Objective: We determined whether memory for hyperlinks improved when they represented relations between the contents of the Web pages. Background: J. S. Farris (2003) found that memory for hyperlinks improved when they represented relations between the contents of the Web pages. However, Farris's (2003) participants could have used their knowledge of site content to answer questions about relations that were instantiated via the site's content and its hyperlinks. Method: In Experiment 1, users navigated a Web site and then answered questions about relations that were instantiated only via content, only via hyperlinks, and via content and hyperlinks. Unlike Farris (2003), we split the latter into two sets. One asked whether certain content elements were related, and the other asked whether certain Web pages were hyperlinked. Experiment 2 replicated Experiment 1 with one modification: The questions that were asked about relations instantiated via content and hyperlinks were changed so that each question's wrong answer was also related to the question's target. Results: Memory for hyperlinks improved when they represented relations instantiated within the content of the Web pages. This was true when (a) questions about content and hyperlinks were separated (Experiment 1) and (b) each question's wrong answer was also related to the question's target (Experiment 2). Conclusion: The accuracy of users' mental representations of local architecture depended on whether hyperlinks were related to the site's content. Application: Designers who want users to remember hyperlinks should associate those hyperlinks with content that reflects the relation between the contents on the Web pages.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Baddeley, A.D. (1990). Human memory: Theory and practice. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
2.
Bernard, M., & Hull, S. (2002). Where should you put the links? Comparing embedded and framed/non-framed links. Usability News, 4(1). Retrieved July 23, 2008, from http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/41/Link_position.asp
3.
Bernard, M., Hull, S., & Drake, D. (2001). Where should you put the links? A comparison of four locations. Usability News, 3(2). Retrieved July 23, 2008, from http://psychology.wichita.edu/surl/usabilitynews/32/links.asp
4.
Cockburn, A., & Jones, S. (1996). Which way now? Analysing and easing inadequacies in WW navigation. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 45, 105-129.
5.
Collins, A.M., & Quillian, M.R. (1972). How to make a language user. In E. Tulving & W. Donaldson (Eds.), Organization of memory (pp. 309-351). New York: Academic Press.
6.
Craik, F., & Lockhart, R. (1972). Levels of processing: A framework for memory research . Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 11, 671-684.
7.
Dillon, A., McKnight, C., & Richardson, J. (1993). Space - The final chapter or why physical representations are not semantic representations. In C. McKnight, A. Dillon, & J. Richardson (Eds.), Hypertext: A psychological perspective (pp. 169-191). New York: Ellis Horwood.
8.
Dillon, A., Richardson, J., & McKnight, C. (1990). Navigation in hypertext: A critical review of the concept. In D. Diaper, D. Gilmore, G. Cockton, & B. Shackel (Eds.), Human-computer interaction - INTERACT '90 (pp. 587-592). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
9.
Evans, M.B. (1998). Web design: An empiricist's guide. Unpublished master's thesis, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Retrieved July 23, 2008, from http://tc.eserver.org/13727.html
10.
Farris, J.S. (2003). The human-Web interaction cycle: A proposed and tested framework of perception, cognition and action on the Web. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Kansas State University, Manhattan, KS.
11.
Farris, J.S., Jones, K.S., & Elgin, P.D. (2002). Users' schemata of hypermedia: What is so "spatial" about a Website? Interacting with Computers, 14, 487-502.
12.
Gray, S.H. (1990). Using protocol analyses and drawings to study mental model construction during hypertext navigation. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 2, 359-377.
13.
McDonald, S., & Stevenson, R.J. (1998). Navigation in hyperspace: An evaluation of the effects of navigational tools and subject matter expertise on browsing and information retrieval in hypertext. Interacting with Computers, 10, 129-142.
14.
McKnight, C., Dillon, A., & Richardson, J. (1991). Hypertext in context. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
15.
Modjeska, D., &Marsh,A. (1997). Structure and memorability of Web sites (Tech. Rep.). Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto, Computer Systems Research Group. Retrieved July 23, 2008, from http:// www.dgp.utoronto.ca/people/modjeska/Pubs/web_struct_mem.pdf
16.
Mohageg, M.F. (1992). The influence of hypertext linking structures on the efficiency of information retrieval. Human Factors , 34, 351-367.
17.
Morrison, J.B., Pirolli, P., & Card, S.K. (2001). A taxonomic analysis of what World Wide Web activities significantly impact people's decisions and actions. In Extended abstracts of CHI 2001, the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 163-164). New York: Association for Computing Machinery.
18.
Otter, M., & Johnson, H. (2000). Lost in hyperspace: Metrics and mental models . Interacting with Computers, 13, 1-40.
19.
Pedhazur, E.J. (1997). Multiple regression in behavioral research: Explanation and prediction (3rd ed.). New York: Harcourt Brace.
20.
Stanton, N.A., & Baber, C. (1992). An investigation of styles and strategies in self-directed learning. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia , 1, 147-167.
21.
Stanton, N.A., Taylor, R.G., & Tweedie, L.A. (1992). Maps as navigational aids in hypertext environments: An empirical evaluation. Journal of Educational Multimedia and Hypermedia, 1, 431-444.
22.
Stevens, J.S. (2002). Applied multivariate statistics for the social sciences (4th ed.). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
23.
van Hooijdonk, C., Maes, A., & Ummelen, N. (2006). "I have been here before": An investigation into spatial verbalizations in hypertext navigation. Information Design Journal, 14, 8-21.
