Reducing the variability between novice modelers: Results of a tool for human performance modeling produced through human-centered design

19th Annual Conference on Behavior Representation in Modeling and Simulation 2010, BRiMS 2010

Volumn , Issue , 2010, Pages 6-13

  John, Bonnie E ^a  

^a Carnegie Mellon University   (United States)

Author keywords

Cognitive modeling; HCD; HCI; Human performance modeling; Keystroke Level Model; KLM

Indexed keywords

COGNITIVE MODELING; HCD; HUMAN PERFORMANCE MODEL; HUMAN PERFORMANCE MODELING; HUMAN-CENTERED DESIGNS; INTEGRAL PART; KLM; MODELING PROCESS; SYSTEM DESIGN PROCESS; TASK EXECUTIONS;

COMPUTER SIMULATION; HUMAN COMPUTER INTERACTION;

SYSTEMS ANALYSIS;

EID: 84865341288     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Conference Proceeding    
DOI: None     Document Type: Conference Paper

References (17)

1. Anderson, J. R., Bothell, D., Byrne, M. D., Douglass, S., Lebiere, C, & Qin, Y. (2004). An integrated theory of the mind. Psychological Review, 111(4), 1036-1060. (Pubitemid 39375086)
2. Baumeister, L., John, B. E. & Byrne, M. (2000) A Comparison of Tools for Building GOMS Models. Proceedings of CHI, 2000 (The Hague, The Netherlands, April 1-6, 2000) ACM, New York. pp. 502-509.
3. Beyer, H., & Holtzblatt, K. (1998). Contextual design: Defining customer-centered systems. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers.
4. Card, S. K., Moran, T. P., & Newell, A. (1980). The keystroke-level model for user performance time with interactive systems. Communications of the ACM. 23 (7), 396-410. (Pubitemid 11433615)
5. Card, S. K., Moran, T. P., & Newell, A. (1983) The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
6. Chaudhri, V. K., Clark, P. E., Mishra S., Pacheco, J., Spaulding, A., Tien, J. (2009) AURA: Capturing Knowledge and Answering Questions on Science Textbooks. Technical Report SRI International, http://www.ai.sri.com/pubs/files/ 1768.pdf
7. Dow, DD (1976). The use and misuse of the coefficient of variation in analysing geographical variation in birds. Emu 76, 25-29.
8. Gluck, K., A., and Pew, R. W., (2005) Modeling human behavior with integrated cognitive architectures: comparison. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
9. Gaines, B. R., (1994). Problem statement for Sisyphus: Models of problem solving. InternationalJournal of Human-Computer Studies, 40, 187-192.
10. Jacobsen, N. E., Hertzum, M. & John, B. E. (1998) The Evaluator Effect in Usability Studies: Problem Detection and Severity Judgments. Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting (Chicago, October 5-9, 1998), pp. 1336-1340. HFES, Santa Monica, CA.
11. Hertzum, M. and Jacobsen, N.E. (2001), The evaluator effect: A chilling fact about usability evaluation methods, International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 13(4), 421-443. (Pubitemid 33721371)
12. John, B. E. (1995) Why GOMS? interactions, 2(4). pp. 80-89.
13. John, B. E. (2009) CogTool user guide version 1.1. Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh PA, September 17, 2009.
14. John, B. E., Prevas, K., Salvucci, D. D., & Koedinger, K. (2004). Predictive human performance modeling made easy. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. CHI '04 (pp. 455-462). New York: ACM.
15. Lebiere, C, Gonzalez, C, Dutt, V., and Warwick W. (2009) Predicting cognitive performance in openended dynamic tasks a modeling comparison challenge. In A. Howes, D. Peebles, R. Cooper (Eds.), 9th International Conference on Cognitive Modeling - ICCM2009, Manchester, UK.
16. Nielsen, J. and Molich, R. 1990. Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Empowering People (Seattle, Washington, United States, April 01-05, 1990). J. C. Chew and J. Whiteside, Eds. CHI '90. ACM, New York, NY, 249-256.
17. Poison, P.G., Lewis, C, Rieman, J., and Wharton, C. (1992). Cognitive walkthroughs: A method for theory- based evaluation of user interfaces. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 36, 741-773.