Log in !
Publication statistics
Pub. period:1987-1995
Pub. count:18
Number of co-authors:19
Co-authors
Number of publications with 3 favourite co-authors:
William F. Moroney:3Philip J. Masline:2
Paul McInerney:2
Productive colleagues
David W. Biers's 3 most productive colleagues in number of publications:
William F. Moroney:18Kenneth R. Ohnemus:7
Peter H. Jones:5
Calendar
May 28
May
24
“ For a list of all the ways technology has failed to improve the quality of life, please press three. ”
-- Alice Kahn
- Share this quote on...
- Get more quotes via RSS or by joining our Usability Quote of the Day Facebook Page
Featured chapter
Read the fascinating history of Wearable Computing, told by its father, Steve Mann
Read Steve's chapter !
David W. Biers
Publications by David W. Biers (bibliography)
1995
Fox, Starr Lynn, Eggemeier, F. T. and Biers, David W. (1995): Effects of Aging on Working Memory and Workload. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting 1995. pp. 139-142.
“The current study investigated the effects of aging on working memory and mental workload. Subjects performed a Brown-Peterson memory task using simulated air traffic controller/pilot communications. Perceived mental workload was measured using the NASA-TLX rating scale. Results revealed no significant recall performance differences between younger and older individuals. However, workload ratings indicated that older individuals experienced higher perceived workload than younger individuals. These findings suggest subjective workload ratings may be sensitive to age-related differences not demonstrated by performance measures.”
© All rights reserved Fox et al. and/or Human Factors Society
Biers, David W. (1995): SWAT: Do We Need Conjoint Measurement?. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting 1995. pp. 1233-1237.
“The present study sought to determine the utility of the unweighted sum as an alternative to conjoint measurement in forming a workload composite measure with the Subjective Workload Assessment Technique (SWAT). The data from a simulator study designed to identify pilot workload associated with alternative cockpit configurations in a night air interdiction mission were reanalyzed using a percentage measure (SUMPCT) based on the unweighted sum of the three SWAT rating scales. Results indicated that the CONJOINT and SUMPCT workload composites were highly correlated and were equally sensitive to detecting differences in the independent variables. The reasons for the equal sensitivity of the two composite measures are discussed. This study adds to the growing body of evidence that one can form a composite measure of workload using the SWAT rating scales without the necessity of having to conduct the time-consuming card sort.”
1994
Moroney, William F., Hampton, Steven, Biers, David W. and Kirton, Thomas (1994): The Use of Personal Computer-Based Training Devices in Teaching Instrument Flying: A Comparative Study. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 38th Annual Meeting 1994. pp. 95-99.
“The in-flight performance of aviation students trained on PC-Based Training (TDs), using "Elite" and "IFT" software packages, was compared to the in-flight performance of students trained in a FAA approved generic training device (the Frasca 141). Seventy-nine students enrolled in a Instrument Flight Training Course were trained on one of the three TDs and then flew in a Mooney 20J. Instructors/evaluators used a form, based on criteria specified in FAA's Performance Test Standards (PTS) for an Instrument Rating, to evaluate student performance on six maneuvers and two categories of general flight skills. Student performance was evaluated by course instructors and independent "Stage Check Pilots" during both the ground-based and in-flight portion of the course. For the factors evaluated, no significant difference was noted among those students taught in any of the TDs in either the number of trials per task or hours to instrument flight proficiency in the aircraft. However, compared to students trained on the Frasca, students trained on the PC-Based TDs required significantly fewer hours and trials per task, to reach the overall PTSs in the TDs. Additionally, training received in the PC-Based TD cost 46% less than training received in the Frasca. Finally, the cost of the PC-Based TDs, associated hardware and Software was 7.6% of the $60,000 cost of the Frasca. The authors recommend that steps be initiated to qualify PC-Based TDs as Flight Training Devices, in which instrument rating training credit can be accrued.”
© All rights reserved Moroney et al. and/or Human Factors Society
Barker, Richard T. and Biers, David W. (1994): Software Usability Testing: Do User Self-Consciousness and the Laboratory Environment Make Any Difference?. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 38th Annual Meeting 1994. pp. 1131-1134.
“The purpose of the study was to evaluate the effect of laboratory environment, user self-consciousness, and user experience on the user's subjective evaluation of software usability. The study employed a 2 X 2 X 2 factorial between-subjects design with 2 levels of Laboratory Environment (Cameras and Mirror vs. No Cameras and Mirrors), 2 levels of User Self-Consciousness (Low vs. High), and 2 levels of User Experience (Novice, Experienced). The users were asked to learn, then use, and finally subjectively evaluate a restricted subset of common word processing features over three hours of participation. Day 1 was a training day and Day 2 was a test day. Results indicated that high self-conscious and novice users make more word processing errors. However, they were no more likely to make those errors in the presence of cameras and a mirror. More importantly, the evidence for any effect of the independent variables on subjective evaluation was sparse -- limited to the interaction of self-consciousness and laboratory environment on just three of twelve factors. Moreover, the patter of these interactions indicated that self-consciousness and the laboratory environment did not influence subjective evaluation in any predictable manner. Despite some methodological shortcomings, the conclusion was drawn that these variables do not have a major impact on subjective evaluation of software usability.”
© All rights reserved Barker and Biers and/or Human Factors Society
Fischer, Douglas S., Moroney, William F. and Biers, David W. (1994): Workload Context Effect: An Elusive Phenomenon. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 38th Annual Meeting 1994. pp. 1145-1149.
“The effect of workload context on subsequent performance and workload ratings has crucial implications regarding workload transition. However few studies have examined workload context effects; and those that have, report contradictory results. This study attempts to determine if the failure to find evidence of workload context effects might be attributable to methodological factors such as task duration, task difficulty, and experimental design. Twelve subjects "flew" three sessions of three trials on a computer-based flight simulator, and rated the workload after each trial. A pre-post experimental design presented the first and third trials at a medium level of difficulty while the second (experimental) trial was of low, medium, or high difficulty. Crosswinds of 2, 12, and 22 knots created the levels of low, medium, and high task difficulty. Analyses of the performance and workload data did not reveal significant differences in Trial 3 as a function of prior task difficulty presented in Trial 2. The inability to find workload context effects in the present study suggests that previous inconsistent findings can not be attributed to differences in task duration and experimental design. Rather, it appears that contradictory results may be attributable to differences in the range of task difficulty employed, the workload measurement tool, or both.”
© All rights reserved Fischer et al. and/or Human Factors Society
1993
Ohnemus, Kenneth R. and Biers, David W. (1993): Retrospective versus Concurrent Thinking-Out-Loud in Usability Testing. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 37th Annual Meeting 1993. pp. 1127-1131.
“This study examined the effect of concurrent and retrospective thinking-out-loud (TOL) on the frequency and value of user verbalizations during a software usability test. Three groups of users first learned to use an off-the-shelf database management package by means of a short tutorial and then engaged in six structured tasks. Users in the Concurrent condition thought-out-loud while performing the six tasks, whereas those in Retrospective-Immediate and Retrospective-Delayed conditions thought-out-loud while watching the videotape of their interaction with the software. Results indicated that there were no significant differences among the three conditions in performance or subjective evaluation of the software. More importantly, a verbal protocol analysis revealed that users in the Retrospective conditions spent more time making statements which had high value for designers than in the Concurrent condition. The value of verbalizations generated by the Retrospective conditions were not impacted by the 24 hour delay. The results were interpreted within context of differences in workload and in terms of the trade-off between increased value gained by using the retrospective paradigm versus increased cost of additional time to conduct the usability test.”
© All rights reserved Ohnemus and Biers and/or Human Factors Society
Quill, Laurie L. and Biers, David W. (1993): On-Screen Keyboards: Which Arrangements Should be Used?. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 37th Annual Meeting 1993. pp. 1142-1146.
“The purpose of the present study was to test and evaluate three on-screen keyboard arrangements with indirect input devices. Studies conducted for hard keyboard arrangements have considered various factors affecting typing; however, differences between the nature of the hard and on-screen keyboards tasks preclude extrapolation from hard keyboard studies to on-screen keyboard designs. In this study, Finger Placement and Non-Finger Placement typists provided data for Stimuli (Word vs. Non-Words), Devices (Mouse vs. Arrow Keys), and Keyboards (1-Row Alphabetical, 3-Row Alphabetical, and QWERTY arrangements). The primary data collection tasks were two movement tasks and a typing task. The typing task consisted of having the user type a given Stimulus utilizing one of the on-screen keyboard arrangements and input devices. The movement task served as a control for movement time in the typing task. At the conclusion of the study, users were asked to rank order their preference for keyboard arrangement and input device. The QWERTY keyboard resulted in the fastest overall input times, and was the most preferred arrangement overall. Interaction between Device and Keyboard showed that with the mouse, input times for the 1-Row Alphabetical were slower than the QWERTY; whereas, with the arrow keys, input times were equivalent. However, this change in relative performance under the 1-Row Alphabetical arrangement for the two devices can be simply attributed to movement time. After statistically removing the effects of movement time from the typing task, the 1-Row Alphabetical arrangement was equivalent to the QWERTY for both input devices. Conclusions suggest potential incompatibility between the mouse interface and the 1-Row Alphabetical arrangement used in this study.”
© All rights reserved Quill and Biers and/or Human Factors Society
1992
Jones, Peter H. and Biers, David W. (1992): Relative Contribution of Training and Interface Design to Mental Model Assimilation. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting 1992. pp. 453-457.
“The purpose of the study was to determine the relative efficacy of training (advance organizers) and interface design in the formation of a mental model of a menu-oriented data base management system. The study employed a 2 X 5 factorial between-subjects design with two levels of Menu Interface (Data vs. Task) and 5 levels of Advance Organizers (None, Functional Job Description, Spatial Menu Map, Data Menu Map, Task Menu Map). Subjects engaged in a series of tasks which simulated the operation of a video store. Results indicated that the task-oriented menu interface resulted in less task completion time, fewer errors, and greater lexical model assimilation than did the data-oriented menu interface. There were no significant differences in these same measures as a function of advance organizer condition (training). This suggests that the actual interface itself may have more to do with the formation of a mental model and that some interface designs lead to better assimilation of the system model than do others. The failure to obtain an effect of advance organizers was attributed to lack of use of the training material, task and interface simplicity, and subject familiarity with the task domain.”
© All rights reserved Jones and Biers and/or Human Factors Society
Kancler, David E., Robbins, Glen C., Moroney, William F. and Biers, David W. (1992): The Effects of Tool Type and Barrier on Time Required for a Remove and Replace Task. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting 1992. pp. 717-721.
“The Air Force's CREW CHEF is a computer-graphics model of the physical characteristics of a maintenance technician. It is used to evaluate the ability of maintenance personnel to work in areas with respect to arm reach, operation of hand tools, strength available for torquing with wrenches, strength for manual materials handling, vision analysis, and accessibility analysis. A new CREW CHIEF feature under development is the Task Time Estimator, which will predict the time required to perform a remove/replace task in an obstructed environment. The goal of this experiment was to gather time to completion data and determine the effect of different tool type combinations. The task, performed while standing erect in a simulated work area, was to remove and replace a flange coupling while reaching through a six by eight inch opening. On half of the trials a barrier was positioned so as to restrict hand and tool movement. On the other half of the trials, no barrier was used. Thirty subjects, representative of USAF personnel, were divided into five groups, each of which utilized a different combination of wrenches (ratchet/box, box/box, box/open, open/box, and open/open). The ratchet/box and box/box tool combination resulted in the fastest completion times. The open/box combination resulted in intermediate completion times, while the box/open and open/open conditions produced the slowest completion times. Barrier presence increased the time required to complete both tasks and removal took less time than installation. Several noteworthy interactions and implications regarding tool selection are discussed.”
© All rights reserved Kancler et al. and/or Human Factors Society
Hackman, George S. and Biers, David W. (1992): Team Usability Testing: Are Two Heads Better Than One?. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting 1992. pp. 1205-1209.
“The purpose of the study was to compare a team usability testing paradigm with that of the typical single user paradigm in terms of the quantity and quality of the user's verbalization (i.e. thinking out-loud) and performance. The study employed a three group design in which the type of usability paradigm (Single, Observer, Team) was manipulated. Users first learned to use an off-the-shelf database management package by means of a short tutorial and then engaged in six structured tasks. While engaging in the tasks, the users either thought-out-loud alone (Single condition), in the presence of an observer (Observer condition), or as participants of a team working on the tasks together (Team condition). Results indicated that there were no significant differences among the three conditions in terms of performance nor any extensive differences in their subjective evaluation of the software. However, users in the Team condition spent more total time verbalizing than those in the Single or Observer condition. More importantly, results of a verbal protocol analysis revealed that the Team spent more time making statements which had high value for designers than did the other two conditions (which did not differ from one another). When broken out by individual users in the Team, there were no significant differences between individual team members and users in the other two conditions in making high value comments. The results suggest that the Team paradigm may be more efficient in extracting high value information without any noticeable differences in performance or subjective impression of the software.”
© All rights reserved Hackman and Biers and/or Human Factors Society
Held, Joseph E. and Biers, David W. (1992): Software Usability Testing: Do Evaluator Intervention and Task Structure Make Any Difference?. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting 1992. pp. 1215-1219.
“The purpose of the present study was to evaluate the effect of evaluator intervention, task structure, and user experience on the users subjective evaluation of software usability. The study employed a 2 X 2 X 2 factorial between-subjects design with two levels of Evaluator Intervention (Intervention vs. Non-Intervention), 2 levels of Task Structure (Guided-Exploration [free-form] vs. Standard Laboratory), and 2 levels of User Experience (Novice, Experienced). The users were asked to learn to use and then subjectively evaluate a restricted subset of 12 common word processing features over four hours of participation. Day 1 was a training day and Day 2 was a test day. The major finding was that the user's subjective impression of the software was affected by both user Experience and evaluator Intervention. For difficult to use word processing features, experienced users rated the features as more difficult to use under the intervention than non-intervention condition. For novice users, this difference was in the opposite direction but not significant. The same pattern of results was obtained for the subjective rating of ease of learning, overall evaluation of the software, and confidence in ability to use the software. These results were interpreted within context of attribution theory. The effect of structure, although not as prevalent, interacted with user experience in the evaluation of screen features and system capabilities. The relative lack of task structure effects was attributed to the difficulty in implementing free form learning and the number of problems encountered in use of the software under Guided Exploration which counteracted any of its benefits.”
© All rights reserved Held and Biers and/or Human Factors Society
Mitchell, Jennifer A. and Biers, David W. (1992): Decision Statistic Mapping and Number of Information Dimensions on Decision Making with Graphical Displays. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting 1992. pp. 1503-1507.
“This study sought to: (1) analytically separate the components of a graphical display which contributed to performance on integrated and separable tasks; and (2) determine the effect of the number of dimensions of information which had to be integrated. To that end, the study employed a 7 X 3 mixed design with seven displays manipulated between-subjects and the number of information dimensions (three, six, and nine) manipulated within-subjects. The seven displays examined included two bar graphs (non-object and object formats), two midline displays (non-object and object formats), a direct graphical display, and two numerical displays (numerical separable and numerical integrative). Based upon propositions generated from emergent feature theory, the ability to integrate information in these displays should be a function of the faithfulness, saliency, and directness of mapping the decision statistic onto the display. Results indicated that the displays which directly represented the integrated decision, the numerical integrative and the direct graphical displays, resulted in the best performance. Intermediate performance was obtained on those displays (i.e. the object bar graph, the non-object midline, and the object midline) which incorporated faithfulness, saliency, or both, respectively. The worst performance on the integrated task was exhibited for those displays (i.e. the numerical separable and the non-object bar) which did not represent directness, faithfulness, or saliency. For both the integrated and separable tasks, accuracy increased as the number of information dimensions increased. The unexpected direction of this effect was attributed to subjects' investing more resources in performing the task at the six or nine cue levels due to the perceived increase in difficulty of the task.”
© All rights reserved Mitchell and Biers and/or Human Factors Society
1989
Serafin, Colleen and Biers, David W. (1989): Paired Associate Learning Revisited: Paradigm for Assessing Ease of Learning and Transfer of Command Mnemonics. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting 1989. pp. 1206-1209.
“The present study investigated the use of a classic laboratory paradigm, paired-associate (PA) learning, to assess the ease of learning and transfer of command mnemonics. This paradigm was applied to the ease of learning text editing command language where the stimulus was a command (e.g., Delete Block) and the response was the keystroke sequence associated with that command (e.g., ^DB). Two types of command keystroke sequences were employed; meaningful (M) abbreviations which were mnemonically related to command names (e.g., Delete Block - ^DB), and nonmeaningful (MN) abbreviations which are not mnemonically related to command names (e.g., Delete Block - ^LK). There was evidence for differential transfer only for the average number correct measure but not the trials-to-criterion-measure. For both first and second list learning, lt took significantly fewer trials to criterion to learn the M than NM keystroke sequences. The present results point toward the use of the PA paradigm to standardize the ease of learning of command languages in software usability testing. It may be concluded that the trials-to-criterion measure and the average number correct measures are sufficiently sensitive metrics to differentiate ease of learning good from bad command mnemonics.”
© All rights reserved Serafin and Biers and/or Human Factors Society
Biers, David W. (1989): The Case for Independent Software Usability Testing: Lessons Learned from a Successful Intervention. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting 1989. pp. 1218-1222.
“This report presents the lessons learned from a software usability test for an external customer. An initial evaluation with naive users revealed problems in the user interface and that the customer's objectives were not being met. After initial resistance to making changes in the software, the customer decided to delay release of its product to implement some of the recommendations and changed the focus of initial release to experienced users. The results of a second evaluation conducted on the revised product with experienced users were positive. Several lessons can be learned from the above evaluation: (1) Usability evaluation should be incorporated earlier in the software development cycle to minimize resistance to changes in a hardened user interface; (2) Organizations should have an independent usability evaluation of software products to avoid the temptation to overlook problems to release the product; (3) Multiple categories of dependent measures should be employed in usability testing because subjective measurement is not always consonant with user performance; and (4) Even though usability testing at the later stages of development may not impact software changes, it is useful to point out areas where training is needed to overcome deficiencies in the software.”
1988
Biers, David W., Polzella, Donald J. and McInerney, Paul (1988): A Physical Measure of Subjective Workload. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting 1988. pp. 1131-1135.
“This investigation compared a physical measure of subjective workload (i.e. hand dynamometer) with traditional verbal scaling techniques. There were four subjective rating groups. One group employed the Subjective Workload Assessment Technique (SWAT) which required three separate ratings of time stress, mental effort, and psychological stress. A second group used verbal magnitude estimation (ME). Two physical measure groups estimated the magnitude of workload by squeezing a dynamometer in accordance with the magnitude of workload experienced. The DYNA1 group made one overall rating of workload similar to the ME group. The DYNA3 group made three workload ratings along the same dimensions as SWAT. All groups rated the workload associated with the performance of a continuous memory task under twelve levels of task difficulty. The physical measure of subjective workload most closely corresponded to actual task performance differences. The results suggest future development of a physical measure of subjective workload which can be utilized on a continuous basis, thus avoiding a major shortcoming of typical verbal measures of subjective workload.”
© All rights reserved Biers et al. and/or Human Factors Society
Biers, David W. and McInerney, Paul (1988): An Alternative to Measuring Subjective Workload: Use of SWAT Without the Card Sort. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting 1988. pp. 1136-1139.
“One major drawback in some applications of the Subjective Workload Assessment Technique (SWAT) is the time required to administer the card sort. There are alternative methods of forming a workload composite from the SWAT instrument (i.e. a simple sum of the three scales or composite derived from multivariate statistics) which do not require the card sort. The present study compared the sensitivity of these alternative SWAT composite measures with the typical SWAT conjoint scaling metric which requires the card sort. A two group study was conducted in which subjects engaged in a continuous recognition task under twelve levels of task difficulty. One group (Pre-Task), performed the card sort prior to engaging in the task whereas in the other group (Post-Task) completed the card sort subsequent to task performance. Results indicated that placement of the card sort did not affect the task ratings on the three dimensions of SWAT nor did it affect the relative sensitivity of the three workload composites. All three composite measures were found equally sensitive to the task demands. These results indicate that the SWAT instrument can be used to effectively measure workload without having to perform the card sort.”
© All rights reserved Biers and McInerney and/or Human Factors Society
1987
Biers, David W. and Masline, Philip J. (1987): Alternative Approaches to Analyzing SWAT Data. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 31st Annual Meeting 1987. pp. 63-66.
“The present study sought to determine the sensitivity of three alternative approaches to deriving a workload composite measure based upon data gathered using the Subjective Workload Assessment Technique (SWAT) and to determine through the use of multivariate statistical procedures (MANOVA) if anything is to be gained by retaining the individual scale information of SWAT. The three rating scale dimensions of SWAT (time load, mental effort load, psychological stress load) were combined into a single workload composite using three techniques: conjoint measurement; a simple sum of the three scales weighted equally; an empirically determined weighted-linear combination of the three scales (from MANOVA). Using data gathered by having subjects perform a continuous memory task under twelve levels of task difficulty, it was found that the three composite measures were equally sensitive and highly correlated (the minimum correlation among the three composites being 0.9913). The results of the MANOVA performed on the same data indicated that the individual scales of SWAT were differentially sensitive to different task demands and that individual scale information should be retained rather than rely on a simple composite.”
© All rights reserved Biers and Masline and/or Human Factors Society
Masline, Philip J. and Biers, David W. (1987): An Examination of Projective versus Post-Task Subjective Workload Ratings for Three Psychometric Scaling Techniques. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 31st Annual Meeting 1987. pp. 77-80.
“The validity of three projective workload techniques -- magnitude estimation, equal appearing intervals, and the subjective workload assessment technique (SWAT) -- was examined using a simple laboratory task. Ratings of workload by subjects who received only written and verbal descriptions of the task (projective group) were compared to ratings from subjects who performed the task (experimental group). Results indicated that, for all rating scale techniques, subjects were able to validly project ratings of workload. Magnitude estimation possessed a higher degree of correspondence between both groups than the other two scales. This finding offers workload researchers involved with system predesign considerations more options in the choice of an appropriate projective workload metric.”
© All rights reserved Masline and Biers and/or Human Factors Society
Show this list on your homepage
Join the technology elite and advance:
1.
Your career
2.
Your network
3.
Your skills
Changes to this page (author)
20 Feb 2010: Modified27 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
25 Jun 2007: Added
25 Jun 2007: Added
25 Jun 2007: Added
25 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
25 Jun 2007: Added
25 Jun 2007: Added
25 Jun 2007: Added
25 Jun 2007: Added
Page Information
Page maintainer: The Editorial TeamURL: http://www.interaction-design.org/references/authors/david_w__biers.html
Publication statistics
Pub. period:1987-1995
Pub. count:18
Number of co-authors:19
Co-authors
Number of publications with 3 favourite co-authors:
William F. Moroney:3Philip J. Masline:2
Paul McInerney:2
Productive colleagues
David W. Biers's 3 most productive colleagues in number of publications:
William F. Moroney:18Kenneth R. Ohnemus:7
Peter H. Jones:5
Calendar
May 28
May
24
“ For a list of all the ways technology has failed to improve the quality of life, please press three. ”
-- Alice Kahn
- Share this quote on...
- Get more quotes via RSS or by joining our Usability Quote of the Day Facebook Page
Featured chapter
Read the fascinating history of Wearable Computing, told by its father, Steve Mann
Read Steve's chapter !
