John Rieman
Publications by John Rieman (bibliography)
Rieman, John, Young, Richard M. and Howes, Andrew (1996): A Dual-Space Model of Iteratively Deepening Exploratory Learning. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 44 (6) pp. 743-775.
“When users of interactive computers must work with new software without formal training, they rely on strategies for "exploratory learning". These include trial and error, asking for help from other users, and looking for information in printed and on-line documentation. This paper describes a cognitive model of exploratory learning, which covers both trial-and-error and instruction-taking activities. The model, implemented in Soar, is grounded in empirical data of subjects in a task-oriented, trial-and-error exploratory learning situation. A key empirical finding reflected in the model is the repeated scanning of a subset of the available menu items, with increased attention to items on each successive scan. This is explained in terms of dual search spaces, the external interface and the user's internal knowledge, both of which must be tentatively explored with attention to changing costs and benefits. The model implements this dual-space search by alternating between external scanning and internal comprehension, a strategy that gradually shifts its focus to a potentially productive route through an interface. Ways in which interfaces might be designed to capitalize on this behaviour are suggested. The research demonstrates how cognitive modelling can describe behaviour of the kind discussed by theories of "situated cognition".”
© All rights reserved Rieman et al. and/or Academic Press
Rieman, John (1996): A Field Study of Exploratory Learning Strategies. In ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 3 (3) pp. 189-218.
“It has suggested that interactive computer users find "exploratory learning" to be an effective and attractive strategy for learning a new system or investigating unknown features of familiar software. In exploratory learning, instead of working through precisely sequenced training materials, the user investigates a system on his or her own initiative, often in pursuit of a real or artificial task. The value of exploratory learning has been studied in controlled settings, with special attention newly acquired systems, be there has been little investigation of its occurrence in natural situations or in support of ongoing learning. To address this question, a field study of the behavior and attitudes of computer users in everyday working situations was performed, using diaries and structured interviews that focused on learning events. The study showed that task-oriented exploration was a widely accepted method for learning, but that it often required support from manuals and from other users or system support personnel. Exploration not related to a current or pending task was infrequent, and most users believed it to be inefficient. These findings have implications for the design of systems, documentation, and training.”
© All rights reserved Rieman and/or ACM Press
Rieman, John, Lewis, Clayton H., Young, Richard M. and Polson, Peter G. (1994): "Why is a Raven Like a Writing Desk?" Lessons in Interface Consistency and Analogical Reasoning from Two Cognitive Architectures. In: Adelson, Beth, Dumais, Susan and Olson, Judith S. (eds.) Proceedings of the ACM CHI 94 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference April 24-28, 1994, Boston, Massachusetts. pp. 438-444.
“Users who have worked with just a few pieces of application software on a computer system are often faced with the need to use a new program on the same system. Consistency between program interfaces is intended to make the new program easier to learn in this situation, but how "consistency" should be defined is not always clear. We present a model of analogical reasoning that describes how users rely on interface consistency to induce correct actions in a new situation. Versions of the model are implemented in ACT-R and Soar. The model yields a clearer and more principled understanding of design guidelines that recommend interface consistency.”
© All rights reserved Rieman et al. and/or ACM Press
Rieman, John (1993): The Diary Study: A Workplace-Oriented Research Tool to Guide Laboratory Efforts. In: Ashlund, Stacey, Mullet, Kevin, Henderson, Austin, Hollnagel, Erik and White, Ted (eds.) Proceedings of the ACM CHI 93 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference April 24-29, 1993, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. pp. 321-326.
“Methods for studying user behavior in HCI can be informally divided into two approaches: experimental psychology in the laboratory and observations in the workplace. The first approach has been faulted for providing results that have little effect on system usability, while the second can often be accused of yielding primarily anecdotal data that do not support general conclusions. This paper describes two similar approaches in another field, the study of animal behavior, and shows how they produce complementary results. To support similar complementary interactions between research approaches in the HCI field, the paper describes the diary study technique, a tool for research in the workplace that achieves a relatively high standard of objectivity. A diary study is reported that focuses on exploratory learning.”
© All rights reserved Rieman and/or ACM Press
Rieman, John, Davies, Susan and Roberts, Jonathan (1992): A Visit to a Very Small Database: Lessons from Managing the Review of Papers Submitted for CHI'91. 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. 471-478.
“Many of the principles that guide user-interface design for commercial systems do not scale down to simple applications developed on personal computers. These "very small systems" are typically designed within a high-level application such as a database or a spreadsheet. The entire development process may take no more than a few days. In this restricted context, iterative design and usability testing are unaffordable luxuries, while detailed task analysis and early focus on users fail because the task and users will not coalesce until the system is in place. We describe our experiences with developing and using a very small system. We present suggestions for successful design in similar situations.”
© All rights reserved Rieman et al. and/or ACM Press
Polson, Peter G., Lewis, Clayton H., Rieman, John and Wharton, Cathleen (1992): Cognitive Walkthroughs: A Method for Theory-Based Evaluation of User Interfaces. In International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 36 (5) pp. 741-773.
“This paper presents a new methodology for performing theory-based evaluations of user interface designs early in the design cycle. The methodology is an adaptation of the design walkthrough techniques that have been used for many years in the software engineering community. Traditional walkthroughs involve hand simulation of sections of code to ensure that they implement specified functionality. The method we present involves hand simulation of the cognitive activities of a user, to ensure that the user can easily learn to perform tasks that the system is intended to support. The cognitive walkthrough methodology, described in detail, is based on a theory of learning by exploration presented in this paper. These is a summary of preliminary results of effectiveness and comparisons with other design methods.”
© All rights reserved Polson et al. and/or Academic Press
Bell, Brigham, Rieman, John and Lewis, Clayton H. (1991): Usability Testing of a Graphical Programming System: Things We Missed in a Programming Walkthrough. In: Robertson, Scott P., Olson, Gary M. and Olson, Judith S. (eds.) Proceedings of the ACM CHI 91 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference April 28 - June 5, 1991, New Orleans, Louisiana. pp. 7-12.
“Traditional programming language design has focussed on efficiency and expressiveness, with minimal attention to the ease with which a programmer can translate task requirements into statements in the language, a characteristic we call "facility." The programming walkthrough is a method for assessing the facility of language design before implementation. We describe the method and its predictions for a graphical programming language, ChemTrains. These predictions are contrasted with protocols of subjects attempting to write their first ChemTrains program. We conclude that the walkthrough is a valuable aid at the design stage, but it is not infallible. Our results also suggest that it may not be enough for programmers to know how to solve a problem; they must also understand why the solution will succeed.”
© All rights reserved Bell et al. and/or ACM Press
Rieman, John, Davies, Susan, Hair, D. Charles, Esemplare, Mary, Polson, Peter G. and Lewis, Clayton H. (1991): An Automated Cognitive Walkthrough. In: Robertson, Scott P., Olson, Gary M. and Olson, Judith S. (eds.) Proceedings of the ACM CHI 91 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference April 28 - June 5, 1991, New Orleans, Louisiana. pp. 427-428.
Mastaglio, Thomas W. and Rieman, John (1991): How Experts Infer Novice Programmer Expertise: A Protocol Analysis of LISP Code Evaluation. In: Koenemann-Belliveau, Jurgen, Moher, Thomas G. and Robertson, Scott P. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fourth Annual Workshop on Empirical Studies of Programmers 1991, Norwood, New Jersey, USA. pp. 147-155.
“We present the results of a protocol study of human experts analyzing code produced by other programmers. The study focused on how experts infer the knowledge and expertise levels of anonymous programmers from examining their LISP code. We were particularly interested in what aspects of those programs our experts used in their inference process. Those aspects which triggered a verbal response were collected and are referred to as "cues". Further analysis determined three distinct categories of cues: syntactic, code semantics, and problem semantics. We determined that of these categories the first two are amenable to acquisition by a computer system designed to serve as a knowledge-based programmer's assistant or critic. The third category however, requires knowledge beyond state of the art artificial intelligence techniques.”
© All rights reserved Mastaglio and and/or Ablex Publishing
Lewis, Clayton H., Polson, Peter G., Wharton, Cathleen and Rieman, John (1990): Testing a Walkthrough Methodology for Theory-Based Design of Walk-Up-and-Use Interfaces. In: Carrasco, Jane and Whiteside, John (eds.) Proceedings of the ACM CHI 90 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference 1990, Seattle, Washington,USA. pp. 235-242.
“The value of theoretical analyses in user interface design has been hotly debated. All sides agree that it is difficult to apply current theoretical models within the constraints of real-world development projects. We attack this problem in the context of bringing the theoretical ideas within a model of exploratory learning to bear on the evaluation of alternative interfaces for walk-up-and-use systems. We derived a "cognitive walkthrough" procedure for systematically evaluating features of an interface in the context of the theory. Four people independently applied this procedure to four alternative interfaces for which we have empirical usability data. Consideration of the walkthrough sheds light on the consistency with which such a procedure can be applied as well as the accuracy of the results.”
© All rights reserved Lewis et al. and/or ACM Press
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)
17 Feb 2010: Enabled abstracts to be shown on John Rieman's author page.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/john_rieman.html
