Instructions and descriptions: some cognitive aspects of programming and similar activities

The Cognitive Dimensions framework outlined here is generalised broad-brush approach to usability evaluation for all types of information artifact, from programming languages through interactive systems to domestic devices. It also has promise of interfacing successfully with organisational and sociological analyses.

[1]  Rachel K. E. Bellamy,et al.  Parsing and Gnisrap: a model of device use , 1987 .

[2]  Kate Ehrlich,et al.  Empirical Studies of Programming Knowledge , 1984, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[3]  Thomas R. G. Green.  Looking through HCI , 1995, BCS HCI.

[4]  Robert S. Rist.  Plans in programming: definition, demonstration, and development , 1986 .

[5]  David G. Hendry,et al.  Creating, comprehending and explaining spreadsheets: a cognitive interpretation of what discretionary users think of the spreadsheet model , 1994, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[6]  Alan F. Blackwell,et al.  Cognitive Dimensions of Information Artefacts: a tutorial , 1998 .

[7]  K. Gilhooly,et al.  Lines of thinking : reflections on the psychology of thought , 1990 .

[8]  Thomas R. G. Green,et al.  Cognitive dimensions of notations , 1990 .

[9]  Deborah A. Boehm-Davis,et al.  Empirical Studies of Programmers: Sixth Workshop , 1996 .

[10]  George R. S. Weir,et al.  People and Computers IX: Crafting Interaction: Styles, Metaphors, Modalities and Agents , 1994 .

[11]  Thomas R. G. Green,et al.  The generalized unification parser: Modelling the parsing of notations , 1990, INTERACT.

[12]  Thomas R. G. Green,et al.  The necessity of syntax markers: Two experiments with artificial languages , 1979 .

[13]  Allen Newell,et al.  The psychology of human-computer interaction , 1983 .

[14]  Marian Petre,et al.  Usability Analysis of Visual Programming Environments: A 'Cognitive Dimensions' Framework , 1996, J. Vis. Lang. Comput..

[15]  Thomas R. G. Green,et al.  The cognitive dimension of viscosity: A sticky problem for HCI , 1990, INTERACT.

[16]  Elliot Soloway,et al.  Empirical Studies of Programmers: Second Workshop , 1991 .

[17]  Gerard Kempen,et al.  Incremental syntactic tree formation in human sentence processing: A cognitive architecture based on activation decay and simulated annealing , 1989 .

[18]  Pablo Romero.  Focal structures in Prolog , 1999, PPIG.

[19]  IRWIN D. J. BROSS.  Recognition of Syntactic Structure by Computer , 1968, Nature.

[20]  N. Pennington.  Stimulus structures and mental representations in expert comprehension of computer programs , 1987, Cognitive Psychology.

[21]  Bonnie A. Nardi,et al.  A Small Matter of Programming: Perspectives on End User Computing , 1993 .

[22]  Tom Ormerod,et al.  The evaluation of TED, a techniques editor for Prolog programming , 1995, PPIG.

[23]  Paul Brna,et al.  Learning to Build and Comprehend Complex Information Structures: Prolog as a Case Study , 1999 .

[24]  Jawed I. A. Siddiqi,et al.  Viscosity as a metaphor for measuring modifiability , 1997, IEE Proc. Softw. Eng..

[25]  Thomas R. G. Green,et al.  Programming plans, imagery, and visual programming , 1995, INTERACT.

[26]  Timothy S. Gegg-Harrison.  Learning Prolog in a schema-based environment , 1991 .

[27]  Françoise Détienne,et al.  Mental Representations Constructed by Experts and Novices in Object-Oriented Program Comprehension , 1997, INTERACT.

[28]  David J. Gilmore,et al.  Programming Plans and Programming Expertise , 1988 .