About Contact Help us

Join us ! Publish !

Interaction Design Foundation

Free educational materials - made by the world's technology elite

About sponsorships

References

Kent Sullivan

iPad and tablet version

Publication statistics

Pub. period:1990-1996
Pub. count:4
Number of co-authors:3

Co-authors

Number of publications with 3 favourite co-authors:

Derek Hoiem:2
Mark Simpson:1
Susan Denning:1

Productive colleagues

Kent Sullivan's 3 most productive colleagues in number of publications:

Derek Hoiem:4
Mark Simpson:4
Susan Denning:1

Calendar

May 22

Knowing (by) Designing 2013

May 27

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

May 28

Graphics Interface 2013

May 20

“ The moment clients realize that revisions are not an all-you-can-eat buffet, suddenly they realize they are not hungry. ”

-- Lester Beall

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

Kent Sullivan

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 Kent Sullivan (bibliography)

1996

Edit | Del

Sullivan, Kent (1996): The Windows 95 User Interface: A Case Study in Usability Engineering. In: Tauber, Michael J., Bellotti, Victoria, Jeffries, Robin, Mackinlay, Jock D. and Nielsen, Jakob (eds.) Proceedings of the ACM CHI 96 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference April 14-18, 1996, Vancouver, Canada. pp. 473-480.

“The development of the user interface for a large commercial software product like Microsoft Windows 95 involves many people, broad design goals, and an aggressive work schedule. This design briefing describes how the usability engineering principles of iterative design and problem tracking were successfully applied to make the development of the UI more manageable. Specific design problems and their solutions are also discussed.”

1994

Edit | Del

Hoiem, Derek and Sullivan, Kent (1994): Designing and Using Integrated Data Collection and Analysis Tools: Challenges and Considerations. In Behaviour and Information Technology, 13 (1) pp. 160-170.

“This paper describes the design and evolution of an integrated set of computer-aided usability engineering (CAUSE) tools for data collection and analysis. The tools were designed to collect and analyze observational, video, and system event data in both the usability laboratory and in the field. Three generations of tools are described and the problems with each generation are discussed. Solutions to the problems are presented, where available. Conclusions about the strengths and weaknesses of particular types of data, CAUSE tool design, and the importance of multiple data sources are drawn. An agenda for future work is also outlined.”

1991

Edit | Del

Sullivan, Kent (1991): Using Task Analysis in Documentation Field Research. In: ACM Ninth International Conference on Systems Documentation 1991. pp. 149-153.

“Task analysis, the "systematic analysis of human task requirements and/or task behavior" (Stammers et al., 1990), is a primary research method used in the human factors and ergonomics fields to identify and understand the components of a particular job, set of tasks, or task in a particular context. Researchers and practitioners in other fields, such as technical writing and usability testing, have recognized the importance of task analysis in designing concise, usable documentation, as well as in helping to create intuitive products. In fact, a technical writer must do some form of task analysis in order to truly create a task-oriented manual. However, the task analysis performed is often implicit in the writing process instead of a formal procedure. A number of articles about task analysis methods have been aimed at technical writers in recent years, but my research indicates that formal methods are being used very selectively in many companies in the computer industry. (See Berghel&Roach [1990], Bradford [1988], and Leonard&Waller [1989], among others.) While there could be many reasons for this lack of use, my work with several different writing teams at Microsoft points to three possibilities: (1) an assumption that task analysis is primarily valuable when a completely new product is being created, (2) a feeling that task analysis would take too much time for the information it yields, and (3) confusion about what task analysis techniques would be best to use for a given situation and set of questions. In this paper I address these three concerns by describing some first steps I took in adapting task analysis for a usability field research project at Microsoft. The context of my discussion is one phase of a usability field study conducted on a programming product. Specifically, I discuss: 1) The questions the writing team needed to have answered 2) The type of task analysis I chose to use 3) The type of information the task analysis generated 4) How the group of writers (and program designers) used the information 5) Ideas for implementing the method”

1990

Edit | Del

Denning, Susan, Hoiem, Derek, Simpson, Mark and Sullivan, Kent (1990): The Value of Thinking-Aloud Protocols in Industry: A Case Study at Microsoft Corporation. In: D., Woods, and E., Roth, (eds.) Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting 1990, Santa Monica, USA. pp. 1285-1289.

“Thinking-aloud protocols traditionally have been used by academic researchers as a qualitative data collection method. This method is currently gaining acceptance in industry usability testing. The Usability Group at Microsoft has adopted the thinking-aloud protocol as a primary method for obtaining data from users. We have found the method valuable not only because it is valid for gathering qualitative data, but also because it is responsive to the constraints we face and the organizational culture we work within. The issue of validity has been discussed in detail by researchers such as Deffner&Rhenius and Ericsson&Simon. Our case study further pursues the validity of thinking-aloud protocols and also discusses how this method allows the researcher to work within industry constraints and incorporate changes into the product within a small time frame. Finally, our case study demonstrates how thinking-aloud protocols fit in well with Microsoft corporate culture where understandable and persuasive results are needed. This case study will have particular relevance for usability practitioners in industry.”

Add publication