In this paper, Novick et al. present a model connecting communication and animation. They broadly surveyed user interfaces in order to see how communication and animation function or fail to serve the user. The model is a matrix of animation types versus communicative functions, with entries that reflect appropriate and inappropriate connections. User interfaces for an MP3 player were developed as evidence of the model’s efficacy.

The work was motivated in part by the perception that animated content is often considered useless. Section 2 is a careful review of research that focuses on design patterns and guidelines; this is followed by a discussion of the resulting need for a model. Section 3 presents the proposed model. The components of animation include place, size, color, shape, gesture, rotation, and blur, and the components of communicative functions are context, value, status, importance, change of function, direction, and salience. The matrix values range from -2 (“the [animation-function] combination is highly inappropriate”) to 2 (“the combination is highly appropriate”). The entries are subjective, but based on a careful review of existing user interfaces and basic principles. Section 4 describes applying the model to an MP3 player, which emphasizes the appropriate versus inappropriate use of animation for communicative functions. The conclusion (section 5) presents the results of these model applications and highlights a number of limitations that future studies could address. I wonder if, in a rush for results, the two MP3 interfaces necessarily lack subtleties, making strong conclusions more difficult.

The paper is interesting and readable. The model shows much promise, but more work is needed on this important issue.