PUMA Footprints: Linking Theory and Craft Skill in Usability Evaluation

‘Footprints’ are marks or features of a design that alert the analyst to the possible existence of usability difficulties caused by violations of design principles. PUMA Footprints make an explicit link between the theory underlying a Programmable User Model and the design principles that can be derived from that theory. While principles are widely presented as being intuitively obvious, it is desirable that they should have a theoretical basis. However, working directly with theory tends to be time-consuming, and demands a high level of skill. PUMA footprints offer a theory-based justification for various usability principles, with guidelines on detecting violations of those principles.

[1]  Ann Blandford,et al.  Users as rational interacting agents: formalising assumptions about cognition and interaction , 1997, DSV-IS.

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

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

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

[5]  K. J. Vicente,et al.  Cognitive Work Analysis: Toward Safe, Productive, and Healthy Computer-Based Work , 1999 .

[6]  Nick Hammond,et al.  Comparing Usability Evaluation Principles with Heuristics: Problem Instances vs. Problem Types , 1999, INTERACT.

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

[8]  Michael E. Atwood,et al.  Project Ernestine: Validating a GOMS Analysis for Predicting and Explaining Real-World Task Performance , 1993, Hum. Comput. Interact..

[9]  B. Schneirdeman,et al.  Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction , 1998 .

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

[11]  M. Byrne,et al.  A Working Memory Model of a Common Procedural Error , 1997 .

[12]  Andrew F. Monk,et al.  Modelling cyclic interaction , 1999, Behav. Inf. Technol..

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

[14]  James Reason,et al.  Human Error , 1990 .

[15]  Thomas R. G. Green,et al.  Cognitive dimensions of notations , 1990 .

[16]  Erik Hollnagel,et al.  Cognitive reliability and error analysis method : CREAM , 1998 .

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

[18]  Ann Blandford,et al.  The role of communication goals in interaction , 2000 .

[19]  Ann Blandford,et al.  Training software engineers in a novel usability evaluation technique , 1998, Int. J. Hum. Comput. Stud..

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

[21]  Ann Blandford,et al.  Programmable user modelling analysis in theory and in practice , 1999, CHI Extended Abstracts.

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

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

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

[25]  Ann Blandford,et al.  Demonstrating the Cognitive Plausibility of Interactive System Specifications , 2000, Formal Aspects of Computing.

[26]  Peter Johnson,et al.  Human computer interaction: Psychology, task analysis, and software engineering , 1992 .

[27]  Thomas R. G. Green,et al.  The cognitive dimension of viscosity: A sticky problem for HCI , 1990, INTERACT.

[28]  Steve Howard,et al.  Human-Computer Interaction INTERACT ’97 , 1997, IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing.

[29]  Ann Blandford,et al.  Incorporating human factors concerns into the design and safety engineering of complex control systems , 1999 .

[30]  Robin Jeffries,et al.  Applying cognitive walkthroughs to more complex user interfaces: experiences, issues, and recommendations , 1992, CHI.

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

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

[33]  William Mackaness,et al.  Human-Computer Interaction: INTERACT'99 , 1999 .

[34]  David E. Kieras,et al.  Using GOMS for user interface design and evaluation: which technique? , 1996, TCHI.

[35]  Ann Blandford,et al.  The Principle of Rationality and Models of Highly Interactive Systems , 1999, INTERACT.

[36]  E KierasDavid,et al.  Using GOMS for user interface design and evaluation , 1996 .

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

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

[39]  Ann Blandford.  Ontological Sketch Models of schedule organisers , 2000 .

[40]  Andrew Howes,et al.  The Nature of Device Models: The Yoked State Space Hypothesis and Some Experiments With Text Editors , 1990, Hum. Comput. Interact..