Mary Beth Rosson
Wendy Kellogg
Abstract
Software tools that support the design and development of interactive computing systems are an exciting possibility. The potential pay-off is great: user interface management systems, for example, promise not only to speed the process of specifying, implementing and maintaining user interface code, but also to guide the content of the user interfaces they support. As for any tool intended for human use, however, the success of software design tools will hinge on a thorough understanding of the problems they seek to address—design as it is practiced in the real world.
- 1 Bennett, J.L. Managing to meet usability requirements: Establishing and meeting software development goals. In Visual Display Terminals, }. Bennett, D. Case, J. Sandelin, and M. Smith, Eds. Prentice- Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1984, pp. 161-184.Google Scholar
- 2 Bewley, W.L., Roberts, T.L., Schroit, D., and Verplank, W.L, Human factors testing in the design of Xerox's 'Star' Office Workstation. In Human Factors in Computing Systems: CHI'83 Conference Proceedings (Boston, Mass., Dec. 1983). A. Janda, Ed., ACM, N.Y., 1983, pp. 72-77. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 3 Boehm, B.W., Gray, T.E., and Seewaldt, T. Prototyping versus specifying: A multiproject experiment. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. SE-IO, 3 (May 1984), 290-303. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 4 Buxton, W., Lamb, M.R., Sherman, D., and Smith, K.C. Towards a comprehensive user interface management system. Comput. Graphics 17, 3 (July 1983), 35-42. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 5 Carroll, J.M., and Campbell, R.L. Artifacts as psychological theories: The case of human-computer interaction. Res. Rep. RC 13454, IBM T.J. Watson Research, Yorktown Heights, N.Y., 1986.Google Scholar
- 6 Carroll, J.M., and Campbell, R.L. Softening up hard science: Reply to Newell and Card. Hum.-Comput. Interaction 2, 3 (1986), 227-294.Google ScholarDigital Library
- 7 Carroll, J.M., and Rosson, M.B. Usability specifications as a tool in iterative development. In Vol. 1, Advances in Human-Computer Interaction. H.R. Hartson, Ed. Ablex, Norwood, N.J., 1985, pp. 1-28.Google Scholar
- 8 Carroll, J.M., and Soloway, E. The evolving role of software psychology in software development practice. IBM Thomas J. Watson Research Center, Yorktown Heights, N.Y., 1988.Google Scholar
- 9 Dehning, W., Essig, H., and Maass, S. The Adaptation of Virtual Man- Computer Interfaces to User Requirements in Dialogs. Springer-Verlag, Heidelberg, Germany, 1981. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 10 Fisher, C. Advancing the study of programming with computeraided protocol analysis. In Empirical Studies of Programmers: Second Workshop, G. Olson, S. Sheppard, and E. Soloway, Eds. Ablex, Norwood, N.J., 1987, pp. 198-216. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 11 Gould, }.D., and Lewis, C. Designing for usability: Key principles and what designers think. Commun. ACM 28, 3 (Mar. 1985), 300-311. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 12 Gould, J.D., Boles, S.}., Levy, S., Richards, J.T., and Schoonard, J. The 1984 Olympic Message SystemmA case study in system design. Commun. ACZ4 30, 3 (Mar. 1987), 758-769. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 13 Green, M. The University of Alberta User Interface Management System. Comput. Graphics 19, 3 (July 1985), 205-213. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 14 Guindon, R., Curtis, B., and Krasner, H. A model of cognitive processes in software design: An analysis of breakdowns in early design activities by individuals. Tech. Rep. STP-283-87. MCC, Austin, Texas, 1987.Google Scholar
- 15 Hammond, N., Jorgensen, A., MacLean, A., Barnard, P., and Long, }. Design practice and interface usability: Evidence from interviews with designers. In Human Factors in Computing Systems: CHI'83 Conference Proceedings (Boston, Mass, Dec.), ACM, N.Y., 1983, pp. 40-44. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 16 Kellogg, W.A. Conceptual consistency in the user interface: Effects on user performance. In Human-Computer Interaction--INTERACT '87, H.-J. Bullinger, and B. Shackel, Eds. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 1987, pp. 389-394.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 17 Lammers, S. Programmers at Work. Microsoft Press, Redmond, Washington, 1986. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 18 Maass, S., Rosson, M.B., and Kellogg, W.A. User-friendliness, system consistency and other hard-to-define principles: Interviews with designers. In Proceedings of Software-Ergonomie '87 (Berlin, Germany, April), Teubner, W. Schoerpflug and M. Wittstock, Eds., Stuttgart, Germany. 1987, pp. 417-427. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 19 Myers, B.A., and Buxton, W. Creating highly-interactive and graphical user interfaces. Comput. Graphics 20, 4 (Aug. 1986), 249-258. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 20 Newell, A., and Simon, H.A. Human Problem Solving. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1972. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 21 Olsen, D.R., and Dempsey, E.R. Syngraph: A graphical user interface generator. Comput. Graphics 17, 3 (July 1983), 43-50. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 22 Parnas, D.L., and Clements, P.C. A rational design process', How and why to fake it. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. SE-12, 2 (Feb. 1986), 251-257. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 23 Payne, S.J., and Green, T.R.G. Task action grammars: A model of the mental representation of task languages. Hum.-Comput. Interaction 2, 2 (1986), 93-133.Google ScholarDigital Library
- 24 Rosson, M.B. Guiding design with user interface design tools. Res. Rep. RC 13166. IBM T.J. Watson Research, Yorktown Heights, N.Y., 1987.Google Scholar
- 25 Rosson, M.B., Maass, S., and Kellogg, W.A. Designing for designers: An analysis of design practice in the real world. In Human Factors in Computing Systems--CHI'87 Conference Proceedings (Toronto, Ontario, April). }. Carroll and P. Tanner, Eds. ACM, N.Y., 1987, pp. 137-142. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 26 Sibert, J.L., Hurley, W.D., and Bleser, T.W. An object-oriented user interface management system. Comput. Graphics 20, 4 (Aug. 1986), 259-268. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 27 Slusky, L. Integrating software modelling and prototyping tools. Inf. Softw. Technol. 29, 7 (Sept. 1987), 379-387. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 28 Tanner, P.P., and Buxton, W. Some issues in future user interface management systems. In User Interface Management Systems, G.E. Pfaff, Ed. Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985, pp. 67-80.Google Scholar
- 29 Walz, D.B., Elam, J.J., Krasner. H., and Curtis, B. A methodology for studying software design teams: An investigation of conflict behaviors in the requirements definition phase. In Empirical Studies of Programmers: Second Workshop, G. Olson, S. Sheppard, and E. Soloway, Eds. Ablex, Norwood, N.J., 1987, pp. 83-99. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 30 Whiteside, J., and Wixon, D. Discussion: Improving humancomputer interaction--A quest for cognitive science. In Interfacing Thought: Cognitive Aspects of Human-Computer Interaction, J.M. Carroll, Ed. MIT Press, Cambridge, Mass., 1987, pp. 353-365. Google Scholar
- 31 Yau, S.$., and Tsai, J.J.-P. A survey of software design techniques. IEEE Trans. Softw. Eng. SE-12, 6 (June 1986), 713-721. Google ScholarDigital Library
Index Terms
- The designer as user: building requirements for design tools from design practice
Recommendations
Design tools in practice: studying the designer-tool relationship in interaction design
DIS '12: Proceedings of the Designing Interactive Systems ConferenceThis paper presents findings from semi-structured interviews with professional interaction designers. The purpose of the study was to examine the relationship between interaction designers and their design tools---specifically the reasons behind their ...
Design tools for user experience design
HCI'07: Proceedings of the 12th international conference on Human-computer interaction: interaction design and usabilityThe purpose of this study is to develop an approach to artifacts design based on information technology. To make interactive system easy to use, user centered design approach is utilized by many systems. For user centered design, it is important to ...
Design Requirements of Tools Supporting Reflection on Design Impact
Human-Computer Interaction – INTERACT 2019AbstractDesigning for experience requires designers to pay attention to reflection on design impact. However, industrial design students are observed to have difficulty in demonstrating the impact of their design concepts due to insufficient thinking and ...
Reviews
James Dennis Kiper
This paper reports on a set of interviews with user interface designers. The purpose of these interviews was to uncover the current practices of successful user interface designers and to gather guidelines for user interface design tools. The study describes interviews with 22 designers, all of whom had been involved in the design of iterative systems for unsophisticated users. The interviews consisted of four sections that covered the designer's background, the general design process used, the user interface produced, and the designer's thoughts on the topic of idea generation. The authors' primary conclusion is that user interface designers are very different from one another. The authors also make some observations about tools for designing interfaces. A design tool for a business environment should provide controls needed to meet outside business requirements; a design tool for multiperson design teams must assist cooperation; and a prototyping tool should maximize development speed since the prototype is often discarded later. I found this paper well written and readable, but somewhat shallow in content. It does serve as an early pilot study. I commend the authors for obtaining opinions from experienced practitioners rather than merely theorizing about these pragmatic design concerns. The paper's title led me to expect more, however; the observations presented are speculations rather than requirements.
Access critical reviews of Computing literature here
Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.
Comments