SigniFYI-CDN: merged communicability and usability methods to evaluate notation-intensive interaction

We present SigniFYI-CDN, an inspection method built from previously proposed methods combining Semiotic Engineering and the Cognitive Dimensions of Notations. Compared to its predecessors, SigniFYI-CDN simplifies procedural steps and supports them with more analytic scaffolds. It is especially fit for the study of interaction with technologies where notations are created and used by various people, or by a single person in various, and potentially distant, occasions. In such cases, notations may serve several purposes, like (mutual) comprehension, recall, coordination, negotiation, and documentation. We illustrate SigniFYI-CDN with highlights from the evaluation of a computer tool that supports qualitative data analysis. Our contribution is a simpler tool for researchers and practitioners to probe the power of combined communicability and usability analysis of interaction with increasingly complex data-intensive applications.

[1]  Heinz Zemanek,et al.  Semiotics and programming languages , 1966, CACM.

[2]  Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza,et al.  Evaluating application programming interfaces as communication artefacts , 2012, PPIG.

[3]  Muhammad Nazrul Islam,et al.  Integrating Semiotics Perception in Usability Testing to Improve Usability Evaluation , 2013 .

[4]  Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza,et al.  The semiotic inspection method , 2006, IHC '06.

[5]  Ann Blandford,et al.  Cognitive dimensions: Achievements, new directions, and open questions , 2006, J. Vis. Lang. Comput..

[6]  Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza,et al.  The Semiotic Engineering of Human-Computer Interaction , 2005 .

[7]  Martin J. Eppler,et al.  A Collaborative Dimensions Framework: Understanding the Mediating Role of Conceptual Visualizations in Collaborative Knowledge Work , 2008, Proceedings of the 41st Annual Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (HICSS 2008).

[8]  Carlos Alberto Scolari,et al.  The sense of the interface: Applying semiotics to HCI research , 2009 .

[9]  Daniel L. Moody,et al.  The “Physics” of Notations: Toward a Scientific Basis for Constructing Visual Notations in Software Engineering , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering.

[10]  Simone Diniz Junqueira Barbosa,et al.  Methods and tools: a method for evaluating the communicability of user interfaces , 2000, INTR.

[11]  Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza,et al.  Metacommunication between programmers through an application programming interface: A semiotic analysis of date and time APIs , 2017, 2017 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC).

[12]  Ellen J. Bass,et al.  A formal methods approach to semiotic engineering , 2018, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[13]  Kecheng Liu,et al.  Website interfaces as representamina of organizational behaviour , 2003 .

[14]  Christopher D. Hundhausen.  Using end-user visualization environments to mediate conversations: a 'Communicative Dimensions' framework , 2005, J. Vis. Lang. Comput..

[15]  Kecheng Liu,et al.  Semiotics in Information Systems Engineering , 2000 .

[16]  Robin P. Fawcett,et al.  A theory of computer semiotics - semiotic approaches to construction and assessement of computer systems , 1991, Cambridge series in human-computer interaction.

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

[18]  M. Sheelagh T. Carpendale,et al.  Theoretical analysis of uncertainty visualizations , 2006, Electronic Imaging.

[19]  Jeffrey Heer,et al.  Protovis: A Graphical Toolkit for Visualization , 2009, IEEE Transactions on Visualization and Computer Graphics.

[20]  Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza,et al.  The Case for API Communicability Evaluation: Introducing API-SI with Examples from Keras , 2018, ArXiv.

[21]  Alan F. Blackwell,et al.  Ten years of cognitive dimensions in visual languages and computing: Guest Editor's introduction to special issue , 2006, J. Vis. Lang. Comput..

[22]  Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza,et al.  Combining cognitive, semiotic and discourse analysis to explore the power of notations in visual programming , 2012, 2012 IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages and Human-Centric Computing (VL/HCC).

[23]  Mihai Nadin.  Interface design and evaluation—Semiotic implications , 1988 .

[24]  James Noble,et al.  Icons R Icons , 2003, AUIC.

[25]  Andrew Fish,et al.  Towards an Operationalization of the "Physics of Notations" for the Analysis of Visual Languages , 2013, MoDELS.

[26]  Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza,et al.  Software Developers as Users , 2016, Springer International Publishing.

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

[28]  Thomas D. LaToza,et al.  Programmers Are Users Too: Human-Centered Methods for Improving Programming Tools , 2016, Computer.

[29]  Alan F. Blackwell,et al.  CHAPTER 5 – Notational Systems—The Cognitive Dimensions of Notations Framework , 2003 .

[30]  M. Sheelagh T. Carpendale,et al.  Evaluating Information Visualizations , 2008, Information Visualization.

[31]  Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza,et al.  Characterizing the tool-notation-people Triplet in software modeling tasks , 2014, IHC.

[32]  B. J. Fogg,et al.  Persuasive technology: using computers to change what we think and do , 2002, UBIQ.

[33]  Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza,et al.  Why and how to investigate interaction design of software development tools , 2015 .

[34]  Graham R. Gibbs.  Using software in qualitative data analysis , 2017 .