Publication statistics
Pub. period:1987-2011
Pub. count:13
Number of co-authors:45
Co-authors
Number of publications with 3 favourite co-authors:
Michael Arent:3Madhuri Kolhatkar:3Daniel Rosenberg:2 Productive colleagues
Anna Wichansky's 3 most productive colleagues in number of publications:
Jean Scholtz:54Chris Schmandt:40Keith A. Butler:30
“
Computer programs emerge as the outcome of complex human processes of cognition, communication and negotiation, which serve to establish the meaningful embedding of the computer system in its intended use context.
”
-- Floyd, 1992, p. 24
Featured chapter
Read the fascinating history of Wearable Computing, told by its father, Steve Mann
Read Steve's chapter !
Latest books
The Social Design of Technical Systems: Building technologies for communities
by Brian Whitworth and Adnan Ahmad
Start reading
The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd Ed.
by Mads Soegaard and Rikke Friis Dam
Start reading
Anna Wichansky
Has also published under the name of:
"Anna M. Wichansky"
Publications by Anna Wichansky (bibliography)
Edit |
Del
Kumar, Janaki Mythily, Rosenberg, Daniel, Arent, Michael, Wichansky, Anna, Kolhatkar, Madhuri, Kiris, Esin, Wilson, Russell and Lund, Arnold (2011): User experience management post mergers and acquisitions. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI 2011 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2011. pp. 355-358.
“This panel will discuss the prominent trend of business consolidations in the enterprise software industry and proffer best practice management techniques for user experience teams following a successfully achieved merger or acquisition. Our panelists are UX managers who have experienced multiple mergers or acquisitions and will represent both the acquiring and acquired companies' perspectives. This panel builds on the success of a SIG organized at CH 2010. It will focus in on the UX management aspect post M&A, since this was most interesting to our audience. We will discuss design and technical challenges such as multiple UI technologies and platforms, navigation paradigms and menu structures, interaction behaviors, visual designs, as well as cultural and organizational challenges such as different maturity levels of UX teams, User Centered Design practices, job titles, talent management, geographical distribution and other cultural differences. Our goal is to explore best practice solutions that could help other UX managers facing similar challenges.”
© All rights reserved Kumar et al. and/or their publisher
Edit |
Del
Kumar, Janaki, Rosenberg, Dan, Arent, Michael, Wichansky, Anna, Kolhatkar, Madhuri, Kiris, Esin, Wilsom, Russell and Lund, Arnie (2011): User Experience Management Post Mergers and Acquisitions. In: CHI May 7-12, 2011, Vancouver, BC. .
“This panel will discuss the prominent trend of business consolidations in the enterprise software industry and proffer best practice management techniques for user experience teams following a successfully achieved merger or acquisition. Our panelists are UX managers who have experienced multiple mergers or acquisitions and will represent both the acquiring and acquired companies' perspectives. This panel builds on the success of a SIG organized at CH 2010. It will focus in on the UX management aspect post M&A, since this was most interesting to our audience. We will discuss design and technical challenges such as multiple UI technologies and platforms, navigation paradigms and menu structures, interaction behaviors, visual designs, as well as cultural and organizational challenges such as different maturity levels of UX teams, User Centered Design practices, job titles, talent management, geographical distribution and other cultural differences. Our goal is to explore best practice solutions that could help other UX managers facing similar challenges.”
© All rights reserved Kumar et al. and/or ACM Press
Edit |
Del
Kumar, Janaki Mythily, Rosenberg, Daniel, Arent, Michael, Wichansky, Anna, Kolhatkar, Madhuri, Longoria, Roman, Hendrich, Bob and Lund, Arnie (2010): Sig: branding the changing enterprise -- impact of mergers & acquisitions on user experience organizations. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI 2010 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2010. pp. 3171-3174.
“Mergers and acquisitions are becoming increasingly common in the enterprise software world. For example, SAP acquired Business Objects, Oracle acquired PeopleSoft and CA acquired Cassatt in recent times. While this is a business expansion strategy for the acquiring company, it presents a challenge for UX professionals in both the acquiring and acquired companies, who are responsible for branding the look and feel of the newly combined business entity. This SIG examines the design, technical and cultural challenges facing a UX practitioner from the acquiring as well as acquired company's perspectives. We will explore possible best practice solutions that can help other UX professionals facing similar challenges.”
© All rights reserved Kumar et al. and/or their publisher
Edit |
Del
Wichansky, Anna (2007): Working with standards organizations. In Interactions, 14 (3) pp. 38-39.
Edit |
Del
Braun, Kelly, Kaasgaard, Klaus, Rosenbaum, Stephanie and Wichansky, Anna (2005): Corporate re-orgs: poison or catalyst to HCI?. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI 2005 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2005. pp. 1160-1161.
“Are you facing a corporate re-org? Re-orgs can create exciting opportunities for HCI groups, or good people's careers can be set back. This panel of HCI managers will consult on corporate reorganizations described by audience members. First, panelists with different perspectives discuss the roles of HCI resources during re-orgs. Then the panel will address audience questions on how to be proactive about organizational changes. (Send your questions to stephanie@teced.com by March 15th.) This panel will be of special interest to the industry segment of the CHI community-and also to academics who are educating future practitioners.”
© All rights reserved Braun et al. and/or ACM Press
Edit |
Del
Butler, Keith A., Wichansky, Anna, Laskowski, Sharon J., Morse, Emile L. and Scholtz, Jean (2003): The Common Industry Format: A Way for Vendors and Customers to Talk About Software Usability. In: Computer-Human Interaction Conference September 8-12, 2003, Bath, England. .
“One way to encourage software developers to integrate usability engineering into their development process is for purchasers to require evidence of product usability. Until recently this presented a difficulty because usability and "user friendly software" were vague, ambiguous terms. When large corporations purchase software, they use a number of quantitative measurements in their procurement decision-making process, such as the amount of memory needed, results from standard benchmark tests, performance measures, and measures of robustness. This paper describes our efforts to provide a standard method of quantifying usability and reporting on usability testing to include it in procurement decision-making. ”
© All rights reserved Butler et al. and/or their publisher
Edit |
Del
Butler, Keith A., Wichansky, Anna, Laskowski, Sharon, Morse, Emile and Scholtz, Jean C. (2002): Quantifying Usability: The Industry Usability Reporting Project. In: Human Factors and Ergonomics Society Conference July 1, 2002, Baltimore, Maryland, USA. .
“The paper describes the Common Industry format (CIF) developed in the Industry Usability Reporting Project (IUSR), which is now an ANSI standard. Four pilot studies conducted to verify the usefulness of the CIF are also described. ”
© All rights reserved Butler et al. and/or their publisher
Edit |
Del
Schrier, Jaclyn R., Williams, Evelyn L., MacDonell, Kevin S., Peterson, Larry A., Strijland, Paulien F., Wichansky, Anna and Williams, James R. (1992): HCI Standards on Trial: You be the Jury. In: Bauersfeld, Penny, Bennett, John and Lynch, Gene (eds.) Proceedings of the ACM CHI 92 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference June 3-7, 1992, Monterey, California. pp. 635-638.
Edit |
Del
Dumas, Joseph S., Schell, David A., Ramey, Judith and Wichansky, Anna (1991): Usability Testing: Where are We and Where are We Going?. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting 1991. pp. 266-267.
“Four years ago a group of usability test specialists held a panel discussion about this relatively new technique ("Usability testing in the real world," Mills, 1987, SIGCHI Bulletin, 43-46). One of the objectives of that panel was to expose professionals in the usability community to testing methods. That panel assumed that the topic of testing would be new to its audience. Since that time, the number of laboratories that conduct tests has exploded. While no one seems to know for sure, there appear to be in excess of 100 labs in the U.S. alone. Yet, there is no formal organization for people who do testing. This panel session focuses on the current status of testing and its future. The panel will assume that the audience is at least somewhat familiar with the principles of testing. The primary objective of the panel is to make the case that usability testing is a method that is evolving and changing. It is changing because product development processes are changing and because its strengths and weaknesses are more obvious now. The panel's second objective is to provoke a discussion about usability testing and testing methods. The panel will focus on several themes: * Usability tests are becoming less formal. The typical evolution of a human factors method is that it becomes more structured and formal over time. Usability testers, however, have had to adapt to changes in the product development process. More functions than ever are being implemented in software. More flexible software tools have made it possible to withhold freezing the components of user interface until very late in the design process. Consequently, conducting quick, informal tests is becoming more typical because the formal test to verify usability often comes too late to influence the product design. * Usability testing is moving beyond testing the user interface itself. With the introduction of object-oriented programming and contextual design there is more interest in understanding users' cognitive processes. There is also renewed interest in understanding how testing fits with other methods for improving usability. * Usability testing can improve managerial and organizational process. Usability tests reveal more than just flaws in product designs. They also can identify problems in the design process. When test results point to poor management practices and groups that are not cooperating, they can lead to changes in the way organizations develop products. Viewed from this perspective, a usability test has benefits beyond the improvements to the product being tested. It can be used to evaluate management practices in addition to competence in applying effective technical practices.”
© All rights reserved Dumas et al. and/or Human Factors Society
Edit |
Del
Mills, Carol Bergfeld, Comstock, Elizabeth M., Dearlove, Judith E., Redish, Janice C., Wichansky, Anna, Celline, Joe and Gould, John D. (1988): Development of Documentation in Real Time. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting 1988. pp. 328-329.
“The primary purpose of this panel is to exchange information on common practices and procedures in the development of documentation for computer products (e.g. user manuals). This topic should be of great interest for anyone concerned with the development of usable computer products since documentation is a major part of the interface for most of these products. Yet documentation frequently receives very little or "last minute" attention from developers and producers. As a result, it is often confusing and difficult to use. The goal of this panel is to discuss problems encountered in developing documentation and what can be done to overcome some of those difficulties. The focus of the panel will be the problems of dealing with limited time and resources, as well as the relationships between different development groups (writers, hardware developers, software developers, and human factor specialists), and the decision-making process.”
© All rights reserved Mills et al. and/or Human Factors Society
Edit |
Del
Wichansky, Anna, Abernethy, Charles N., Kotsonis, Miriam E., Antonelli, D. C. and Mitchell, Peter P. (1988): Selling Ease of Use: Human Factors Partnerships with Marketing. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting 1988. pp. 598-602.
“As customer demand surges for products which are easy to use, human factors and marketing professionals are working together more frequently. The purpose of this panel is to discuss ways in which human factors and marketing can interact to provide and promote usability. Panelists will share their successes and failures in working with marketing by describing case studies of collaborative work. The pros and cons of joint efforts will be discussed in a moderated question and answer format with audience participation. Brad Woolsey of Parallax Marketing Research will be a discussant.”
© All rights reserved Wichansky et al. and/or Human Factors Society
Edit |
Del
Aucella, Arlene F., Kinkead, Robin, Schmandt, Chris and Wichansky, Anna (1987): Voice: Technology searching for communication needs. In: Graphics Interface 87 (CHI+GI 87) April 5-9, 1987, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. pp. 41-44.
Edit |
Del
Wichansky, Anna (1987): Learning and Using Office Automation on Personal Computers: A Voice/Phone Application. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 31st Annual Meeting 1987. pp. 266-269.
“An experiment was conducted to evaluate user performance with a voice/phone management system for a personal computer. An experimental group of 11 subjects performed seven common voice communication tasks with the automated system using a touch-tone telephone. A control group of 10 subjects performed the same tasks by calling a dedicated human secretary. Experimental subjects gave favorable subjective ratings to system features despite poor performance. Control subjects performed most tasks faster than experimental subjects. Control subjects worked with the secretary in a more direct and goal-oriented way than experimental subjects using the automated system. The main benefit of the automated system may be its availability when human support is limited.”
© All rights reserved Wichansky and/or Human Factors Society
Show list on your website
Join the technology elite and advance:
Changes to this page (author)
22 Apr 2013: Added05 Jul 2011: Modified02 Nov 2010: Modified
15 May 2009: Added
12 Nov 2008: Added
12 Nov 2008: Added
12 May 2008: Modified
29 Jun 2007: Modified
26 Jun 2007: Modified
25 Jun 2007: Modified
25 Jun 2007: Modified
25 Jun 2007: Added
28 Apr 2003: Added
Page Information
Page maintainer:
The Editorial Team
URL: http://www.interaction-design.org/references/authors/anna_wichansky.html
Log in !
Warning: Large file