Interaction unit analysis: A new interaction design framework

Human-Computer Interaction

Volumn 24, Issue 4, 2009, Pages 367-407

  Ryu, Hokyoung ^a   Monk, Andrew ^b  

^a MASSEY UNIVERSITY   (New Zealand)

^b UNIVERSITY OF YORK   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COST EFFECTIVENESS; STUDENTS;

COGNITIVE WALKTHROUGH; GRADUATE STUDENTS; INTERACTION DESIGN; INTERACTION MODEL; INTERACTION PARADIGM; INTERACTION UNITS; SCENARIO ANALYSIS; WAREHOUSE APPLICATIONS;

COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS;

EID: 70349456172     PISSN: 07370024     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1080/07370020903038086     Document Type: Article

References (64)

1. Anderson, J. R. (1993). Problem-solving and learning. American Psychologist, 48(1), 35-44.
2. Anderson, J. R. (2007). How can the human mind occur in the physical universe? New York: Oxford University Press.
3. Andre, T. S., Hartson, H. R., & Williges, R. C. (2003). Determining the effectiveness of the usability problem inspector: A theory-based model and tool for finding usability problems. Human Factors, 45 3), 455-482.
4. Andre, T. S., Williges, R. C., & Hartson, H. R. (1999). The effectiveness of usability evaluation methods: Determining the appropriate criteria. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 43rd Annual Meeting. Santa Monica: HFES.
5. Barnard, P., & May, J. (Eds.). (1993). Cognitive modeling for user requirements. Amsterdam: Elsevier.
6. Barnard, P., May, J., Duke, D., & Duce, D. (2000). Systems, interactions, and macrotheory. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7(2), 222-262.
7. Bendy, G. Z., Seglin, M. H., & Meister, D. (2000). Activity theory: History, research and application. Theoretical Issues in Ergonomic Sciences, 1(2), 168-206.
8. Bennett, S., McRobb, S., & Farmer, R. (2006). Object-oriented systems analysis and design using UML (3rd ed.). Berkshire, UK: McGraw-Hill.
9. Blandford, A. E., & Duke, D. (1997). Integrating user and computer system concerns in the design of interactive systems. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 46(4), 653-679.
10. Blandford, A. E., & Young, R. M. (1996). Specifying user knowledge for the design of interactive systems. Software Engineering Journal, 11(6), 323-333.
11. Burns, C. M., & Vicente, K. J. (2001).Model-based approaches for analyzing cognitive work: A comparison of abstraction hierarchy, multi-level flow modeling, and decision ladder modeling. International Journal of Cognitive Ergonomics, 5(3), 357-366.
12. Byrne, M. D. (1995). A working memory model of a common procedural error (Technical Rep. No. GIT-CS-95/06). Atlanta: Georgia Institute of Technology.
13. Card, S. K.,Moran, T. P., & Newell, A. (1983). The psychology of human-computer interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14. Curry, M. B., & Monk, A. (1995). Dialogue modeling of graphical user interfaces with a production system. Behaviour & Information Technology, 14(1), 41-55.
15. Dix, A. J. (1991). Formal methods for interactive systems. London: Academic Press.
16. Dix, A. J. (2001, January 11). Case study: Excel mode error. Retrieved July 15, 2008, from http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/computing/ users/dixa/casestudy/excel-mode/.
17. Djajadiningrat, T., Overbeeke, K., & Wensveen, S. (2002). But how, Donald, tell us how? On the creation of meaning in interaction design through feedforward and inherent feedback. Proceedings of the DIS '02 Conference on Designing Interactive Systems. New York: ACM.
18. Draper, S. W., & Barton, S. B. (1993). Learning by exploration, and affordance bugs. Proceedings of the CHI '93 Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems. New York: ACM.
19. Duke, D. J., Barnard, P. J., Duce, D. A., & May, J. (1998). Syndetic modeling. Human- Computer Interaction, 13(4), 337-393.
20. Frese, M., & Zapf, D. (1994). Action as the core of work psychology: A German approach. In H. C. Triandis, M. D. Dunnette, & L. M. Hougheds (Eds.), Handbook of industrial and organizational psychology (2nd ed., Vol. 4, pp. 271-340). Palo Alto, CA: Consulting Psychologists.
21. Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception Boston:HOughton Mifflin.
22. Harel, D. (1988). On visual formalisms. Communications of the ACM, 31(5), 514-530.
23. Hill, R. D. (1987). Event-response systems: A technique for specifying multi-threaded dialogues. Proceedings of the CHI+GI '87 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems and Graphics Interfaces. New York: ACM.
24. Howes, A., & Young, R. M. (1996). Learning consistent, interactive, and meaningful task-action mappings: A computational model. Cognitive Science, 20(3), 301-356.
25. Hutchins, E. (1996). Cognition in the wild (2nd ed.). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
26. Jacob, R. J. K. (1986). A specification language for direct manipulation user interfaces. ACM Transactions on Graphics, 5(4), 283-317.
27. John, B. E. (2003). Information processing and skilled behavior. In J.M. Carroll (Ed.), HCI models, theories and frameworks: Towards a multidisciplinary science (pp. 55-102). San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
28. Kieras, D. E. (2002). Model-based evaluation. In J. A. Jacko & A. Sears (Eds.), The human- computer interaction handbook: Fundamentals, evolving technologies and emerging applications. (pp. 1139-1151). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
29. Kieras, D. E., & Meyer, D. E. (1997). An overview of the EPIC architecture for cognition and performance with application to human-computer interaction. Human- Computer Interaction, 12 4), 391-438.
30. Kieras, D. E., & Polson, P. G. (1985). An approach to the formal analysis of user complexity. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 22(4), 365-394.
31. Laird, J., & Newell, A. (1983). A universal weak method: Summary of results. Proceedings of the IJCAI '93 International Joint Conferences on Artificial Intelligence, Menlo Park, CA: IJCAI.
32. Laird, J., Newell, A., & Rosenbloom, P. (1987). SOAR: An architecture for general intelligence. Artificial Intelligence, 33(1), 1-64.
33. Langley, P., Laird, J., & Rogers, S. (2006). Cognitive architecture: Research issues and challenges (Tech.Rep.). Stanford,CA:COmputational Learning Laboratory, Stanford University.
34. Lehman, J. F., Laird, J., & Rosenbloom, P. (1998). A gentle introduction to Soar: An architecture for human cognition. Retrieved July 15, 2008, from http://www.eecs. umich.edu/~soar/sitemaker/docs/misc/ Gentle.pdf
35. Lewis, C., Polson, P., Wharton, C., & Rieman, J. (1990). Testing a walkthrough methodology for theory-based design of walk-up-and-use interfaces, Proceedings of the CHI '90 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM.
36. Lewis, C., & Wharton, C. (1997). Cognitive walkthroughs. In M. Helander, T. K. Landauer, & P. Prabhu (Eds.), Handbook of human-computer interaction (pp. 717-732). Amsterdam: Elsevier.
37. Mack, R. L., & Montaniz, F. (1994). Usability inspection methods. In J. Nielsen & R. L. Macks (Eds.), Usability inspection methods (pp. 295-339). New York: Wiley.
38. MacLean, A., Young, R. M., Bellotti, V. M. E., & Moran, T. P. (1991). Questions, options and criteria: Elements of design space analysis. Human-Computer Interaction, 6(3&4), 201-250.
39. Marila, J., & Ronkainen, S. (2004). Time-out in user interface: The case of mobile text input. Personal Ubiquitous Computing, 8(2), 110-116.
40. Monk, A. (1986). Mode error - A user-centered analysis and some preventative measures using keying-contingent sound. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 24(4), 313-327.
41. Monk, A. (1990). Action-effect rules - A technique for evaluating an informal specification against principles. Behaviour & Information Technology, 9(2), 147-155.
42. Monk, A. (1998). Cyclic interaction: A unitary approach to intention, action and the environment. Cognition, 68(2), 95-110.
43. Monk, A. (1999). Modelling cyclic interaction. Behaviour & Information Technology, 18(2), 127-139.
44. Monk, A., & Dix, A. (1987). Refining early design decisions with a black-box model. In D. Diaper & R. Winder (Eds.), People and computer III (pp. 147-158). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
45. Newell, A., & Simon, H. (1972). Human problem solving. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice- Hall.
46. Norman, D. A. (1986). Cognitive engineering. In D. A. Norman & S.W. Draper (Eds.), User-centered system design (pp. 29-61). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
47. Norman, D. A. (1999). Affordance, conventions, and design. ACMInteractions, 6(3), 38-42.
48. Olsen, D. R. J.,Monk, A., & Curry, M. B. (1995). Algorithms for automatic dialogue analysis using propositional production systems. Human-Computer Interaction, 10(1), 39-78.
49. Palanque, P., & Bastide, R. (1996). Task models - system models: A formal bridge over the gap. In D. Benyon & P. Palanque (Eds.), Critical issues in user interface system engineering (pp. 65-79). London: Springer-Verlag.
50. Parnas, D. L. (1969). On the use of transition diagrams in the design of a user interface for an interactive computer system. Proceedings of the 24th National ACM conference. New York: ACM.
51. Payne, S. J., & Green, T. R. G. (1986). Task-action grammars: A model of the mental representation of task languages. Human-Computer Interaction, 2(2), 93-133.
52. Pirolli, P. (2005). Rational analyses of information foraging on the Web. Cognitive Science, 29(3), 343-373.
53. Polson, P., & Lewis, C. (1990). Theory-based design for easily learned interfaces. Human- Computer Interaction, 5(2&3), 191-220.
54. Polson, P., 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(5), 741-773.
55. Reisner, P. (1993). APT - A description of user-interface inconsistency. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 39(2), 215-236.
56. Ryu, H. (2003a). A framework for interaction design. Unpublished doctoral thesis, University of York, York, United Kingdom.
57. Ryu, H. (2003b). Modelling cyclic interaction: An account of goal-elimination process. Proceedings of the CHI '03 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM.
58. Ryu, H. (2006). Noddy's guide to mode problems. Interfaces, 66, 10-13.
59. Ryu, H., & Monk, A. (2005).Will it be a capital letter: Signalling case mode in mobile devices. Interacting with Computers, 17(4), 395-418.
60. Tesler, L. (1981). The smalltalk environment. Byte, 6(8), 90-147.
61. Wharton, C., Bradford, J., Jeffries, R., & Franzke, M. (1992). Applying cognitive walkthroughs to more complex user interfaces: Experiences, issues, and recommendations. Proceedings of the CHI '92 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. New York: ACM.
62. Wharton, C., Rieman, J., Lewis, C., & Polson, P. (1994). The cognitive walkthrough method: A practitioner's guide. In J. Nielsen & R. L. Mack (Eds.), Usability inspection methods (pp. 105-140). New York: Wiley.
63. Wright, P. C., Fields, R. E., & Harrison, M. D. (2000). Analyzing human-computer interaction as distributed cognition: The resources model. Human-Computer Interaction, 15(1), 1-41.
64. Young, R. M. (1983). Surrogates and mappings: Two kinds of conceptual models for interactive devices. In D. Gentner & A. L. Stevens (Ed.), Mental models (pp. 35-52). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.