Calendar

May 27

13th Intl. Conf. on New Interfaces for Musical Expression

May 28

Graphics Interface 2013

May 29

Boston UXPA Usability and UX Conf. 2013

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 !

Help us help you!

Spread the word:
Donate
Other ways to help

K. James

Add description

← Button will not work: You have not enabled Javascript. How do I enable it?

Rename / change spelling

Add publication

← Button will not work: You have not enabled Javascript. How do I enable it?

Publications by K. James (bibliography)

2011

Edit | Del

Hassall, M. E., Sanderson, P. M., Cross, N., James, K. and Cameron, I. T. (2011): Human Factors Hazard Identification: Industrial Testing of the Humhid Technique and Tool. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 55th Annual Meeting 2011. pp. 2054-2058.

“HumHID is a hazard identification process that uses cognitive work analysis techniques and human factors/error taxonomy information to help identify human related hazards and the possible causes of them so designs can be modified to mitigate or tolerate such hazards. To facilitate the usability of HumHID, a software tool was constructed to guide users through the methodology and to automate otherwise tedious activities. An initial pilot study of the HumHID method and tool was conducted with industrial personnel on an industry case study to assess its usability and usefulness prior to conducting a full case study. The feasibility trial results showed that, with some further improvements, the method and software tool could help process organisations identify human factors issues.”

1995

Edit | Del

James, K., Lynk, L., Molinari, D. and Caird, J. K. (1995): The Comprehension and Use of Word-Processing Icons. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting 1995. p. 941.

“A two-phase study examined the degree that different levels of users understood and actually used word processing icons. In the first phase, 30 novice participants were given 2 questionnaires in which they were asked to generate the meanings of 25 icons and then match pictures of icons to a list of functions. Results indicated that 12 icons passed the International Standards Organization level of icon comprehensibility (67%), whereas only 5 passed the more stringent American National Standard Institute criteria (85%). In phase II, 7 highly experienced users performed a set of 12 useability tasks. These tasks were constructed from the 6 best and 6 worst icons in phase I. The questionnaires from phase I were then given to the experienced users. No difference in performance between the novice and experienced users was found on the questionnaires. In the useability tasks, the experienced users generally choose key and menu command options over icons to execute the tasks. These results have been interpreted to be due to the ambiguity, poor discriminability, size, and/or complexity of the icon. Further discussions center on icon comprehension standards, icon design guidelines, and the heuristic use of icons, menus, and keystroke commands as users acquire application competency. Recommendations are made on the future design and use of icons in word processing packages.”

Add publication