Claims analysis "in the wild:" A case study on digital library development

International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction

Volumn 21, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 197-218

  Blandford, Ann ^a   Keith, Suzette ^b   Fields, Bob ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b MIDDLESEX UNIVERSITY   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

DESIGN APPROACHES; DESIGN DECISIONS; DESIGN PRACTICE; DEVELOPMENT PROCESS; USABILITY EVALUATION METHODS; USER-CENTERED; USERS' EXPERIENCES;

HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION;

DIGITAL LIBRARIES;

EID: 33845252267     PISSN: 10447318     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15327590ijhc2102_5     Document Type: Article

References (37)

1. Bates, M. (1989). The design of browsing and berrypicking techniques for the online search interface. Online Review, 13, 407-424.
2. Bates, M. (2002). The cascade of interactions in the digital library interface. Information Processing and Management, 38, 381-400.
3. Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual design. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
4. Blandford, A., Keith, S., Connell, I., & Edwards, H. (2004). Analytical usability evaluation for Digital Libraries: A case study. Proceedings of the ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, 27-36.
5. Blandford, A. E., Stelmaszewska, H., & Bryan-Kinns, N. (2001). Use of multiple digital libraries: A case study. Proceedings of the JCDL 2001, 179-188.
6. Borgman, C. (2000). From Gutenberg to the global information infrastructure: Access to information in the networked world. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
7. Carroll, J. M. (1996). Becoming social: Expanding scenario-based approaches in HCI. Behaviour and Information Technology, 15, 266-275.
8. Carroll, J. M. (1998). On an experimental evaluation of claims analysis. Behaviour and Information Technology, 17, 242-243.
9. Carroll, J. M. (2000). Making use: Scenario based design of human computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
10. Carroll, J. M., Koenemann-Belliveau, J., Rosson, M. B., & Singley, M. K. (1993). Critical incidents and critical themes in empirical usability evaluation. In J. Alty, D. Diaper, & S. Guest (Eds.), People and computers VIII, Proceedings of HCI'93 (pp. 279-292). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
11. Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (1992). Getting around the task-artifact cycle: How to make claims and design by scenario. ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 10, 181-221.
12. Carroll, J. M., & Rosson, M. B. (2003). Design rationale as theory. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), HCI models, theories and frameworks: Toward a multidisciplinary science (pp. 431-461). San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
13. Champeny, L., Borgman, C., Leazer, G., Gilliland-Swetland, A., Millwood, A., D'Avolio, L., et al. (2004). Developing a digital learning environment: An evaluation of design and implementation processes. Proceedings of the JCDL 2004, 37-46.
14. Cooper, A. (1999). The inmates are running the asylum. Indianapolis, IN: Sams.
15. De Bruijn, O., & Spence, R. (2005). Theory-based interaction design: From cognitive theory to interactive artifacts (Information Engineering Report No. 2005/1). Department of Electrical and Electronic Engineering, Imperial College, London.
16. Fields, B., Keith, S., & Blandford, A. (2003). Usability evaluation of digital libraries: A tutorial (Middlesex University Interaction Design Centre Tech. Rep. No. IDC-TR-2003-001). Retrieved July 21, 2006 from http://www.cs.mdx.ac.uk/research/idc/tech_reports.htm
17. Fields, B., Keith, S., & Blandford, A. (2004). Designing for expert information finding strategies. In S. Fincher, P. Markopoulos, D. Moore, & R. Ruddle (Eds.), People and computers XVIII - Design for life, Proceedings of the HCI04 (pp. 89-102). Guildford, UK: Springer.
18. Hartson, H. R., Shivakumar, P., & Pérez-Quiñones, M. A. (2004). Usability inspection of digital libraries: A case study. International Journal of Digital Libraries, 4, 108-123.
19. Heinbokel, T., Sonnentag, S., Frese, M., Stolte, W., & Brodbeck, F. (1996). Don't underestimate the problems of user centredness in software development projects - There are many! Behaviour and Information Technology, 15, 226-236.
20. Hertzum, M., & Jacobsen, N. E. (2001). The evaluator effect: A chilling fact about usability evaluation methods. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 13, 421-443.
21. IEE. (2006). Inspec. Retrieved February 14, 2006, from http://www.iee.org/publish/inspec/
22. Iverson, E. (2003). The Starting Point Project: Moving beyond usability and Web logs to refine evaluation. Position statement for NSDL workshop, Retrieved November 11, 2005, from http://eduimpact.comm.nsdl.org/ evalworkshop/_iverson.php
23. John, B. (1998). On our case study of claims analysis and other usability evaluation methods. Behaviour and Information Technology, 17, 244-246.
24. John, B., & Marks, S. (1997). Tracking the effectiveness of usability evaluation methods. Behaviour and Information Technology, 16, 188-202.
25. Komlodi, A., & Marchionini, G. (1998). Key frame preview techniques for video browsing. Proceedings of the ACM Digital Libraries 1998, 118-125.
26. Kuhlthau, C (1988). Longitudinal case studies of the information search process of users in libraries. Library and Information Science Research, 10, 257-304.
27. Kyrillidou, M., & Giersch, S. (2005). Developing the DigiQUAL protocol for digital library evaluation. Proceedings of the 5th ACM/IEEE-CS Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, 172-173.
28. Muller, M. J., & Kuhn, S. (1993). Participatory design. Communications of the ACM, 36, 24-28.
29. Nielsen, J. (1994). Heuristic evaluation. In J. Nielsen & R. Mack (Eds.), Usability inspection methods (pp. 25-62) New York: Wiley.
30. Norman, D. A. (1986). Cognitive engineering. In D. A. Norman & S. W. Draper (Eds.), User centered system design (pp. 31-62). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.
31. Papadakis, I., Andreou, I., & Chrissikopoulos, V. (2002). Interactive search results. Proceedings of the ECDL 2002, 448-462.
32. Rosson, M. B., & Carroll, J. M. (2002). Usability engineering. San Francisco: Morgan Kaufmann.
33. Sutcliffe, A., Fickas, S., Sohlberg, M. M., & Ehlhardt, L. (2003). Investigating the usability of assistive user interfaces. Interacting With Computers, 15, 577-602.
34. Sutcliffe, A. G., & Carroll, J. M. (1999), Designing claims for reuse in interactive systems design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 50, 213-241.
35. Theng, Y. L., Goh, D., Lim, E. P., Liu, Z. H., Yin, M., Pang, L. S., et al. (2004). Applying scenario-based design and claims analysis on the design of a digital library of geography examination resources. Information Processing and Management Journal, 41, 23-40.
36. Wharton, C., Rieman, J., Lewis, C., & Poison, P. (1994). The cognitive walkthrough method: A practitioner's guide. In J. Nielsen & R. Mack (Eds.), Usability inspection methods (pp. 105-140). New York: Wiley.
37. Wong, B. L. W., & Blandford, A. (2002). Analysing ambulance dispatcher decision making: Trialling emergent themes analysis. In F. Vetere, L. Johnson, & R. Kushinsky (Eds.), Human Factors 2002, The Joint Conference of the Computer Human Interaction Special Interest Group and The Ergonomics Society of Australia, HF2002 (CD-Rom). Melbourne, Australia.