Training software engineers in a novel usability evaluation technique

Novel approaches to designing or analysing systems only become useful when they are usable by practitioners in the field, and not just by their originators. Design techniques often fail to make the transition from research to practice because insufficient attention is paid to understanding and communicating the skills required to use them. This paper reports on work to train software engineering students to use a user-centred language for describing and analysing interface designs called the “Programmable User Model Instruction Language”, or IL. Various types of data, including video, students' IL descriptions and brief usability reports were collected during training, and subsequently analysed. These show that after 6 h of training, students have a good grasp of the syntax of the notation, and start using notational affordances to support their reasoning, but that their reasoning is still limited by a poor grasp of the underlying cognitive theory. A comparison of the analyses of trainees with those of experts provides a means of developing a better understanding of the nature of expertise in this area?as comprising an understanding of the syntax and the surface semantics of the notation, the underlying ognitive theory, the method of conducting an analysis and the implications of the analysis for design.

[1]  Cathleen Wharton,et al.  The cognitive walkthrough method: a practitioner's guide , 1994 .

[2]  Nick Hammond,et al.  Graphical Argumentation and Design Cognition , 1997, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[3]  T.M. Duffy,et al.  Scenario-Based Design: Envisioning Work and Technology in System Development [Book Review] , 1996, IEEE Transactions on Professional Communication.

[4]  Lucy A. Suchman,et al.  Panel: Rethinking the Role of Formalization in CSCW , 1991, ECSCW.

[5]  David E. Kieras,et al.  Towards a Practical GOMS Model Methodology for User Interface Design , 1988 .

[6]  Ann Blandford,et al.  Specifying user knowledge for the design of interactive systems , 1996, Softw. Eng. J..

[7]  Richard M. Young,et al.  Programmable user models for predictive evaluation of interface designs , 1989, CHI '89.

[8]  Simon Buckingham Shum,et al.  Cognitive Dimensions of Design Rationale , 1997 .

[9]  Bonnie E. John,et al.  Learning and using the cognitive walkthrough method: a case study approach , 1995, CHI '95.

[10]  Cathleen Wharton,et al.  Testing a walkthrough methodology for theory-based design of walk-up-and-use interfaces , 1990, CHI '90.

[11]  Frank M. Shipman,et al.  Formality Considered Harmful: Experiences, Emerging Themes, and Directions ; CU-CS-648-93 , 1993 .

[12]  Ann Blandford,et al.  Interpersonal Access Control in Computer-Mediated Communications: A Systematic Analysis of the Design Space , 1996, Hum. Comput. Interact..

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

[14]  Peter G. Polson,et al.  Theory-Based Design for Easily Learned Interfaces , 1990, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[15]  Nick Hammond,et al.  Delivering HCI Modelling to Designers: A Framework and Case Study of Cognitive Modelling , 1994, Interact. Comput..

[16]  Eswaran Subrahmanian,et al.  Equations aren’t enough: informal modeling in design , 1993, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[17]  Ann Blandford,et al.  Multidisciplinary Modelling for User-Centred System Design: An Air-traffic Control Case Study , 1996, BCS HCI.

[18]  Willemien Visser,et al.  More or Less Following a Plan During Design: Opportunistic Deviations in Specification , 1990, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[19]  Ann Blandford,et al.  Separating user and device descriptions for modelling interactive problem solving , 1995, INTERACT.

[20]  David E. Kieras,et al.  The GOMS family of user interface analysis techniques: comparison and contrast , 1996, TCHI.

[21]  Ann Blandford,et al.  OSM: an ontology-based approach to usability evaluation , 1997 .

[22]  Cathleen Wharton,et al.  Cognitive Walkthroughs: A Method for Theory-Based Evaluation of User Interfaces , 1992, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[23]  Martin S. Feather Requirements reconnoitring at the juncture of domain and instance , 1993, [1993] Proceedings of the IEEE International Symposium on Requirements Engineering.

[24]  Terry Winograd,et al.  Understanding computers and cognition , 1986 .

[25]  Thomas P. Moran,et al.  Questions, Options, and Criteria: Elements of Design Space Analysis , 1991, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[26]  Peter G. Polson,et al.  An automated cognitive walkthrough , 1991, CHI '91.

[27]  Nick Hammond,et al.  Multidisciplinary modelling in HCI design…in theory and in practice , 1995, CHI '95.

[28]  Clare-Marie Karat,et al.  Intemational Perspectives: THE ROLE OF SCENARIOS IN HCI PRACTICE AND RESEARCH , 1992, SGCH.

[29]  David E. Rowley,et al.  The cognitive jogthrough: a fast-paced user interface evaluation procedure , 1992, CHI.

[30]  David E. Kieras,et al.  An Approach to the Formal Analysis of User Complexity , 1999, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[31]  Raymonde Guindon,et al.  Designing the Design Process: Exploiting Opportunistic Thoughts , 1990, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[32]  Richard M. Young,et al.  The use of scenarios in human-computer interaction research: turbocharging the tortoise of cumulative science , 1987, CHI 1987.