Janet E. Finlay
Has also published under the name of:
"Janet Finlay", "J. E. Finlay", and "J. Finlay"
Publications by Janet E. Finlay (bibliography)
Copeland, Damian and Finlay, Janet E. (2010): Identification of the Optimum Resolution Specification for a Haptic Graphic Display. In Interacting with Computers, 22 (2) pp. 98-106.
“This research seeks to identify the most appropriate resolution for a haptic graphic display based on a pin array utilising active feedback. Initially, fourteen participants from varied social and educational backgrounds participated in a repeated measures experiment to compare the recognition of six simple patterns using three different resolutions. The results demonstrated that a significantly higher proportion of shapes could be identified using the second of the three resolutions when compared with the lowest, but that there was no statistically significant difference between the two higher resolutions. These results led to a second hypothesis: that there was an optimum resolution at which shapes could be identified and that increasing the resolution above this point would not increase the likelihood of recognition. There was, however, the possibility that interference between the pins on the highest resolution may have been affecting the participants’ ability to identify shapes at this resolution, so a second experiment was conducted using a resolution slightly lower than the highest. The results demonstrated that the initial findings were correct and supported the hypothesis that there is an optimum resolution that allows the greatest number of shapes to be determined without any significant benefit from increasing the resolution.”
© All rights reserved Copeland and Finlay and/or Elsevier Science
Copeland, Damian and Finlay, Janet E. (2008): A Specification for a Haptic Graphic Display. In: Cunliffe, Daniel (ed.). "Proceedings of the Third International IASTED Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (IASTED-HCI 2008)". ActaPress pp. 100-106
“Despite a number of researchers investigating the possibilities of haptic graphic displays, few have attempted to specify even individual requirements for such devices. This paper describes a number of experiments aimed at producing a comprehensive set of requirements for a haptic graphic display. The results of these experiments are presented and discussed.”
© All rights reserved Copeland and Finlay and/or ActaPress
Dearden, Andy and Finlay, Janet E. (2006): Pattern Languages in HCI: A Critical Review. In Human-Computer Interaction, 21 (1) pp. 49-102.
“This article presents a critical review of patterns and pattern languages in human-computer interaction (HCI). In recent years, patterns and pattern languages have received considerable attention in HCI for their potential as a means for developing and communicating information and knowledge to support good design. This review examines the background to patterns and pattern languages in HCI, and seeks to locate pattern languages in relation to other approaches to interaction design. The review explores four key issues: What is a pattern? What is a pattern language? How are patterns and pattern languages used? and How are values reflected in the pattern-based approach to design? Following on from the review, a future research agenda is proposed for patterns and pattern languages in HCI.”
© All rights reserved Dearden and Finlay and/or Taylor and Francis
Renshaw, J. A., Finlay, Janet E., Tyfa, D. and Ward, R. D. (2004): Understanding visual influence in graph design through temporal and spatial eye movement characteristics. In Interacting with Computers, 16 (3) pp. 557-578.
“We describe an experiment in which the eye movements of participants, carrying out tasks using two contrasting graph designs, were recorded by means of a remote eye tracking device. A variety of eye movement properties were measured and analysed both temporally and spatially. Both graph designs were based on specific psychological theories and established graph design guidelines. One incorporated attributes thought likely to enhance usability, the other included attributes likely to have the opposite effect. The results demonstrate that the design and location of a graph's legend and its spatial relationship to the data area are extremely important in determining a graph's usability. The incorporation of these and other design features may promote or detract from perceptual proximity and therefore influence a display's usability. The paper demonstrates that this influence is reflected in eye movement patterns, which can be readily monitored by means of a remote eye tracking system, and that a relatively simple temporal analysis of the results can give important insights as to how the usability of visual displays has been influenced.”
© All rights reserved Renshaw et al. and/or Elsevier Science
Renshaw, James, Finlay, Janet E., Tyfa, David and Ward, Robert (2003): Designing for Visual Influence: an Eye Tracking Study of the Usability of Graphical Management Information. In: Proceedings of IFIP INTERACT03: Human-Computer Interaction 2003, Zurich, Switzerland. p. 144.
Dix, Alan J., Finlay, Janet E., Abowd, Gregory D. and Beale, Russell (2003): Human-Computer Interaction (3rd Edition). Prentice Hall
Finlay, Janet E., Allgar, E., Dearden, Andrew M. and McManus, B. (2002): Pattern Languages in Participatory Design. In: Proceedings of the HCI02 Conference on People and Computers XVI 2002. pp. 159-174.
Dix, Alan J., Finlay, Janet E., Abowd, Gregory D. and Beale, Russell (1998): Human-Computer Interaction (2nd Edition). Prentice Hall
Dix, Alan J., Finlay, Janet E., Abowd, Gregory D. and Beale, Russell (1998): Human-Computer Interaction. Prentice Hall
Kirby, M. A. R., Dix, Alan J. and Finlay, Janet E. (eds.) Proceedings of the Tenth Conference of the British Computer Society Human Computer Interaction Specialist Group - People and Computers X August, 1995, Huddersfield, UK.
Finlay, Janet E. and Dix, Alan J. (1994): Pattern Recognition in HCI: A Viable Approach?. In ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 26 (4) pp. 23-27.
Finlay, Janet E. and Beale, Russell (1993): Neural Networks and Pattern Recognition in Human-Computer Interaction. In ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 25 (2) pp. 25-35.
Dix, Alan J., Finlay, Janet E., Abowd, Gregory D. and Beale, Russell (1993): Human-Computer Interaction. Prentice Hall
Dix, Alan J., Finlay, Janet E. and Beale, Russell (1992): Analysis of User Behaviour as Time Series. In: Monk, Andrew, Diaper, Dan and Harrison, Michael D. (eds.) Proceedings of the Seventh Conference of the British Computer Society Human Computer Interaction Specialist Group - People and Computers VII August 15-18, 1992, University of York, UK. pp. 429-444.
“The trace of user interactions with a system is the primary source of data for on-line user modelling and for many design and research experiments. This trace should really be analysed as a time series, but standard time series techniques do not deal well with discrete data and fuzzy matching. Techniques from machine learning (neural nets and inductive learning) have been applied to this analysis but these are limited to fixed size patterns and fail to deal properly with the trace as a time series. Many of the notations used to describe the system dialogue (e.g. CSP, production systems) and the user's behaviour (e.g. GOMS, grammars) can be regarded as describing non-deterministic finite state machines. Such a representation forms a key to using machine learning techniques, focussed on the state transitions.”
© All rights reserved Dix et al. and/or Cambridge University Press
Finlay, Janet E. and Harrison, Michael (1990): Pattern Recognition and Interaction Models. In: Diaper, Dan, Gilmore, David J., Cockton, Gilbert and Shackel, Brian (eds.) INTERACT 90 - 3rd IFIP International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction August 27-31, 1990, Cambridge, UK. pp. 149-154.
“Human Computer Interaction can usefully be described in terms of a sequence of user and system events. A priori traces of such event sequences, as specified by a mathematical model, can be used in the evaluation of interactive systems by contrasting them to a posteriori traces of actual user behaviour. We use pattern recognition techniques to automate this comparison, identifying points in the interaction where a user's behaviour is sub-optimal. We describe work in this area relating to a bibliographic database system.”
© All rights reserved Finlay and and/or North-Holland
Show this list on your homepage
Knowledge wants to be free !
We have decided to give away world-class educational materials
because we believe that universal access to high quality education is key to the building
of peace, sustainable social and economic development, and intercultural dialogue.
To calculate just have much we have saved you, our wonderful readers, we compare our free encyclopedia to two
books we love:
$110: Human-Computer Interaction by Dix et al (a great textbook but without video interviews)
$116: Shneiderman's Designing the User Interface
(a great textbook but without video interviews).
As you are reading our encyclopedia on your iPad/tablet (and saving a few trees), we estimate that the price would be $90 if sold as an eBook.
With that number, we can calculate how much money we have saved our readers, based on calculating the number of readers.
How we calculate readership
Because of our online and tablet/iPad approach to publishing, we are able to precisely measure reading behaviour across hundreds of parameters in realtime: Anything from reading
speed, drop-off points in the text, reader demographics, and much more.
Based on our server logs and the Google Analytics API,
we calculate the number of readers as described in the calculation method below.
A reader is not the same as a simple pageview and a reader is not the same as a
website visitor (as described in our calculation method below).
We calculate readership for two types of readers:
- Readers that have read our whole encyclopedia, much the same way you read a printed book
- Readers that have reader an individual chapter
Calcalution method: How we define a reader
- First we use the Google Analytics API to get a report of the number of unique human visitors to a chapter/page. Google runs its business on ads and thus completely relies on the ability to distinguish between a human visitor and an automated request. If not, you could earn millions on automating clicks on Google Ads.
- We then compare that number to our Apache webserver logs, which report the much higher number of actual visits to a chapter/page (both human and automated). We calculate the difference in percent, which we call an "exaggeration factor", which we use in step 6 below.
- With a large part of the visitors excluded, we further exclude any visitor who:
- has not remained on the page for at least 3 minutes (this factor is calculated by recording visit durations of 1000 randomly selected visitors) or has not printed the page (i.e. has not visited the printerfriendly version of the chapter/page)
- has not scrolled the page (this factor is calculated by recording scroll movements on 1000 randomly selected visitors)
- We then further exclude "double readers", i.e. readers who read a portion of a chapter and then returns in,
say, a week or a month to read the rest.
Although this person's reading activity spans multiple server sessions, the person is only counted as a single reader.
We categorize a "double reader" as a visitor who:
- visits a page, or multiple pages, across multiple server sessions
- qualifies to be defined as a reader, cf step 1-3 above, in all server sessions
- uses the same originating IP address
- We then subtract 5% from the final number to counter-balance a last remaining factor, namely the situation where one reader reads a chapter on his/her tablet
using a WiFi connection (and counted as one reader) but then picks up his other tablet using a 3G dongle
(with another IP address) and re-reads some of the chapter. That will equal two readers, not one. We have no way
of calculating how many times this situation arises, but to be on the safe side we subtract 5%
from the final number.
- We then take half of the "exaggeration factor" from step 2 and substract from the final number. We do this for no rational reason. We do it only as a further measure to be certain that our number of readers is not inflated.
- To qualify as a reader who has read our whole encyclopedia - much the same way you read a printed book - that person must have qualified as a reader (cf. 1-6 above) of at least 80% of the encyclopedia chapters.
As a result, we have eliminated everything from automated requests to the more casual visitors. That leaves us with what we can safely call readers.
Changes to this page (author)
25 Feb 2010: Author was edited (approved by an editor)23 Feb 2010: Author was edited (approved by an editor)18 Feb 2010: Enabled abstracts to be shown on Janet E. Finlay's author page.
12 Jun 2009: Author was edited (approved by an editor)
31 Mar 2009: Author was edited
12 May 2008: Author was added to the bibliography
26 Jul 2007: Author was added to the bibliography
24 Jul 2007: Author was edited
24 Jul 2007: Author was edited
27 Jun 2007: Author was edited
27 Jun 2007: Author was edited
27 Jun 2007: Author was edited
27 Jun 2007: Author was added to the bibliography
24 Jun 2007: Author was edited
24 Jun 2007: Author was added to the bibliography
28 Apr 2003: Added the author to the bibliography
Page Information
Page maintainer:
The Editorial TeamHow to cite/reference this page
URL: http://www.interaction-design.org/references/authors/janet_e__finlay.html
