Calendar Horizon as a Boundary Affordance: An Attempt-Centric Eye-Tracking Analysis of Calendar Scheduling Interfaces

Nina XIE; Yuanyuan WANG; Yujun LIU

doi:10.3390/jemr19020027

Calendar Horizon as a Boundary Affordance: An Attempt-Centric Eye-Tracking Analysis of Calendar Scheduling Interfaces

Nina XIE^*
, Yuanyuan WANG
, Yujun LIU

^*Corresponding author for this work

Research output: Journal Publications › Journal Article (refereed) › peer-review

Abstract

Digital calendars are interactive representations of time that shape both scheduling outcomes and the micro-process of searching, verifying, and revising candidate placements. We examine calendar horizon—whether weekend time is visible in the default week view—as a boundary affordance in scheduling interfaces. Using eye tracking and interaction logs, we model each scheduling episode as a sequence of placement attempts and align gaze to each attempt, partitioning it into Early/Mid/Late phases and summarizing attention across structural AOIs (task panel, calendar grid, and the weekend column when present). Two experiments used drag-and-drop and dropdown slot-picking; weekend visibility was manipulated within the dropdown interface, while evening slots remained available. Across 105 participants (1018 task episodes), AttemptsCount ranged from 1 to 7. AttemptsCount predicted gaze-based process cost: each additional attempt corresponded to ~56% more total fixation duration. Personal tasks required more attempts than work tasks and elicited stronger Late-phase weekend verification when the weekend was visible. Horizon cues also shifted boundary outcomes: hiding the weekend reduced weekend placements and increased reliance on evening scheduling, indicating displacement into adjacent time regions. These findings position calendar horizon as a design lever that shapes both process (verification) and outcomes (boundary placements), with implications for calendar UIs and mixed-initiative scheduling tools.

Original language	English
Article number	27
Journal	Journal of Eye Movement Research
Volume	19
Issue number	2
Early online date	2 Mar 2026
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.3390/jemr19020027
Publication status	Published - 2 Mar 2026

Bibliographical note

The authors thank Haiting Jin for research assistance, including support with data preparation and documentation. During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used generative artificial intelligence tools (ChatGPT, OpenAI; 5.2) for data analysis and interpretation validation. The authors have reviewed and edited all AI-assisted outputs and take full responsibility for the content of this publication.

Funding

This research was funded by the University Grants Committee (UGC), Hong Kong, Fund for Innovative Technology-in-Education (FITE), project title “Bridging in Web 3.0: Engaging Business Student in the Metaverse Office for Virtual Internship”.

Keywords

calendar interface design
eye tracking
visual process analytics

Access to Document

10.3390/jemr19020027Licence: CC BY

https://www.mdpi.com/1995-8692/19/2/27

Cite this

@article{046f97b3ddae4cda98418390dc682cfa,

title = "Calendar Horizon as a Boundary Affordance: An Attempt-Centric Eye-Tracking Analysis of Calendar Scheduling Interfaces",

abstract = "Digital calendars are interactive representations of time that shape both scheduling outcomes and the micro-process of searching, verifying, and revising candidate placements. We examine calendar horizon—whether weekend time is visible in the default week view—as a boundary affordance in scheduling interfaces. Using eye tracking and interaction logs, we model each scheduling episode as a sequence of placement attempts and align gaze to each attempt, partitioning it into Early/Mid/Late phases and summarizing attention across structural AOIs (task panel, calendar grid, and the weekend column when present). Two experiments used drag-and-drop and dropdown slot-picking; weekend visibility was manipulated within the dropdown interface, while evening slots remained available. Across 105 participants (1018 task episodes), AttemptsCount ranged from 1 to 7. AttemptsCount predicted gaze-based process cost: each additional attempt corresponded to \textasciitilde{}56\% more total fixation duration. Personal tasks required more attempts than work tasks and elicited stronger Late-phase weekend verification when the weekend was visible. Horizon cues also shifted boundary outcomes: hiding the weekend reduced weekend placements and increased reliance on evening scheduling, indicating displacement into adjacent time regions. These findings position calendar horizon as a design lever that shapes both process (verification) and outcomes (boundary placements), with implications for calendar UIs and mixed-initiative scheduling tools.",

keywords = "calendar interface design, eye tracking, visual process analytics",

author = "Nina XIE and Yuanyuan WANG and Yujun LIU",

note = "The authors thank Haiting Jin for research assistance, including support with data preparation and documentation. During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used generative artificial intelligence tools (ChatGPT, OpenAI; 5.2) for data analysis and interpretation validation. The authors have reviewed and edited all AI-assisted outputs and take full responsibility for the content of this publication.",

year = "2026",

month = mar,

day = "2",

doi = "10.3390/jemr19020027",

language = "English",

volume = "19",

journal = "Journal of Eye Movement Research",

issn = "1995-8692",

publisher = "Multidisciplinary Digital Publishing Institute (MDPI)",

number = "2",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Calendar Horizon as a Boundary Affordance: An Attempt-Centric Eye-Tracking Analysis of Calendar Scheduling Interfaces

AU - XIE, Nina

AU - WANG, Yuanyuan

AU - LIU, Yujun

N1 - The authors thank Haiting Jin for research assistance, including support with data preparation and documentation. During the preparation of this manuscript, the authors used generative artificial intelligence tools (ChatGPT, OpenAI; 5.2) for data analysis and interpretation validation. The authors have reviewed and edited all AI-assisted outputs and take full responsibility for the content of this publication.

PY - 2026/3/2

Y1 - 2026/3/2

N2 - Digital calendars are interactive representations of time that shape both scheduling outcomes and the micro-process of searching, verifying, and revising candidate placements. We examine calendar horizon—whether weekend time is visible in the default week view—as a boundary affordance in scheduling interfaces. Using eye tracking and interaction logs, we model each scheduling episode as a sequence of placement attempts and align gaze to each attempt, partitioning it into Early/Mid/Late phases and summarizing attention across structural AOIs (task panel, calendar grid, and the weekend column when present). Two experiments used drag-and-drop and dropdown slot-picking; weekend visibility was manipulated within the dropdown interface, while evening slots remained available. Across 105 participants (1018 task episodes), AttemptsCount ranged from 1 to 7. AttemptsCount predicted gaze-based process cost: each additional attempt corresponded to ~56% more total fixation duration. Personal tasks required more attempts than work tasks and elicited stronger Late-phase weekend verification when the weekend was visible. Horizon cues also shifted boundary outcomes: hiding the weekend reduced weekend placements and increased reliance on evening scheduling, indicating displacement into adjacent time regions. These findings position calendar horizon as a design lever that shapes both process (verification) and outcomes (boundary placements), with implications for calendar UIs and mixed-initiative scheduling tools.

AB - Digital calendars are interactive representations of time that shape both scheduling outcomes and the micro-process of searching, verifying, and revising candidate placements. We examine calendar horizon—whether weekend time is visible in the default week view—as a boundary affordance in scheduling interfaces. Using eye tracking and interaction logs, we model each scheduling episode as a sequence of placement attempts and align gaze to each attempt, partitioning it into Early/Mid/Late phases and summarizing attention across structural AOIs (task panel, calendar grid, and the weekend column when present). Two experiments used drag-and-drop and dropdown slot-picking; weekend visibility was manipulated within the dropdown interface, while evening slots remained available. Across 105 participants (1018 task episodes), AttemptsCount ranged from 1 to 7. AttemptsCount predicted gaze-based process cost: each additional attempt corresponded to ~56% more total fixation duration. Personal tasks required more attempts than work tasks and elicited stronger Late-phase weekend verification when the weekend was visible. Horizon cues also shifted boundary outcomes: hiding the weekend reduced weekend placements and increased reliance on evening scheduling, indicating displacement into adjacent time regions. These findings position calendar horizon as a design lever that shapes both process (verification) and outcomes (boundary placements), with implications for calendar UIs and mixed-initiative scheduling tools.

KW - calendar interface design

KW - eye tracking

KW - visual process analytics

U2 - 10.3390/jemr19020027

DO - 10.3390/jemr19020027

M3 - Journal Article (refereed)

C2 - 41874132

SN - 1995-8692

VL - 19

JO - Journal of Eye Movement Research

JF - Journal of Eye Movement Research

IS - 2

M1 - 27

ER -

Calendar Horizon as a Boundary Affordance: An Attempt-Centric Eye-Tracking Analysis of Calendar Scheduling Interfaces

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Funding

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this