Training software engineers in a novel usability evaluation technique

International Journal of Human Computer Studies

Volumn 49, Issue 3, 1998, Pages 245-279

  Blandford, Ann E ^a   Buckingham Shum, Simon J ^b   Young, Richard M ^c  

^a MIDDLESEX UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^b OPEN UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

^c UNIVERSITY OF HERTFORDSHIRE   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COMPUTATIONAL LINGUISTICS; COMPUTER HARDWARE DESCRIPTION LANGUAGES; COMPUTER SOFTWARE SELECTION AND EVALUATION; ENGINEERING EDUCATION; HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION; PERSONNEL TRAINING;

PROGRAMMABLE USER MODEL INSTRUCTION LANGUAGE; USER-CENTERED LANGUAGE;

SOFTWARE ENGINEERING;

EID: 0032165705     PISSN: 10715819     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1006/ijhc.1998.0204     Document Type: Article

References (35)

1. BELLOTTI, V., BLANDFORD, A., DUKE, D., MACLEAN, A., MAY, J. & NIGAY, L. (1996). Controlling accessibility in computer mediated communications: a systematic analysis of the design space. HCI Journal, 11, 357-432.
2. BELLOTTI, V., BUCKINGHAM SHUM, S., MACLEAN, A. AND HAMMOND, N. (1995). Multidisciplinary modelling in HCI design... in theory and in practice. Proceedings of the ACM CHI '95: Human Factors in Computing Systems, Denver, Col., pp. 146-153, 7-11 May, New York: ACM Press.
3. BLANDFORD, A. E. & GREEN, T. R. G. (1997). OSM: an ontology-based approach to usability evaluation. In Proceedings of the International Workshop on Representations in Interactive Software Development, QMW, pp. 82-91.
4. BLANDFORD, A. E. & YOUNG, R. M. (1993). Developing runnable user models: Separating the Problem Solving Techniques from the Domain Knowledge. In J. ALTY, D. DIAPER & S. GUEST, Eds. People and Computers VIII, Proceedings of HCI'93, pp. 111-122. Loughborough Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Cambridge.
5. BLANDFORD, A. & YOUNG, R. (1995). Separating user and device descriptions for modelling interactive problem solving. In K. NORDBY, P. HELMERSEN, D. J. GILMORE, & S. ARNESEN, Eds. Human-Computer Interaction: Interact'95 pp. 91-96, London: Chapman & Hall.
6. BLANDFORD, A. E. & YOUNG, R. M. (1996). Specifying user knowledge for the design of interactive systems. Software Engineering Journal, 11, 323-333.
7. BOWERS, J. (1991). The politics of formalism. In. M. Lea, Ed. Contexts of Computer-Mediated Communication, pp. 232-261. Harvester Wheatsheaf.
8. BUCKINGHAM SHUM, S., BLANDFORD, A., DUKE, D., GOOD, J., MAY, J., PATERNO, F, & YOUNG, R. (1996). Multidisciplinary modelling for user centred system design: an air-traffic control case study. In. People & Computers XI: Proceedings of HCI '96, 11th BCS Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. London, 20-23, August, London: Springer.
9. BUCKINGHAM SHUM, S. & HAMMOND, N. (1994a). Delivering HCL modelling to designers: a framework and case study of cognitive modelling. Interacting with computers, 6, 311-341.
10. BUCKINGHAM SHUM, S., MACLEAN, A., BELLOTTI, V. & HAMMOND, N. (1997). Graphical argumentation and design cognition. Human-Computer Interaction, 12, 267-300.
11. CARD, S. K., MORAN, T. P. & NEWELL, A. (1983). The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
12. CARROLL, J. M., Ed. (1995). Scenario-Based Design: Envisioning Work and Technology in System Development. New York: Wiley.
13. FEATHER, M. S. (1993). Requirements reconnoitring at the juncture of domain and instance. In A. Finkelstein, Ed. Proceedings of IEEE International Workshop on Requirements Engineering, pp. 73-76. New York: IEEE.
14. GUINDON, R. (1990). Designing the design process: exploring opportunistic thoughts. Human-Computer Interaction, 5, 305-344.
15. JOHN, B. & KIERAS, D. (1996). The GOMS family of user interface analysis techniques: comparison and contrast. ACM Transactions on CHI, 3, 320-351.
16. JOHN, B. E. & PACKER, H. (1995). Learning and using the cognitive walkthrough method: a case study approach. Proceedings of CHI '95, pp. 429-436. New York: ACM Press.
17. KARAT, C.-M. & KARAT, J. (1992). Some dialogue on scenarios (Introduction to special issue on "scenarios in HCL"). ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 24, 7.
18. KIERAS, D. (1988). Towards a practical GOMS model methodology for user interface design. In M. HELANDER, Ed. Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 135-157. North-Holland: Elsevier.
19. KIERAS, D. & POLSON, P. (1995). An approach to the formal analysis of user complexity. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 22, 365-394.
20. LEWIS, C., POLSON, P., WHARTON, C., & RIEMAN, J. (1990). Testing a walkthrough methodology for theory-based design of walk-up-and-use interfaces. In Proceedings of ACM CHI '90 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 235-242.
21. MACLEAN, A., YOUNG, R. M., BELLOTTI, V. & MORAN, T. (1991). Questions, options, and criteria: elements of design space analysis. Human-Computer Interaction. 6, 201-250. (Special Issue on Design Rationale), J. M. CARROLL & T. P. MORAN (Eds).
22. PEDERSEN, E. R. & SUCHMAN, L. (1991). Formalization in CSCW. Panel at the Second European Conference on Computer-Supported Cooperative Work, Amsterdam, p. 113. Dordrecht: Kluwer.
23. POLSON, P. & LEWIS, C. (1990). Theory-based design for easily learned interfaces. Human-Computer Interaction, 5, 191-220.
24. POLSON, P. G., LEWIS, C., RIEMAN, J. & WHARTON, C. (1992). Cognitive walkthroughs: a method for theory-based evaluation of user interfaces. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 36, 741-773.
25. RIEMAN, J., DAVIES, S., HAIR, D. C., ESEMPLARE, M., POLSON, P. & LEWIS, C. (1991). An automated cognitive walkthrough. Proceedings of ACM CHI '91 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 427-428.
26. ROWLEY, D.E. & RHOADES, D. G. (1992). The cognitive Jogthrough: A fast-paced user interface evaluation procedure. In Proceedings of CHI '92: Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 389-395 Monterey, CA, New York: ACM Press.
27. SHIPMAN, F. M. & MARSHALL, C. C. (1994). Formality considered harmful:experiences, emerging themes, and directions. Technical Report ISTL-CSA-94-09, Xerox Palo Alto Research Center.
28. SHUM, S. (1991). Cognitive dimensions of design rationale. In D. DIAPER & N. V. HAMMOND, Eds. People and Computers VI: Proceedings of HCI '91, pp. 331-344. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
29. SIDDIQUI, J. I. A. (1985). A model of program designer behaviour. In People and Computers: Designing the User Interface. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
30. SUBRAHMANIAN, E., KONDA, S. L., LEVY, S. N., REICH, Y., WESTERBERG, A. W. & MONARCH, I. (1993). Equations aren't enough: Informal modelling in design. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 7, 257-274.
31. VISSER, W. (1990). More or less following a plan during design: opportunistic deviations in specification. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 33, 247-278.
32. WHARTON, C., RIEMAN, J., LEWIS, C. & POLSON, P. (1994). The Cognitive Walkthrough Method: A Practitioner's Guide. In J. NIELSON and R. MARK, Eds. Usability Inspection Methods, pp. 105-140. New york: Wiley.
33. WINOGRAD, T. AND FLORES, F. (1986). Understanding Computers and Cognition, Reading MA: Addison-Wesley.
34. YOUNG, R. M. & BARNARD, P. J. (1987). The use of scenarios in Human-Computer Interaction: Turbocharging the tortoise of cumulative science. In J. M. CARROLL & P. P. TANNER, Eds. Proceedings of CHI + GI '87, pp. 291-296. New York: ACM.
35. YOUNG, R. M., GREEN, T. R. G. & SIMON, T. (1989). Programmable user models for predictive evaluation of interface designs. In K. BICE & C. LEWIS, Eds. Proceedings of CHI '89, pp. 15-19 New York: ACM:.