John D. Gould
Abstract
This article is both theoretical and empirical. Theoretically, it describes three principles of system design which we believe must be followed to produce a useful and easy to use computer system. These principles are: early and continual focus on users; empirical measurement of usage; and iterative design whereby the system (simulated, prototype, and real) is modified, tested, modified again, tested again, and the cycle is repeated again and again. This approach is contrasted to other principled design approaches, for example, get it right the first time, reliance on design guidelines. Empirically, the article presents data which show that our design principles are not always intuitive to designers; identifies the arguments which designers often offer for not using these principles—and answers them; and provides an example in which our principles have been used successfully.
- 1 Baker, F.T., and Mills, H.D. Chief programmer teams. Dafamation, (Dec. 1973). 58-61.Google Scholar
- 2 Black, J. and Moran, T. Learning and remembering command names. In Proceedings of the Human Factors in Computer Systems Meetirtgs. (Gaithersburg, Md.), ACM, Washington, DC., 1982. 8-11. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 3 Boyle, J.M., Bury, K.F. and Evey. R.J. Two studies evaluating learning and use of QBE and SQL. Tech. Rep. HFC-39. IBM GPD Human Factors Center, San Jose, Calif., 1981.Google Scholar
- 4 Brooks, F.P. The Myfhical Man-Month: Essays on Software Engineering. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass. 1975. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 5 Bury, K.F., and Boyle. J.M. An on-line experimental comparison of two simulated record selection languages. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society Annual Meeting, (Seattle, Wash.), R.E. Edwards, (Ed.), 74-78, 1982. (Available from the Human Factors Society, Box 1369, Santa Monica, Calif. 90406).Google ScholarCross Ref
- 6 Crosby, P.B. Quality is Free. New American Library, New York, 1979.Google Scholar
- 7 Dijkstra, E.W. Structured Programming: Software Engineering Techrliques, NATO Scientific Affairs Division, Brussels 39, Belgium, Apr. 1970,84-88.Google Scholar
- 8 Dijkstra, E.W., and Hoare. D. Structured Programming. Academic Press, N.Y., 1973.Google Scholar
- 9 Engel. S., and Granda. R. Guidelines for man/display interfaces, Tech. Rep. TR00.2720. IBM, Poughkeepsie Lab. N.Y. 1975.Google Scholar
- 10 Ericsson, K.A. and Simon, H.A. Verbal reports as data. Psychol. Rev. 87,(1980), 215-251.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 11 Gomory. R.E. Technology development. Science 220, (1983). 576-580.Google Scholar
- 12 Gould, J.D. An experimental study of writing, dictating, and speaking. In Affenfion and Performance VII. J. Requin, (Ed.), Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J., 1978. 299-319.Google Scholar
- 13 Gould, J.D. How experts dictate. 1. Exp. Psychol.: Hum. Percept. Perform. 4, 4 (1978). 648-661.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 14 Gould, J. D. Experiments on composing letters: Some facts, some myths, and some observations. In Cognitive Processes in Writing. L. Gregg. and I. Steinberg, (Eds.) Erlbaum, Hillsdale, N.J., 1980. pp. 98-127.Google Scholar
- 15 Gould. J.D. Composing letters with computer-based text editors. Hum. Fact. 23, (1981). 593-606.Google Scholar
- 16 Gould, J.D. Writing and speaking letters and messages. Inf. J Man Mach. Stud. 16, (1982), 147-171.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 17 Gould, J.D. and Boies, S.J. How authors think about their writing, dictating, and speaking. Hum. Facf. 20, (1978). 495-505.Google Scholar
- 18 Gould, J.D., and Boies. S.J. Writing, dictating, and speaking letters. Science 202. (1976j. 1145-1147.Google Scholar
- 19 Gould, J.D., and Boies, S.J. Human factors challenges in creating a prmclpal support office system-The speech filing system approach. ACM Trans. Office Inform. Sysf. I, 4 (1983), 273-298. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 20 Gould, J.D., and Boies. S.J. Speech filing-An office system for principals. IBM Sysr. J. 23, (1984), 65-81.Google ScholarDigital Library
- 21 Gould. J. D., Conti, J. and Hovanyecz. T. Composing letters with a simulated listening typewriter. Commun. ACM 26, 4 (1983). 295-308. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 22 Hammond, N. Jorgensen. A., MacLea A., Barnard, P. and Long, J. Design practice and interface usability: Evidence from interviews with designers. In Proceedings of the CHI83 Human Factors in Compufing Systems (Boston, Mass., Dec. 1983). ACM, N.Y., 40-44. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 23 Kelley. J.F. Natural language and computers: Six empirical steps for writing an easy-to-use computer application. Ph.D. dissertation, Johns Hopkins University, 1983. (Available from University Microfilm International: 300 North Zeeb Rd. Ann Arbor, Mich. 48106).Google Scholar
- 24 Lewis, C.H. Using the "thinking aloud" method in cognitive interface design. IBM Res. Rep. RC-9265. Yorktown Heights, N.Y., 1982.Google Scholar
- 25 Mack. R. Lewis, C.H. and Carroll, J. Learning to use word processors: Problems and prospects. ACM Trans. Office Inform. Sysf. I, 3 (1983). 254-271. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 26 Morgan. C., Williams, G. and Lemmons, P. An interview with Wayne Rosing, Bruce Daniels, and Larry Tesler. Byte, 1983, 90-113.Google Scholar
- 27 Newell. A., and Simon, H.A. Human Problem Solving. Prentice-Hall. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1972. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 28 Nix. 0. Two experiments on the comprehensibility of pausedepleted speech. IBM Res. Rep. K-6305. Yorktown Heights, N.Y., 1976.Google Scholar
- 29 Proceedings of the Human Factors in Computing Systems Meetings. (Washington, Mar. 1981; Boston, Dec. 1983) (Available from ACM, Box 64145, Baltimore, Md. 21264).Google Scholar
- 30 Proceedings of the Human Facfors Society Meeting, (Seattle, Wash, Oct. 1982: Norfolk, Va. Oct., 1983) (Available from the Human Factors Society, Box 1369, Santa Monica, Calif. 90406).Google Scholar
- 31 Science. New Project Explores Disability Research, 233, (1984). 157.Google Scholar
- 32 Thomas, J.C. Office communications studies: I. Effects of communication behavior on the perception of described persons. IBM Res. Rep. RC-7572. Yorktown Heights, N.Y., 1979.Google Scholar
- 33 Thomas, J.C. and Gould, J.D. A psychological study of query-byexample. In Proceedings of 1975 National Computer Conference. (1975), 439-445.Google Scholar
- 34 Williams, G. The Lisa computer system. Byte (1983), 33-50.Google Scholar
- 35 Yourdon. E. and Constantine, L.L. Structured Design. Yourdon, New York, 1976.Google Scholar
- 36 Zloof, M.M. Query by example-A data base language. IBM Sysf. J. 4. (1977), 324-343.Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- Designing for usability: key principles and what designers think
Recommendations
Designing for usability—key principles and what designers think
CHI '83: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsAny system designed for people to use should be (a) easy to learn; (b) useful, i.e., contain functions people really need in their work; (c) easy to use; and (d) pleasant to use. In this note we present theoretical considerations and empirical data ...
Designing for web site usability
Web site design is popular and prolific, meeting the communication needs of a large user community. Many of these sites are poorly designed. This paper contends that it is not enough for educators to train designers in the mechanics of HTML, tool usage, ...
Do usability evaluators do what we think usability evaluators do?
In this paper, I review the findings of ongoing research in usability and user experience analysis. In particular, I first discuss how real designers and usability evaluators in their own workplaces use findings from usability testing to drive design ...
Reviews
F. Terry Baker
This article covers three design principles which the authors believe are both important and frequently neglected: (1) Early focus on users and tasks, (2) Empirical measurement, and (3) Iterative design. Gould and Lewis spend more than half of the article discussing why these “common sense” principles are not well understood and why they are undervalued. They then elaborate the principles and explain how they are applied in an initial design phase, followed by an iterative development phase. They complete their discussion by presenting a case study in which they applied these principles to the design of a computer-based audio message system. It is certainly difficult to argue with the importance of these principles. Nevertheless, while the authors go to great lengths to justify them, they do so primarily from the perspective of human factors experts. They, for example, quote Brooks [1] on prototypes, but ignore him on the principle he claims is most important: conceptual integrity. They mention iterative design but do not cite Basili and Turner's seminal article [2] on this topic. While the externally visible aspects of a system are clearly important in satisfying user needs, systems need to possess other attributes to ensure they are buildable and maintainable, and the final design may have to be a compromise as a result. Furthermore, even in the case of externally visible aspects, designers need to ensure that expressed user needs are extrapolated to a complete design which performs in a consistent manner when faced with unexpected inputs. (The reviewer has experience with the system covered in the authors' case study and believes it could be improved in this area.) Thus, while you should read this article to add to your store of knowledge about what needs to be done to satisfy user needs, you should not assume that these principles are the only ones to apply.
Access critical reviews of Computing literature here
Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.
Comments