Judith R. Olson
About the author:
No description available of Judith R. Olson...
Publications by Judith R. Olson (bibliography)
» 1990 «
Olson, Judith R. and Olson, Gary M. (1990): The Growth of Cognitive Modeling in Human-Computer Interaction Since GOMS. In Human-Computer Interaction, 5 (2) pp. 221-265
“The purpose of this article is to review where we stand with regard to modeling the kind of cognition involved in human-computer interaction. Card, Moran, and Newell's pioneering work on cognitive engineering models and explicit analyses of the knowledge people need to perform a procedure was a significant advance from the kind of modeling cognitive psychology offered at the time. Since then, coordinated bodies of research have both confirmed the basic set of parameters and advanced the number of parameters that account for the time of certain component activities. Formal modeling in grammars and production systems has provided an account for error production in some cases, as well as a basis for calculating how long a system will take to learn and how much savings there is from previous learning. Recently, we were given a new tool for modeling nonsequential component processes, adapting the "critical path analysis" from engineering to the specification of interacting processes and their consequent durations. Though these advances have helped, there are still significant gaps in our understanding of the whole process of interacting with computers. The cumulative nature of this empirical body and its associated modeling framework has further highlighted important issues central to research in cognitive psychology: how people move smoothly between skilled performance and problem solving, how people learn, how to design for consistent user interfaces, how people produce and manage errors, how we interpret visual displays for meaning, and what processes run concurrently and which depend on the completion of prior processes. In the bigger picture, cognitive modeling is a method that is useful in both initial design (it can narrow the design space and provide early analyses of design alternatives), evaluation, and training. But it does not extend to broader aspects of the context in which people use computers, partly because there are significant gaps in contemporary cognitive theory to inform the modeling and partly because it is the wrong form of model for certain kinds of more global questions in human-computer interaction. Notably, it fails to capture the user's fatigue, individual differences, or mental workload. And it is not the type of model that will aid the designer in designing the set of functions the software ought to contain, to assess the user's judgment of the acceptability of the software, or the change that could be expected in work life and the organization in which this work and person fits. Clearly, these kinds of considerations require modeling and tools of a different granularity and form.”
Copyrights may apply
» 1989 «
Lerch, F. Javier, Mantei, Marilyn and Olson, Judith R. (1989): Skilled Financial Planning: The Cost of Translating Ideas into Action. In: Bice, Ken and Lewis, Clayton H. (eds.) Proceedings of the ACM CHI 89 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference April 30 - June 4, 1989, Austin, Texas. pp. 121-126.
“We use GOMS models to predict error rates and mental times for translating financial concepts into equations in two widely used interface representations. The first of these, common to spreadsheet packages, is characterized by non-mnemonic naming and absolute referencing of variables. The second, common to non-procedural command-driven software, is characterized by mnemonic naming conventions and relative referencing of variables. These predictions were tested in an experiment using experienced financial analysts. Although the interface that allows mnemonic and relative names (called keyword) takes longer overall, it produces seventy-five percent fewer simple errors and requires less mental effort. Given the overall serious cost of errors in financial models, we conclude that interfaces having the keyword representation are far superior.”
Copyrights may apply
» 1988 «
Walker, Neff and Olson, Judith R. (1988): Designing Keybindings to be Easy to Learn and Resistant to Forgetting Even When the Set of Commands is Large. In: Soloway, Elliot, Frye, Douglas and Sheppard, Sylvia B. (eds.) Proceedings of the ACM CHI 88 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference June 15-19, 1988, Washington, DC, USA. pp. 201-206.
“We formulated a set of rules for producing key-commands that are alternatives for activating commands with a mouse from a menu. Because software is getting increasingly complex, it was important that the rules cover a wide variety of commands. The rules combined verb-modifier-object order and mnemonic abbreviations for the words in each slot. Our keybindings were shown not only to cover a wide set, but to be far easier to learn than EMACS (a common keybinding set) and a more robust form with respect to negative interference from prior and post-learning of another set.”
Copyrights may apply
Olson, Judith R. (1988): Summary of the CHI'88 Doctoral Consortium. In: Soloway, Elliot, Frye, Douglas and Sheppard, Sylvia B. (eds.) Proceedings of the ACM CHI 88 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference June 15-19, 1988, Washington, DC, USA. pp. 289-290.
“Fifteen Ph.D. students who are doing their dissertation research in topics in Human-Computer Interaction were selected from a pool of 42 applicants to spend a day and a half prior to the beginning of CHI'88 to discuss their research in a Doctoral Consortium. The consortium provides the opportunity for students * to discuss their research at a time when wide feedback can be most beneficial, * to learn of the breadth that contemporary research in Human Computer Interaction takes, * to acquire new methods for investigating aspects of their research questions and those related to them, * to get both research and professional advice from seasoned researchers in the field from both academic and industrial bases, both in the US and abroad, * and to develop a cohort group of colleagues.”
Copyrights may apply
» 1987 «
Olson, Judith R. and Nilsen, Erik (1987): Analysis of the Cognition Involved in Spreadsheet Software Interaction. In Human-Computer Interaction, 3 (4) pp. 309-349
“This article analyzes details of the cognition involved when people use spreadsheet software, a task that is both a major microcomputer application and a cognitively intense task. This task is analyzed in terms of the GOMS model (Card, Moran, & Newell, 1983), to test the generality of the model and to extend its set of parameters. We found that people using two seemingly similar spreadsheet applications, Lotus 1-2-3 and Multiplan, require very different amounts of time to accomplish the same tasks. Experienced users of Lotus 1-2-3 took far longer to complete the same four tasks than experienced Multiplan users did. It was found that some of additional time was due to the fact that Lotus 1-2-3 offers a choice of two general methods to enter formulas. Lotus requires that the user decide which to use; this decision takes time. And, when the users type in the address of the cell in which the values reside instead of using the cursor to point to it, they pause a long time before typing each entry. Presumably they are scanning the screen and calculating the coordinates to type in during the pause. Again, these cognitive processes take time. In an analysis of a second task -- adjusting the column width -- there was substantial evidence that the performance changes when a method is repeated in close succession. This repetition affects the parameters that reflect the time it takes to retrieve command parts from memory. When the parameters for scanning, decision, and repetition were added to the keystroke analysis of our task, we found remarkable correspondence with the basic parameters from the Card et al. (1983) original work: The keystroke times and mental preparation times from their original experiments were very close to the estimates of those same parameters in our tasks. However, in our analysis of the spreadsheet task, we expanded the parameter set in the keystroke model to account for performance in tasks that require substantial planning, scanning, and repetition.”
Copyrights may apply
» 1985 «
Mack, Robert L., Moran, Thomas P., Olson, Judith R. and Wixon, Dennis (1985): Computer Human Factors in Computer Interface Design. In: Borman, Lorraine and Curtis, Bill (eds.) Proceedings of the ACM CHI 85 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference April 14-18, 1985, San Francisco, California. pp. 137-138.
“Human factors psychologist contribute in many ways to improving human-computer interaction. One contribution involves evaluating existing or prototype systems, in order to assess usability and identify problems. Another involves contributing more directly to the design of systems in the first place: that is, not only evaluating systems but bringing to bear empirical methods and theoretical considerations that help specify what are plausible designs in the first place. The goal of this panel is to discuss four case studies emphasizing this role of cognitive human factors, and identify relevant methods and theoretical considerations.”
Copyrights may apply
Olson, Judith R. (1985): Expanded Design Procedures for Learnable, Usable Interfaces. In: Borman, Lorraine and Curtis, Bill (eds.) Proceedings of the ACM CHI 85 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference April 14-18, 1985, San Francisco, California. pp. 142-143.
SHOW THIS LIST ON YOUR HOMEPAGE
What do YOU think?
Give us your opinion! Do you have any comments/additions that you would like other visitors to see?
You say:
Mar 18th, 2010
Changes to this page (author)
11 Feb 2010: Enabled abstracts to be shown on Judith R. Olson's author page.28 Apr 2003: Added the author to the bibliography
