Toward methods for supporting the anticipation-feedback loop in user interface design

Recent research has compared different usability evaluation methods with respect to their effectiveness and efficiency. The paper analyses the impact of different usability evaluation methods on design problem-solving processes of individual designers and evaluators. It is proposed that usability evaluation methods have to be divided into two categories according to their fundamentally different way of supporting the design for usability: (1) guideline-based methods and (2) methods based on the mental generation of scenarios and anticipation of user goals. We present data from an experimental study that shows that these two types of methods entail differences in the perspective-taking processes. Furthermore, the results indicate that the methods have a differential impact on the general problem-solving strategy, i.e. whether to use a top-down, breadth-first or a depth-first approach. Possible implications for the development of techniques that support the design of usable systems are discussed.

[1]  John C. Thomas,et al.  Enhancing the Performance of Interface Evaluators Using Non-Empirical Usability Methods , 1993 .

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

[3]  Michael E. Atwood,et al.  GOMS meets the phone company: Analytic modeling applied to real-world problems , 1990, INTERACT.

[4]  Allen Newell,et al.  Problem solving techniques for the design of algorithms , 1984, Inf. Process. Manag..

[5]  Wayne D. Gray,et al.  Damaged Merchandise? A Review of Experiments That Compare Usability Evaluation Methods , 1998, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[6]  Wolfgang Wahlster,et al.  User and discourse models for multimodal communication , 1991 .

[7]  Siegfried Treu,et al.  User Interface Evaluation , 2012, Languages and Information Systems.

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

[9]  Mary Beth Rosson,et al.  Binding objects to scenarios of use , 1994, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[10]  Wojciech Tarnowski,et al.  The Structure of the Design Process , 1986 .

[11]  John M. Carroll.  Human-computer interaction: psychology as a science of design. , 1997 .

[12]  Janice Redish,et al.  User and task analysis for interface design , 1998 .

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

[14]  Clare-Marie Karat,et al.  Comparison of empirical testing and walkthrough methods in user interface evaluation , 1992, CHI.

[15]  Thomas T. Hewett,et al.  Psychological science and analogical reminding in the design of artifacts , 1998 .

[16]  Phil Barnard,et al.  Bridging between basic theories and the artifacts of human-computer interaction , 1991 .

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

[18]  Albert L Stevens,et al.  Multiple Conceptual Models of a Complex System. , 1978 .

[19]  M. Scriven.  The methodology of evaluation , 1966 .

[20]  John S. Gero,et al.  Design Prototypes: A Knowledge Representation Schema for Design , 1990, AI Mag..

[21]  Peter C. Wright,et al.  A Cost-Effective Evaluation Method for Use by Designers , 1991, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[22]  Dan Diaper,et al.  Task Analysis for Human-Computer Interaction , 1990 .

[23]  Judith S. Olson,et al.  Small Group Design Meetings: An Analysis of Collaboration , 1992, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[24]  Gülay Hasdoǧan,et al.  The role of user models in product design for assessment of user needs , 1996 .

[25]  Stephen J. Payne,et al.  Task-Action Grammars: A Model of the Mental Representation of Task Languages , 1986, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[26]  G PolsonPeter,et al.  Theory-based design for easily learned interfaces , 1990 .

[27]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Usability engineering , 1997, The Computer Science and Engineering Handbook.

[28]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Heuristic Evaluation of Prototypes (individual) , 2022 .

[29]  Philip J. Barnard,et al.  The Case for Supportive Evaluation During Design , 1995, Interact. Comput..

[30]  Sidney L. Smith,et al.  Guidelines for Designing User Interface Software , 1986 .

[31]  Allen Newell,et al.  Computer science as empirical inquiry: symbols and search , 1976, CACM.

[32]  A. Tversky,et al.  The simulation heuristic , 1982 .

[33]  Antonio Rizzo,et al.  The AVANTI project: prototyping and evaluation with a cognitive walkthrough based on the Norman's model of action , 1997, DIS '97.

[34]  Chiu-Shui Chan,et al.  Cognitive processes in architectural design problem solving , 1990 .

[35]  Raymonde Guindon,et al.  Knowledge Exploited by Experts during Software System Design , 1990, Int. J. Man Mach. Stud..

[36]  John G. Nee,et al.  Design for Problem Solving. , 1973 .

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

[38]  John M. Carroll,et al.  Human-computer interaction: psychology as a science of design , 1997, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[39]  Stephen J. Payne,et al.  Task-Action Grammars: A Model of the Mental Representation of Task Languages , 1987, SGCH.

[40]  John L. Bennett,et al.  Usability Engineering: Our Experience and Evolution , 1988 .

[41]  Vinod Goel,et al.  The Structure of Design Problem Spaces , 1992, Cogn. Sci..

[42]  Ian Dennis,et al.  Cognitive processes in engineering design: a longitudinal study , 1994 .

[43]  Lawrence Hunter,et al.  Artificial Intelligence and Molecular Biology , 1992, AI Mag..

[44]  B. Keysar,et al.  When do speakers take into account common ground? , 1996, Cognition.

[45]  Robin Jeffries,et al.  User interface evaluation in the real world: a comparison of four techniques , 1991, CHI.

[46]  Deborah J. Mayhew,et al.  Principles and Guidelines in Software User Interface Design , 1991 .

[47]  Thomas G. Dietterich,et al.  A model of the mechanical design process based on empirical data , 1988, Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing.

[48]  B. S. Logan,et al.  Conceptualizing design knowledge , 1989 .

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

[50]  Dieter Wallach,et al.  Cognitive Architectures - A Theoretical Foundation for HCI , 1999, HCI.

[51]  Philip J. Barnard,et al.  Cognitive resources and the learning of human-computer dialogs , 1987 .

[52]  Robin Jeffries,et al.  Usability testing vs. heuristic evaluation: was there a contest? , 1992, SGCH.

[53]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Improving a human-computer dialogue , 1990, CACM.

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

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

[56]  Linden J. Ball,et al.  Structured and opportunistic processing in design: a critical discussion , 1995, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

[57]  Mary Beth Rosson,et al.  Getting around the task-artifact cycle: how to make claims and design by scenario , 1992, TOIS.

[58]  Glenn J. Browne,et al.  Conceptual foundations of design problem solving , 1993, IEEE Trans. Syst. Man Cybern..