Human-computer interaction : from classifying users to classifying users' misunderstandings

The overall objective of the research has been to address the question of how best to understand user behaviour at the interface. The use of cognitive grammars to analyse tasks and predict behaviour was rejected for seven theoretical and practical reasons. Following this, cognitive style measures were rejected as a result the first study, where the visualizer-verbalizer and conceptual tempoc ognitive style measures were not found to be accurate predictors of behaviour at a task. The results of this experiment indicated that interaction between a system and its user has certain dynamic qualities that make prediction of a fixed set of activities in a set order difficult. Furthermore, it seemed likely that behaviour is determined by a potentially complex interaction of variables rather than any single over-riding factor, such as a user's cognitive style. Consequently, attention was-focused upon the errors that occur during humancomputerinteraction. An approach where errors are classified was -adopted, and a classification scheme was developed (ECM: an Evaluative Classification of Mismatch)as a vehicle for further research. An initial pilot study showed that user-system errors could be classified using the scheme. This suggested that the concepts it employed did have some validity in'both cognitive and computing domains. The second study of ECM involved a design team at Hewlett Packard's Office Products division in Wokingham. This study demonstrated that the classification scheme was - usable by a design and development team that consisted of software engineers, human factors engineers, and technical authors. The third and final study of ECM demonstrated that it could be, used to improve a design. A system, that had been changed using ECM, was shown to be significantly better, in terms of time, errors and user attitude ratings, than either its original or an iteration where ECM had not been employed. This research has provided strong indications that evaluative classifications can be of use within the design and development process. Furthermore, this work emphasizes the importance of providing structures for thinking about the user's problems that are divorced from the structure and terminology of design.

[1]  P. Johnson-Laird,et al.  Mental Models: Towards a Cognitive Science of Language, Inference, and Consciousness , 1985 .

[2]  Clayton Lewis,et al.  Designing for usability—key principles and what designers think , 1983, CHI '83.

[3]  John Millar Carroll,et al.  Presentation and Representation in Design Problem Solving. , 1980 .

[4]  Peter G. Polson,et al.  A quantitative theory of human-computer interaction , 1987 .

[5]  Blake Ives,et al.  User Involvement in System Design: An Empirical Test of Alternative Approaches , 1981, Inf. Manag..

[6]  Beth Adelson,et al.  Comparing Natural and Abstract Categories: A Case Study from Computer Science , 1985, Cogn. Sci..

[7]  H. A. Witkin Individual differences in ease of perception of embedded figures. , 1950, Journal of personality.

[8]  Victoria Bellotti,et al.  Implications of Current Design Practice for the Use of HCI Techniques , 1988, BCS HCI.

[9]  Ivan T. Robertson,et al.  Human information-processing strategies and style , 1985 .

[10]  Thomas P. Moran,et al.  Getting into a system: External-internal task mapping analysis , 1983, CHI '83.

[11]  W. Graf,et al.  METHODS FOR THE ERGONOMICAL EVALUATION OF ALPHANUMERIC COMPUTER-GENERATED DISPLAYS , 1987 .

[12]  S. J. Boies,et al.  Rapid prototyping and system development: examination of an interface toolkit for voice and telephony applications , 1986, CHI '86.

[13]  G. Miller,et al.  Cognitive science. , 1981, Science.

[14]  Dennis Wixon,et al.  Building a user-defined interface , 1983, CHI '83.

[15]  Richard Rubinstein,et al.  The Human Factor: Designing Computer Systems for People , 1984 .

[16]  James L. McClelland,et al.  Parallel distributed processing: explorations in the microstructure of cognition, vol. 1: foundations , 1986 .

[17]  Paul J. Feltovich,et al.  Categorization and Representation of Physics Problems by Experts and Novices , 1981, Cogn. Sci..

[18]  J. Kagan,et al.  The effect of teacher tempo on the child. , 1968, Child development.

[19]  D R Goodenough,et al.  Cognitive styles: essence and origins. Field dependence and field independence. , 1981, Psychological issues.

[20]  Nick Hammond,et al.  Characterizing user performance in command-driven dialogue , 1987 .

[21]  Richard M. Young,et al.  The Machine Inside the Machine: Users' Models of Pocket Calculators , 1981, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[22]  A Martin,et al.  A new keyboard layout. , 1972, Applied ergonomics.

[23]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  Twelve Issues for Cognitive Science , 1980, Cogn. Sci..

[24]  Mark Weiser,et al.  Programming Problem Representation in Novice and Expert Programmers , 1983, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

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

[26]  THE OBJECTIVE STUDY OF MENTAL IMAGERY , 1953 .

[27]  Thomas R. G. Green Limited theories as framework for human-computer interaction , 1987, Informatics and Psychology Workshop.

[28]  J. Kagan Reflection--impulsivity: the generality and dynamics of conceptual tempo. , 1966, Journal of abnormal psychology.

[29]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  Designing for error , 1987 .

[30]  P. Barnard,et al.  Design practice and interface usability: Evidence from interviews with designers , 1983, CHI '83.

[31]  Philip N. Johnson-Laird,et al.  Mental Models in Cognitive Science , 1980, Cogn. Sci..

[32]  Ken Eason,et al.  Towards the experimental study of usability , 1984 .

[33]  G. Huber Cognitive Style as a Basis for MIS and DSS Designs: Much ADO About Nothing? , 1983 .