Iterative methodology and designer training in human-computer interface design

ABSTRACT

One of the most promising methods for user interface design is the iterative design methodology. To this point only case study support for this method has been given. There are still many unanswered questions about the effectiveness of this method.

One difficulty encountered in user interface design is knowing what set of knowledge and skill the designer must possess to ensure good user interface design. Many different people have designed user interfaces for computer systems. These people came from a variety of backgrounds and viewpoints. Two of the most common groups involved in user interface design are human factors specialists and programmers.

This study investigates these two issues. One factor in this study is the iterative design methodology. An empirical evaluation of this method was conducted. The strengths and weaknesses of this method are discussed. A second factor in this study is a comparison of human factors specialists and programmers in an actual user interface design task.

The results of this study indicate that iterative design methodology can improve the usability of a product. The amount of the improvement may be constrained by the original design. This study also supports the use of human factors specialists in user interface design. A significant difference between designs produced by human factors specialists and programmers was found.

References

1. 1.Bailey, R. W. (1989). Human Performance Engineering, Using Human Factors Ergonomics to Achieve Computer System Usability Second Edition, Englewood Cliffs, New Jersey, Prentice-Hall.
2. 2.Card, S.K., Moran, T.P., and Newell, A. (1983). The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction, Hillsdale, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
3. 3.Carroll, J. M. (Ed.) (1987). Interfacing Thought: Cognitive Aspects of Human-Computer Interaction, Cambridge, Massachusetts, MIT Press.
4. 4.Dumas, J. S. (1989). Stimulating change through usability testing. SIGCHI Bulletin, 21 (1), 37-44.
5. 5.Galitz, W. O. (1989). Handbook of Screen Format Design Third Edition, Welleslye, Massachusetts, QED information Sciences, Inc.
6. 6.Gardiner, M. M., & Christie, B. (Eds.)(1987). Applying Cognitive Psychology to User-interface Design, Chichester, John Wiley & Sons.
7. 7.Gilbert, T.F., & Gilbert, M. B. (1989). Performance engineering: Making human productivity a science. Performance & Instruction, 3-9.
8. 8.G illan, D.J., & Brccdin, S.D. (1990). Designers' models of the human-computer interface. CHI'90 Conference Proceedings, 391-398.
9. 9.Gould, J. D., & Lewis, C. (1985). Designing for usability: Key principles and what designers think. Communications of the ACM, 28 (3), 300-311.
10. 10.Gould, J. D., Boies, S. J., Levy, S., Richards, J. T., & Schoonard, J. (1987). The 1984 Olympic message system: A test of behavioral principles of system design. Communications of the ACM, 30 (9), 758-769.
11. 11.Grudin, J., Ehrlich, S. F., & Shriner, R. (1987). Positioning human factors in the user interface development chain. Proceedings of CHI + GI, 125- 131.
12. 12.Gutierrez, O. (1989). Prototyping techniques for different problem contexts, CHI'89 Proceedings, 259- 2~.
13. 13.Hewett, T. T., & Meadow, C. T. (1986). On designing for usability: An application of four key principles. CHI'86 Proceedings, 247-252.
14. 14.Ives, B., & Olson, M. H. (1984). User involvement and MIS success: A review of research. Management Science, 30 (5), 586-603.
15. 15.Janosky, B., Smith, P. J., & Hildreth, C. (1986). Online library catalog systems: An analysis of user errors. International journal of Man-Machine Studies, 25, 573-592.
16. 16.Jeffries, R., Miller, J. R., Wharton, C., & Uydea, K. M. (1991). User interface evalutation in the real world: A comparison of four techniques, CHI'91 Conference Proceedings, 119-124.
17. 17.Kammersgaard, J. (1988). Four different perspectives on human-computer interaction. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 28, 343-362.
18. 18.Karat, C., Campbell, R., & Fiegel, T. (1992). Comparison of empirical testing and walkthrough methods in user interface evaluation. Proceedings of CHI 92, 397-404.
19. 19.Nielsen, J., & Molich, R. (1989). Teaching user interface design based on usability engineering. SIGCHI Bulletin, 21 (1), 45-48.
20. 20.Norman, D. A., & Draper, S. W. (Eds) (1986). User Centered System Design, Hillsdale, New Jersey, Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
21. 21.Perlman, G. (1989). The checklist method for applying guidelines to design and evaluation. Proceedings of INTERFACE 89, 271-276.
22. 22.Poison, P. G. (1988). A quantitative theory of humancomputer interaction. In J. M. Carroll (Ed.), Interfaceing Thought: Cognitive Aspects of Human- Computer Interaction, Cambridge Massachusetts, Bradford Book the MIT Press.
23. 23.Rivard, S., & Huff, S. L. (1988). Factors of success for end-user computing. Communications of the ACM, 31 (5), 552-560.
24. 24.Rubini, D., & Thompson, C. (1989). The box continuum: A model for design evaluation. Proceedings of INTERFACE 89, 101-104.
25. 25.Schneider, E., & Wilcox, S. B. (1989). Getting designers involved with research: The case for early participation. Proceedings of INTERFACE 89, 29-32.
26. 26.Shneiderman, B. (1987). Designing the User Interface: Strategies for Effective Human-Computer Interaction, Reading, Massachusetts, Addison-Wesley Publishing Company.
27. 27.Shneiderman, B. (1988). We can design better user interfaces: A review of human-computer interaction styles. Ergonomics, 31 (5), 699-710.
28. 28.Yadav, S. B., Bravoco, R. R., Chatfield, A. T., & Rajkumar, T. M. (1988). Comparison of analysis techniques for information requirement determination, Communications of the ACM(ff}~ 1090-1097.

Index Terms

• Human-centered computing

  • Human computer interaction (HCI)

    • HCI design and evaluation methods

• Software and its engineering

  • Software creation and management

    • Software development process management

      • Software development methods

        • Rapid application development

    • Software development techniques

      • Software prototyping