Can inspection methods generate valid new knowledge in HCI? The case of semiotic inspection

HCI evaluation methods tend to be proposed and used to verify the interactive qualities of specific systems and design strategies. A discussion about the scientific merits of such methods to advance knowledge in HCI as a field is very rare, although much needed. This paper shows that, under certain conditions, inspection methods can be safely used in scientific research in HCI and extend their advantages beyond the territory of professional practice. Taking the Semiotic Inspection Method (SIM) as an example, we argue that its interpretive results are objective, can be validated, and produce scientific knowledge comparable to that generated by more widely accepted methods.

[1]  Terry Winograd,et al.  Bringing Design to Software , 1996 .

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

[3]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Heuristic evaluation of user interfaces , 1990, CHI '90.

[4]  Henry Lieberman,et al.  Watch what I do: programming by demonstration , 1993 .

[5]  John W. Creswell,et al.  Research Design: Qualitative, Quantitative, and Mixed Methods Approaches , 2010 .

[6]  John Millar Carroll.  HCI Models, Theories, and Frameworks: Toward a Multidisciplinary Science , 2003 .

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

[8]  John Dixon,et al.  The Design of Future Things , 2010 .

[9]  Mira Mezini,et al.  Pi: a Pattern Language , 2009, OOPSLA.

[10]  Clarisse Sieckenius de Souza,et al.  Semiotic Considerations on Direct Concept Manipulation as a Distinct Interface Style for Learnware , 2001 .

[11]  Marilyn Hughes Blackmon,et al.  Cognitive walkthrough for the web , 2002, CHI.

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

[13]  A.,et al.  Cognitive Engineering , 2008, Encyclopedia of GIS.

[14]  Herbert A. Simon,et al.  The Sciences of the Artificial , 1970 .

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

[16]  Rick Spencer,et al.  The streamlined cognitive walkthrough method, working around social constraints encountered in a software development company , 2000, CHI.

[17]  A. Strauss,et al.  The discovery of grounded theory: strategies for qualitative research aldine de gruyter , 1968 .

[18]  Kamran Sedig,et al.  Role of interface manipulation style and scaffolding on cognition and concept learning in learnware , 2001, TCHI.

[19]  Umberto Eco,et al.  A theory of semiotics , 1976, Advances in semiotics.

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

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

[22]  Colin Potts,et al.  Design of Everyday Things , 1988 .

[23]  Charlie Hill,et al.  Design communication , 2006, CHI EA '06.

[24]  A. Parry.  Handbook of Qualitative Research , 2002 .

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

[26]  Miguel P Caldas,et al.  Research design: qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches , 2003 .

[27]  Jakob Nielsen,et al.  Usability inspection methods , 1994, CHI 95 Conference Companion.

[28]  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..

[29]  Keith Duncan,et al.  Cognitive Engineering , 2017, Encyclopedia of GIS.

[30]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  User Centered System Design , 1986 .

[31]  David L. Barton.  Design Languages , 1999, The VLSI Handbook.

[32]  Donald A. Norman,et al.  Affordance, conventions, and design , 1999, INTR.