding pictures to procedures in a software tutorial on how users interact with procedures. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Literature review:</b> Existing methods have led to important insights but face limitations. Eye tracking has the potential to overcome some of these limitations. However, research designs are needed that leave it to the user when to read and when to act. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Research questions:</b> 1. Does adding pictures to procedures improve user performance and, if so, why? What can we learn from eye tracking about the mechanisms that bring about performance improvements? 2. How do users interact with procedures that they read “to do”? What can we learn from eye tracking about reading strategies that they spontaneously adopt? <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Methodology:</b> Eye movements were recorded from 42 participants as they worked through one of two versions of a tutorial: with or without pictures. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Results:</b> Accuracy on tasks was higher when the procedures included pictures. Including pictures sped up processing the instructions and executing the actions, but did not trigger more attention switches between the procedures and the application that the users worked with. Users spontaneously adopted a strategy of immediate task execution and processed pictures before acting. <bold xmlns:mml="http://www.w3.org/1998/Math/MathML" xmlns:xlink="http://www.w3.org/1999/xlink">Conclusions:</b> Pictures facilitate efficient processing of procedures, leaving more resources for task execution. Reading and acting are tightly connected in a complex pattern. Eye tracking will be of value to examine their interplay further and the ways that it can be influenced by design.

Application Programming Interfaces (APIs) play a crucial role in modern software engineering. However, learning to use a new API often is a challenge for developers. In order to support the learning process effectively, we need to understand how developers use documentation when starting to work with a new API. We report an exploratory study that observed developers while they solved programming tasks involving a simple API. The results reveal differences regarding developer activities and documentation usage that a successful design strategy for API documentation needs to accommodate. Several guidelines to optimize API documentation are discussed.

The success of an application programming interface (API) crucially depends on how well its documentation meets the information needs of software developers. Previous research suggests that these information needs have not been sufficiently understood. This article presents the results of a series of semistructured interviews and a follow-up questionnaire conducted to explore the learning goals and learning strategies of software developers, the information resources they turn to and the quality criteria they apply to API documentation. Our results show that developers initially try to form a global understanding regarding the overall purpose and main features of an API, but then adopt either a concepts-oriented or a code-oriented learning strategy that API documentation both needs to address. Our results also show that general quality criteria such as completeness and clarity are relevant to API documentation as well. Developing and maintaining API documentation therefore need to involve the expertise of communication professionals.