FLEXIBILITY, COMPLETENESS AND SOUNDNESS OF USER INTERFACES - Towards a Framework for Logical Examination of Usability Design Principles

Steinar Kristoffersen

2008

Abstract

The paper is concerned with automatic usability assessment, based on heuristic principles. The objective is to lay the ground, albeit still rather informally, of a program of assessing the usability of an interactive system using formal methods. Further research can then extend this into an algebra of interactive systems.

References

  1. Baader, F. and Nipkow, T. (1998). Term rewriting and all that. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA.
  2. Bannon, L. J. and Bødker, S. (1991). Beyond the interface: encountering artifacts in use, pages 227-253. Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, USA.
  3. Calvary, G. and Coutaz, J. (2002). Catchit, a development environment for transparent usability testing. In TAMODIA 7802: Proceedings of the First International Workshop on Task Models and Diagrams for User Interface Design, pages 151-160. INFOREC Publishing House Bucharest.
  4. Coutaz, J., Salber, D., Carraux, E., and Portolan, N. (1996). Neimo, a multiworkstation usability lab for observing and analyzing multimodal interaction. In CHI 7896: Conference companion on Human factors in computing systems, pages 402-403, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
  5. Dix, A., Finlay, J., Abowd, G., and Beale, R. (1997). Human-computer interaction. Prentice-Hall, Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ, USA.
  6. Doubleday, A., Ryan, M., Springett, M., and Sutcliffe, A. (1997). A comparison of usability techniques for evaluating design. In DIS 7897: Proceedings of the 2nd conference on Designing interactive systems, pages 101- 110, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
  7. Farenc, C., Liberati, V., and Barthet, M.-F. (1999). Automatic ergonomic evaluation: What are the limits? In Proceedings of the Third International Conference on Computer-Aided Design of User Interfaces, Dordrecht, The Netherlands. Kluwer Academic Publishers.
  8. Gould, J. D. and Lewis, C. (1985). Designing for usability: key principles and what designers think. Commun. ACM, 28(3):300-311.
  9. Gray, W. D., John, B. E., and Atwood, M. E. (1992). The precis of project ernestine or an overview of a validation of goms. In CHI 7892: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 307-312, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
  10. Hertzum, M. and Jacobsen, N. E. (2003). The evaluator effect: A chilling fact about usability evaluation methods. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 15(1):183-204.
  11. Holzinger, A. (2005). Usability engineering methods for software developers. Commun. ACM, 48(1):71-74.
  12. Ivory, M. Y. and Hearst, M. A. (2001). The state of the art in automating usability evaluation of user interfaces. ACM Comput. Surv., 33(4):470-516.
  13. John, B. E. and Kieras, D. E. (1996). The goms family of user interface analysis techniques: comparison and contrast. ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact., 3(4):320-351.
  14. L öwgren, J. and Nordqvist, T. (1992). Knowledge-based evaluation as design support for graphical user interfaces. In CHI 7892: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 181-188, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
  15. Lund, A. M. (1997). Another approach to justifying the cost of usability. interactions, 4(3):48-56.
  16. Mulligan, R. M., Altom, M. W., and Simkin, D. K. (1991). User interface design in the trenches: some tips on shooting from the hip. In CHI 7891: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 232-236, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
  17. Nielsen, J. (1994). Enhancing the explanatory power of usability heuristics. In CHI 7894: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 152-158, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
  18. Paternó, F. and Faconti, G. (1993). On the use of lotos to describe graphical interaction. In HCI'92: Proceedings of the conference on People and computers VII, pages 155-173, New York, NY, USA. Cambridge University Press.
  19. Sears, A. (1995). Aide: a step toward metric-based interface development tools. In UIST 7895: Proceedings of the 8th annual ACM symposium on User interface and software technology, pages 101-110, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
  20. Thovtrup, H. and Nielsen, J. (1991). Assessing the usability of a user interface standard. In CHI 7891: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pages 335-341, New York, NY, USA. ACM.
Download


Paper Citation


in Harvard Style

Kristoffersen S. (2008). FLEXIBILITY, COMPLETENESS AND SOUNDNESS OF USER INTERFACES - Towards a Framework for Logical Examination of Usability Design Principles . In Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 5: ICEIS, ISBN 978-989-8111-40-1, pages 346-351. DOI: 10.5220/0001684803460351


in Bibtex Style

@conference{iceis08,
author={Steinar Kristoffersen},
title={FLEXIBILITY, COMPLETENESS AND SOUNDNESS OF USER INTERFACES - Towards a Framework for Logical Examination of Usability Design Principles},
booktitle={Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 5: ICEIS,},
year={2008},
pages={346-351},
publisher={SciTePress},
organization={INSTICC},
doi={10.5220/0001684803460351},
isbn={978-989-8111-40-1},
}


in EndNote Style

TY - CONF
JO - Proceedings of the Tenth International Conference on Enterprise Information Systems - Volume 5: ICEIS,
TI - FLEXIBILITY, COMPLETENESS AND SOUNDNESS OF USER INTERFACES - Towards a Framework for Logical Examination of Usability Design Principles
SN - 978-989-8111-40-1
AU - Kristoffersen S.
PY - 2008
SP - 346
EP - 351
DO - 10.5220/0001684803460351