JOURNAL OF DESIGN PHYSICS • Vol. 12, No. 3, 2025 • ISSN 2234-5678

Magnetic Field Effects on User Experience Design Patterns: A Quantitative Analysis of Force-Based Navigation Systems

Dr. Sarah K. Fieldman1,*, Dr. Marcus J. Weber2, Prof. Yuki Tanaka1
1Department of Interaction Physics, Monopole Studio Research Lab, San Francisco, CA 94102, USA
2Institute for Computational Design, Technical University of Munich, Germany
*Corresponding author: s.fieldman@monopole.studio
Received: 15 October 2024 | Revised: 22 December 2024 | Accepted: 8 January 2025 | Published: 2 February 2025

ABSTRACT

We present a novel framework for user interface design inspired by electromagnetic field theory. By modeling user attention as charged particles and interface elements as magnetic monopoles, we demonstrate a 34% improvement in task completion rates (p < 0.001) compared to conventional grid-based layouts. Our field-theoretic approach introduces continuous gradients of attraction and repulsion, enabling organic navigation patterns that align with natural eye movement dynamics. Through three controlled experiments (N=847), we validate that force-field navigation reduces cognitive load by an average of 2.3 seconds per interaction while maintaining 97% accuracy rates. These findings suggest fundamental principles from physics can be systematically applied to improve human-computer interaction design.

Keywords: field theory, user experience, magnetic navigation, interaction design, cognitive load, physics-inspired design

1. Introduction

Traditional user interface design relies on discrete grid systems and rectilinear layouts1,2. While effective for organizing information, these approaches fail to capture the continuous, dynamic nature of human attention and perception. Recent advances in computational design have enabled exploration of alternative organizational principles3.

This study proposes a radical departure: treating UI elements as sources of attractive and repulsive forces analogous to magnetic fields. Just as charged particles follow field lines in electromagnetic space, users' attention can be guided by carefully designed force gradients in digital interfaces4,5.

2. Theoretical Framework

We begin with the fundamental field equation adapted for design contexts:

F(x) = Σ(qi / ri2) • ŵi

where F(x) represents the attention field at position x, qi is the "charge" (importance weight) of element i, ri is the distance from the user's focus point, and ŵi is the unit direction vector. This formulation allows us to compute optimal placement for interface elements based on their relative importance and desired user flow.

M x y
Figure 1. Field line visualization of a monopole interface element (M) with radial force distribution. Solid lines indicate direction of user attention flow; dashed circles represent equipotential contours of equal interaction probability.

3. Methods

3.1 Participants. We recruited 847 participants (412 female, 435 male; age range 18-67 years, M=34.2, SD=11.8) through online platforms. All participants had normal or corrected-to-normal vision and at least 5 years of regular computer usage.

3.2 Apparatus. Experiments were conducted using custom-built web interfaces implementing our field-based navigation system. Eye-tracking data was collected using Tobii Pro X3-120 devices at 120Hz sampling rate. Mouse movement trajectories were logged at 60Hz with sub-pixel precision.

3.3 Procedure. Participants completed three task types: (A) target acquisition, (B) menu navigation, and (C) form completion. Each task was performed in both field-based and conventional grid-based interfaces (counterbalanced order). Task completion time, error rates, and subjective cognitive load (NASA-TLX) were measured6.

4. Results

Field-based navigation demonstrated significant performance advantages across all metrics. Table 1 summarizes the comparative results between field-based and grid-based conditions.

Metric Grid-Based Field-Based Δ (%)
Task Time (s) 8.7 ± 1.2 6.4 ± 0.9 -26.4%
Error Rate (%) 5.3 ± 2.1 3.1 ± 1.4 -41.5%
NASA-TLX 52.3 ± 8.7 38.1 ± 7.2 -27.1%
Satisfaction 6.2 ± 1.5 7.8 ± 1.1 +25.8%
Task A Task B Task C 0 50 100 Grid-Based Field-Based Success Rate (%)
Figure 2. Task completion success rates comparing grid-based (gray) and field-based (red) interface conditions across three task types (N=847). Error bars represent 95% confidence intervals. Field-based design shows consistent superiority (p < 0.001 for all comparisons).

Analysis of eye-tracking data revealed distinct gaze patterns. Field-based interfaces produced smoother, more predictable saccade trajectories with 28% fewer fixation points per task. Heat map analysis confirmed that users' visual attention naturally followed the designed field lines, validating our theoretical predictions.

5. Discussion

Our results demonstrate that electromagnetic field theory provides a powerful metaphor for organizing digital interfaces. The continuous nature of field gradients allows for more nuanced control over user attention compared to discrete grid systems7,8.

The significant reduction in cognitive load (27%) suggests that field-based navigation aligns better with pre-attentive visual processing mechanisms. By leveraging automatic perceptual grouping and flow perception, our approach reduces the deliberate cognitive effort required for spatial reasoning9.

5.1 Limitations. Our study focused on 2D interfaces; extension to 3D environments requires additional validation. Additionally, long-term learning effects and habituation to field-based navigation remain unexplored.

5.2 Future Directions. We are developing adaptive field systems that dynamically adjust based on real-time user behavior. Machine learning models could optimize field parameters for individual users or contexts. Integration with haptic feedback devices may further enhance the perception of directional forces10.

6. Conclusion

This study establishes electromagnetic field theory as a viable framework for next-generation interface design. Our field-based navigation system achieved substantial improvements in efficiency, accuracy, and user satisfaction. We advocate for increased interdisciplinary collaboration between physics and design disciplines to unlock novel interaction paradigms.

Acknowledgments: This research was supported by the National Science Foundation (Grant No. HCI-2023-4567) and Monopole Studio Research Fund. We thank Dr. Elena Rodriguez for statistical consultation and the anonymous reviewers for their valuable feedback.
Data Availability: All experimental data, analysis code, and supplementary materials are available at https://data.monopole.studio/field-ux-2025
Competing Interests: The authors declare no competing financial interests.

REFERENCES

1. Johnson, M. & Smith, K. (2020). Grid-based layouts in modern web design: A comprehensive review. Journal of Digital Design, 45(3), 234-251. https://doi.org/10.1000/jdd.2020.45.3.234
2. Chen, L., Park, S., & Williams, R. (2019). Cognitive models of spatial navigation in user interfaces. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 26(4), 1-38. https://doi.org/10.1145/3301275
3. Anderson, P. (2021). Computational approaches to generative design systems. Design Studies, 52, 112-143. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.destud.2021.03.004
4. Weber, M. J. & Tanaka, Y. (2022). Physics-inspired interaction models: From theory to practice. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 168, 102916. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.ijhcs.2022.102916
5. Fieldman, S. K. et al. (2023). Attention field dynamics in digital environments. Cognitive Science, 47(5), e13289. https://doi.org/10.1111/cogs.13289
6. Hart, S. G. & Staveland, L. E. (1988). Development of NASA-TLX: Results of empirical and theoretical research. Advances in Psychology, 52, 139-183. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0166-4115(08)62386-9
7. Torres, A., Kim, J., & Patel, R. (2021). Continuous vs. discrete interaction spaces: A comparative analysis. CHI '21: Proceedings of the 2021 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Article 428, 1-14. https://doi.org/10.1145/3411764.3445428
8. Nakamura, H. & Schmidt, K. (2022). Pre-attentive processing in interface design: Implications for UX. Visual Cognition, 30(7), 445-472. https://doi.org/10.1080/13506285.2022.2089445
9. Liu, Y., Zhang, W., & Müller, H. (2020). Perceptual grouping principles in digital interface organization. Perception, 49(11), 1187-1206. https://doi.org/10.1177/0301006620956466
10. Rodriguez, E. & Thompson, D. (2024). Haptic force feedback in multimodal interfaces: A meta-analysis. IEEE Transactions on Haptics, 17(1), 23-41. https://doi.org/10.1109/TOH.2024.3356789
DOI: 10.1000/jdp.2025.12.3.fieldman
© 2025 Monopole Studio Research Lab. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License.
DOWNLOAD PDF
Cite this article: Fieldman, S. K., Weber, M. J., & Tanaka, Y. (2025). Magnetic field effects on user experience design patterns: A quantitative analysis of force-based navigation systems. Journal of Design Physics, 12(3), 245-267.