About Contact Help us

Join us ! Publish !

Interaction Design Foundation

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

About sponsorships

References

Martin L. Fracker

iPad and tablet version

Publication statistics

Pub. period:1987-2010
Pub. count:5
Number of co-authors:3

Co-authors

Number of publications with 3 favourite co-authors:

George Goeschel:1
Michal Heck:1
Christopher D. Wickens:1

Productive colleagues

Martin L. Fracker's 3 most productive colleagues in number of publications:

Christopher D. Wic..:75
George Goeschel:1
Michal Heck:1

Calendar

May 27

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

May 28

Graphics Interface 2013

May 29

Intl. Workshop on Design and Spontaneity in Computer-Supported Collaborative Learning (DS-CSCL 2013)

May 22

“ User error: replace user and press any key to continue. ”

-- Popular computer one-liner

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

Martin L. Fracker

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 Martin L. Fracker (bibliography)

2010

Edit | Del

Fracker, Martin L. (2010): Scaling Usability in Terms of Requirements: A Method for Evaluating User Interfaces. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 54th Annual Meeting 2010. pp. 576-580.

“Software usability should be scaled in terms of the probability that a user interface will meet established usability requirements. This paper describes a scaling procedure that first estimates the distribution of common usability metrics and then calculates the probability that a user interface will meet a specific requirement. A series of Monte Carlo simulations showed that even with a small sample of usability test participants, the scaling procedure remained unbiased and could accurately differentiate usable from unusable user interfaces.”

Edit | Del

Fracker, Martin L., Heck, Michal and Goeschel, George (2010): When a User Interface is Good Enough: User Ratings in UI Design. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 54th Annual Meeting 2010. pp. 595-599.

“When is the usability of a new user interface design good enough to stop trying to improve it? To answer this question, we propose that usability ratings should be scaled in terms of specific usability criteria, and we evaluated this proposal in an iterative user interface design effort. We also tested our hypothesis that usability ratings arise from the interaction of three user interface dimensions: content, functionality, and layout. We found that scaling usability ratings in terms of specific requirements was effective in identifying when to stop iterating a design, and that ratings of the UI dimensions predicted the usability ratings.”

1989

Edit | Del

Fracker, Martin L. (1989): Attention Allocation in Situation Awareness. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting 1989. pp. 1396-1400.

“Subjects were given a "god's eye" view of an air battle involving seven aircraft: two were friendly, either one or three were hostile, and the rest were neutral. In one condition (Consistent FFN), which aircraft were friend, foe, or neutral was consistent throughout a trial. In another condition (Variable FFN), the identity of each aircraft changed randomly within a trial. In general, subjects' spatial awareness was best for enemy aircraft and worst for neutral aircraft. Increasing the number of enemy aircraft from one to three degraded spatial awareness for enemy aircraft in both FFN conditions. FFN awareness for was also affected. These results are incorporated in terms of a limited capacity model of attention and subjects' attentional priorities.”

1988

Edit | Del

Fracker, Martin L. (1988): A Theory of Situation Assessment: Implications for Measuring Situation Awareness. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 32nd Annual Meeting 1988. pp. 102-106.

“Measures of pilot situation awareness (SA) are needed in order to know whether new concepts in display design help pilots keep track of rapidly changing tactical situations. In order to measure SA, a theory of situation assessment is needed. In this paper, I summarize such a theory encompassing both a definition of SA and a model of situation assessment. SA is defined as the pilot's knowledge about a zone of interest at a given level of abstraction. Pilots develop this knowledge by sampling data from the environment and matching the sampled data to knowledge structures stored in long-term memory. Matched knowledge structures then provide the pilot's assessment of the situation and serve to guide his attention. A number of cognitive biases that result from the knowledge matching process are discussed, as are implications for partial report measures of situation awareness.”

1987

Edit | Del

Fracker, Martin L. and Wickens, Christopher D. (1987): Resources, Confusions, and Compatibility in Dual Axis Tracking: Displays, Controls, and Dynamics. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 31st Annual Meeting 1987. pp. 1211-1215.

“Dual axis compensatory tracking was investigated as a function of whether error displays were integrated or separated, whether axis controls were integrated into one stick or remained separate, and whether the control dynamics on the two axes were the same or different. Tracking error increased and control activity decreased as a function of the summed difficulty of the two control dynamics. Integrated displays and integrated controls both led to increased confusions between tracking axes although error was unaffected. Importantly, performance was also affected by whether the integrality of displays matched that of controls. These results suggest that dual axis tracking is subject to independent effects of resource competition, confusions, and Wickens' (1986b) compatibility of proximity principle.”

Add publication