ArticleJournal of eye movement research2026
Calendar Horizon as a Boundary Affordance: An Attempt-Centric Eye-Tracking Analysis of Calendar Scheduling Interfaces.
Article in Journal of eye movement research, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.