Publication statistics
Pub. period:1984-1997
Pub. count:9
Number of co-authors:11
Co-authors
Number of publications with 3 favourite co-authors:
Sidney L. Smith:4Susan G. Tammaro:3Donald L. Monk:1 Productive colleagues
Jane N. Mosier's 3 most productive colleagues in number of publications:
Sidney L. Smith:7Donald L. Monk:6Robert Simon:6
“
Knowledge is commonly socially constructed, through collaborative efforts towards shared objectives or by dialogues and challenges brought about by different persons' perspectives.
”
-- G. Salomon (in "Distributed Cognitions: Psychological and Educational Considerations")
Featured chapter
Read the fascinating history of Wearable Computing, told by its father, Steve Mann
Read Steve's chapter !
Jane N. Mosier
Publications by Jane N. Mosier (bibliography)
Tammaro, Susan G., Mosier, Jane N., Goodwin, N. C. and Spitz, G. (1997): Collaborative Writing is Hard to Support: A Field Study of Collaborative Writing. In Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 6 (1) pp. 19-51.
“This paper documents the results of a field test of Instant Update, a collaborative writing tool by a geographically dispersed department at the MITRE Corporation. Thirty-six participants were given Instant Update software and free training and support in exchange for their cooperation with data collection. These participants spent a great deal of time writing and communicating with each other about their written work. They began the pilot test with enthusiasm, using Instant Update for many types of documents and anticipating many benefits. After three months of experience they rated the actual benefits they received from the software lower than they had expected. Their usage became much more refined. They continued to use it for some types of documents, but stopped for others. The collaborative writing software was used successfully to create joint documents that have a consistent format and are produced on a regular basis (such as weekly activity reports) and for documents that provide access to shared information (such as a vacation calendar). It was used less successfully for the production of documents that require a complex work flow and have a changing group of contributors. We concluded that although collaborative writing is difficult to support and the currently available collaborative writing tools need to be improved before they can meet the needs of most co-writers, they are adequate for some types of tasks. Documents that are well defined and are created by experienced users who can cooperate well can benefit from the currently available tools.”
© All rights reserved Tammaro et al. and/or Kluwer Academic Publishers
Mosier, Jane N. and Tammaro, Susan G. (1997): When Are Group Scheduling Tools Useful?. In Computer Supported Cooperative Work, 6 (1) pp. 53-70.
“A geographically dispersed department at the MITRE Corporation participated in a field test of groupware tools. This paper documents the results of their use of a group scheduling tool, Meeting Maker Version 1.5. Research in the late 1980s showed that early group scheduling tools were not useful, in part because they only benefited some users and hence critical mass could not be attained. This study was undertaken to determine whether and how far the tools have evolved. Participants said that Meeting Maker made it easy to schedule meetings and maintain their calendars, and 90% wished to continue using it after the study was complete. Problems were noted when not everyone used or had access to the tool, and three generic solutions are discussed: capabilities that allow users to communicate with non-users, capabilities that allow users to stay connected, and lightweight methods of participation.”
© All rights reserved Mosier and Tammaro and/or Kluwer Academic Publishers
Spellman, Peter J., Mosier, Jane N., Deus, Lucy M. and Carlson, Jay A. (1997): Collaborative Virtual Workspace. In: Payne, Stephen C. and Prinz, Wolfgang (eds.) Proceedings of the International ACM SIGGROUP Conference on Supporting Group Work 1997 November 11-19, 1997, Phoenix, Arizona, USA. pp. 197-203.
“Today's collaboration tools fall primarily into two categories: "session-centric" tools, such as most desktop video teleconferencing, and "document-centric" tools, such as Lotus Notes and document management systems. Both have important strengths and several weaknesses. For example, session-centric tools support synchronous collaboration, but when the session is over, no trace of the collaboration is left; they don't support "persistence". Document centric tools may support persistence, but they poorly support real-time collaboration. Consequently, a new type of "place-based" system is being developed at MITRE and elsewhere. This paper describes the Collaborative Virtual Workspace (CVW), a MOO-based (Multi-User Dimension, Object Oriented) collaboration framework in which people interact with documents and each other in a shared virtual space, using both synchronous and asynchronous tools. Currently integrated are tools for audio and video conferencing, document management, chat, and whiteboarding. This paper describes current CVW functionality and implementation, discusses initial lessons from deployment within MITRE, and proposes a number of improvements in capability based on those lessons.”
© All rights reserved Spellman et al. and/or ACM Press
Mosier, Jane N. and Tammaro, Susan G. (1994): Video Teleconference Use Among Geographically Dispersed Work Groups: A Field Investigation of Usage Patterns and User Preferences. In Journal of Organizational Computing, 4 (4) pp. 343-365.
“Use of video teleconferencing (VTC) has been on the rise for several years, yet researchers have often discussed the failure of VTCs to support communication. The VTC facility at the MITRE Corporation is used more than would have been predicted by other research. Surveys were mailed to 300 MITRE employees who were known to have used our VTC facility or to have traveled (or both) during August of 1991. The survey asked respondents to describe at least one geographically dispersed work group of which they are a member, and it asked them to discuss how they choose among various approaches to communication, including holding face-to-face meetings and VTCs. Respondents felt that VTC is highly useful. It is best used for meetings that have little emotional content or requirements for interpersonal contact. The content of the meeting, however, was not the primary reason given for choosing between travel and VTCs. Cost and inconvenience of travel were cited as reasons for using VTC, and unavailability of VTC was cited as a reason to travel. Results are compared with those of conflicting studies.”
© All rights reserved Mosier and Tammaro and/or Ablex Publishing
Mosier, Jane N., Jarvis, Mildred D., Monk, Donald L., O'Brien, Larry H. and Simon, Robert (1989): Contracting for User Interface Design in Military Systems. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting 1989. p. 593.
“Many of the systems the Government acquires contain a large amount of software. Some are limited almost exclusively to off-the-shelf computer hardware, and software that is developed by a contractor. But human factors in military systems is regulated by documented standards and procedures that were developed before software gained an important role in military systems, and so do not deal with issues specific to user interface design. The purpose of this panel is to discuss user interface design issues and to propose changes to the acquisition process to improve user interface design for military systems.”
© All rights reserved Mosier et al. and/or Human Factors Society
Mosier, Jane N. and Smith, Sidney L. (1986): Application of Guidelines for Designing User Interface Software. In Behaviour and Information Technology, 5 (1) pp. 39-46.
“A survey was conducted of people who had received a report on guidelines for designing user interface software. Analysis of questionnaire responses indicates that respondents considered guidelines useful, that they have used guidelines in various stages of design, and that they plan to use guidelines again. However, respondents also reported significant problems in the practical application of guidelines. Respondents had difficulty locating relevant guidelines within the report, choosing which guidelines would actually be used, establishing priorities among the selected guidelines, and translating generally worded guidelines into specific design rules.”
© All rights reserved Mosier and Smith and/or Taylor and Francis
Smith, Sidney L. and Mosier, Jane N. (1986). GUIDELINES FOR DESIGNING USER INTERFACE SOFTWARE, The MITRE Corporation, Bedford, Massachusetts, USA, Prepared for Deputy Commander for Development Plans, and Support Systems, Electronic Systems Division, AFSC, United States Air Force, Hanscom Air Force B.
“This report offers guidelines for design of user interface software in six functional areas: data entry, data display, sequence control, user guidance, data transmission, and data protection. This report revises and extends previous compilations of design guidelines (cf. Smith and Mosier, 1984a).
If you are a teacher, a student, a human factors practitioner or researcher, these guidelines can serve as a starting point for the development and application of expert knowledge. But that is not the primary objective of this compilation. The guidelines are proposed here as a potential tool for designers of user interface software.
If you are a system analyst, you can review these guidelines to establish design requirements. If you are a software designer, you can consult these guidelines to derive the specific design rules appropriate for your particular system application. That translation from general guidelines to specific rules will help focus attention on critical user interface design questions early in the design process.
If you are a manager responsible for user interface software design, you may find in these guidelines a means to make the design process more efficient. Guidelines can help establish rules for coordinating individual design contributions, can help to make design decisions just once rather than leaving them to be made over and over again by individual designers, can help to define detailed design requirements and to evaluate user interface software in comparison with those requirements.
The design of user interface software will often involve a considerable investment of time and effort. Design guidelines can help ensure the value of that investment.”
© All rights reserved Smith and Mosier and/or their publisher
Smith, Sidney L. and Mosier, Jane N. (1984): The User Interface to Computer-Based Information Systems: A Survey of Current Software Design Practice. In: Shackel, Brian (ed.) INTERACT 84 - 1st IFIP International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction September 4-7, 1984, London, UK. pp. 637-641.
“From a survey of 201 people concerned with information system design, estimates for 83 systems indicate that on average 30-35 percent of operational software is devoted to the user-system interface (USI). In the design of USI software, survey responses indicate that improvements are needed in requirements definition, design documentation, and design guidelines.”
© All rights reserved Smith and Mosier and/or North-Holland
Smith, Sidney L. and Mosier, Jane N. (1984): The User Interface to Computer-Based Information Systems: A Survey of Current Software Design Practice. In Behaviour and Information Technology, 3 (3) pp. 195-203.
“From a survey of 201 people concerned with information-system design, estimates for 83 systems indicate that on average 30-35 per cent of operational software is devoted to the user-system interface (USI). In the design of USI software, survey responses indicate that improvements are needed in requirements definition, design documentation and design guidelines.”
© All rights reserved Smith and Mosier and/or Taylor and Francis
Show this list on your homepage
Join the technology elite and advance:
Changes to this page (author)
12 Oct 2011: Added19 Feb 2010: Modified26 Jun 2007: Added
23 Jun 2007: Added
28 Apr 2003: Added
Page Information
Page maintainer:
The Editorial Team
URL: http://www.interaction-design.org/references/authors/jane_n__mosier.html
Log in !
Cited in the following chapter:
