# Design and Applications of GLANCE: GLanceable Alarm Notification for a User Centered Experience
## 3 Results of the 1 st Macro-Phase: The GLANCE Project
### Third Iteration: Final Release of the Proof-of-Concept and Definition of a General Formal
#### 3.3.3 Evaluation and Learning
As to the lower memorability of lower level notifications compared to higher level notifications, it has to be observed that the test articulation (text reading and monitoring first, and memory verification after) did not emulate exactly what would happen in a real scenario in which users would react somehow when the notification arrives in case of high severity notifications (which are proved to be all very well recognized and recalled), while they would perceive in a subliminal way less severe notifications that will be cyclically displayed by the notifier, thus not necessarily requiring long term memorization. Therefore, lower users' performances on lower severity notifications of questions 5 and 7 do not correspond to actual bad performances in a real setting and are not to be considered worrying. As to the _post-experiment debriefing_, participants were asked to provide scores on a 5-value scale (from 0 to 4, the higher the better) in relation to their subjective judgement about (1) the overall intuitiveness of the visual coding technique, (2) capability of providing a glanceable overview of the notification space, (3) perceived lack of intrusiveness of dynamic stimuli, and (4) usefulness of the display in routine working activity. As reported in Table 9, in this case we obtained different feedback based on the role of participants, with students assigning a slightly better rating to intuitiveness and glanceability of the display, \begin{table}
\begin{tabular}{c c c} \hline \hline
**Id** & **Question** & **CR** \\ \hline
1 & How many categories (tabs) were monitored by the notifier? & _excellent_ \\
2 & Which category in the following list was not monitored? & _excellent_ \\
3 & How many critical alarms do you remember? & _excellent_ \\
4 & For which categories do you remember critical alarms? & _good_ \\
5 & Which among the following stock market indices was involved in a notification? & _poor_ \\
6 & How many email notifications do you remembers? & _sufficient_ \\
7 & Which was the sender’s name of a notification in the group “Personal”? & _sufficient_ \\
8 & Do you remember notifications about a sport event and if yes its score? & _good_ \\
9 & Which calendar events do you remember? & _excellent_ \\
10 & Do you remember political news notifications and if yes which? & _excellent_ \\
11 & Do you remember what the weather notification was about? & _good_ \\
12 & Which was its background color? & _sufficient_ \\ \hline \hline \end{tabular}
\end{table} 
Table 8: Results of the secondary task of the dual tasks test. and campus personnel assigning higher scores to lack of intrusiveness and usefulness of the display. As to intuitiveness and glanceability, we believe that the slightly higher scores of students may be due to the greater familiarity of (digital native) younger people to visual tools. More interesting are the results relative to the possible integrability of GLANCE with routine tasks, where the frequency and obligation of attending primary tasks with expected productivity probably make a difference, particularly in the perceived usefulness of a product capable of minimizing unwanted interruptions while guaranteeing information awareness. This result is in line with the expert-based evaluation and with the discussions with Technolabs personnel during the workshop, and in line with the overall primary objective of GLANCE. Based on all these considerations, objective RO3 was considered satisfied and the project was considered completed.