Richard M. Young
About the author:
No description available of Richard M. Young...
Publications by Richard M. Young (bibliography)
» 2001 «
Ritter, Frank E. and Young, Richard M. (2001): Embodied models as simulated users: introduction to this special issue on using cognitive models to improve interface design. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 55 (1) pp. 1-14
“Cognitive models provide a means for applying what is known from psychology
to the design of interfaces, thereby improving their quality and usability.
Existing uses of models include predicting time and errors for users to perform
tasks, acting as embedded assistants to help users perform their tasks, and
serving as surrogate users. Treating the design of human-computer interfaces as
a form of engineering design requires the development and application of user
models. A recent trend is for models to be built within the fixed framework of
a cognitive architecture, which has been extended by the addition of simulated
eyes and hands, enabling the construction of embodied models. Being embodied
allows models to interact directly with interfaces. The resulting models can be
used to evaluate the interfaces they use, and serve as explanations of users'
behavior. The papers in this Special Issue point to a new route for the future,
one in which models built within embodied cognitive architectures provide
information for the design of better interfaces.”
Copyrights may apply
» 2000 «
Ritter, Frank E., Baxter, Gordon D., Jones, Gary and Young, Richard M. (2000): Supporting Cognitive Models as Users. In ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 7 (2) pp. 141-173
“Cognitive models are computer programs that simulate human performance of cognitive skills. They have been useful to HCI by predicting task times, by assisting users, and by acting as surrogate users. If cognitive models could interact with the same interfaces that users do, the models would be easier to develop and would be easier to apply as interface testers. This approach can be encapsulated as a cognitive model interface management system (CMIMS), which is analogous to and based on a user interface management system (UIMS). We present five case studies using three different UIMSes. These show how models can interact with interfaces using an interaction mechanism that is designed to apply to all interfaces generated within a UIMS. These interaction mechanisms start to support and constrain performance in the same ways that human performance is supported and constrained by interaction. Most existing UIMSes can and should be extended to create CMIMSes, and models can and should use CMIMSes to look at larger and more complex tasks. CMIMSes will help to further exploit the synergy between the disciplines of cognitive modeling and HCI by supporting cognitive models as users.”
Copyrights may apply
» 1998 «
Blandford, Ann, Shum, Simon Buckingham and Young, Richard M. (1998): Training Software Engineers in a Novel Usability Evaluation Technique. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 49 (3) pp. 245-279
“Novel approaches to designing or analysing systems only become useful when they are usable by practitioners in the field, and not just by their originators. Design techniques often fail to make the transition from research to practice because insufficient attention is paid to understanding and communicating the skills required to use them. This paper reports on work to train software engineering students to use a user-centred language for describing and analysing interface designs called the "Programmable User Model Instruction Language", or IL. Various types of data, including video, students' IL descriptions and brief usability reports were collected during training, and subsequently analysed. These show that after 6 h of training, students have a good grasp of the syntax of the notation, and start using notational affordances to support their reasoning, but that their reasoning is still limited by a poor grasp of the underlying cognitive theory. A comparison of the analyses of trainees with those of experts provides a means of developing a better understanding of the nature of expertise in this area-as comprising an understanding of the syntax and the surface semantics of the notation, the underlying cognitive theory, the method of conducting an analysis and the implications of the analysis for design.”
Copyrights may apply
» 1997 «
Gray, Wayne D., Young, Richard M. and Kirschenbaum, Susan S. (1997): Introduction to This Special Issue on Cognitive Architectures and Human-Computer Interaction. In Human-Computer Interaction, 12 (4) pp. 301-309
“This special issue was assembled by editors and contributors who believe that cognitive architectures provide the most important new contribution to a theoretical basis for HCI (human-computer interaction) since the publication of The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction (Card, Moran, & Newell, 1983). In this introduction, we provide a brief overview of what cognitive architectures are and why we find them exciting. Then we introduce the four architectures represented by articles in this special issue.”
Copyrights may apply
Howes, Andrew and Young, Richard M. (1997): The Role of Cognitive Architecture in Modeling the User: Soar's Learning Mechanism. In Human-Computer Interaction, 12 (4) pp. 311-343
“What is the role of a cognitive architecture in shaping a model built within it? Compared with a model written in a programming language, the cognitive architecture offers theoretical constraints. These constraints can be "soft," in that some ways of constructing a model are facilitated and others made more difficult, or they can be "hard," in that certain aspects of a model are enforced and others ruled out. We illustrate a variety of these possibilities. In the case of Soar, its learning mechanism is sufficiently constraining that it imposes hard constraints on models constructed within it. We describe how one of these hard constraints deriving from Soar's learning mechanism ensures that models constructed within Soar must learn a display-based skill and, other things being equal, must find display-based devices easier to learn than keyboard-based devices. We discuss the relation between architecture and model in terms of the degree to which a model is "compliant" with the constraints set by the architecture. Although doubts are sometimes expressed as to whether cognitive architectures have any empirical consequences for user modeling, our analysis shows that they do. Architectures play their part by imposing theoretical constraints on the models constructed within them, and the extent to which the influence of the architecture shows through in the model's behavior depends on the compliancy of the model.”
Copyrights may apply
» 1996 «
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".”
Copyrights may apply
Kirschenbaum, Susan S., Gray, Wayne D. and Young, Richard M. (1996): Cognitive Architectures and HCI. In ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 28 (2) pp. 18-21
“The Cognitive Architectures and Human-Computer Interaction Workshop examined computational cognitive modeling approaches to human-computer interaction issues (HCI). The five major architectures and variations represented were briefly summarized. Participants compared approaches to a set of selected HCI problems and alternative solutions, and compared the strengths and weaknesses of the architectures. A list of additional issues was generated and discussed.”
Copyrights may apply
Howes, Andrew and Young, Richard M. (1996): Learning Consistent, Interactive, and Meaningful Task-Action Mappings: A Computational Model. In Cognitive Science, 20 (3) pp. 301-356
» 1994 «
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. Available online
“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.”
Copyrights may apply
Young, Richard M. and Abowd, Gregory D. (1994): Multi-Perspective Modelling of Interface Design Issues: Undo in a Collaborative Editor. In: Cockton, Gilbert, Draper, Steven and Weir, George R. S. (eds.) Proceedings of the Ninth Conference of the British Computer Society Human Computer Interaction Specialist Group - People and Computers IX August 23-26, 1994, Glasgow, Scotland, UK. pp. 249-260.
“Successful interface design respects constraints stemming from a number of diverse domains analysed by different disciplines. Modelling techniques exist within the individual disciplines, but there is a need for ways to weave together different techniques to provide an integrated analysis of interface design issues from multiple perspectives. We illustrate the relations and interplay between six different modelling techniques -- two for system modelling, two for user modelling, one for interaction modelling, and one for design modelling -- applied to a shared design scenario concerning the provision of an Undo facility for a collaborative editor. The resulting multi-perspective analysis provides a depth of understanding and a breadth of scope beyond what can be achieved by any one technique alone.”
Copyrights may apply
» 1993 «
Blandford, Ann and Young, Richard M. (1993): Developing Runnable User Models: Separating the Problem Solving Techniques from the Domain Knowledge. In: Alty, James L., Diaper, Dan and Guest, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the Eighth Conference of the British Computer Society Human Computer Interaction Specialist Group - People and Computers VIII August 7-10, 1993, Loughborough University, UK. pp. 111-121.
“Runnable models of computer users can serve as the basis for predictions about the usability of interfaces. Both the construction and the running of a user model can provide useful information to interface designers. To define such a model, the designer must specify what users know about the interface (relevant to the tasks they are to perform with it), how they will use that knowledge in their operation of the device, and what background knowledge they can be assumed to have. In this paper we report on work which allows these different components of the user model to be specified independently, and automatically integrated to generate a set of Soar productions which constitute a runnable model.”
Copyrights may apply
» 1992 «
Young, Richard M. and Barnard, Philip J. (1992): Multiple Uses of Scenarios: A Reply to Campbell. In ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 24 (4) p. 10
» 1991 «
Howes, Andrew and Young, Richard M. (1991): Predicting the Learnability of Task-Action Mappings. 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. 113-118. Available online
“Programmable User Models (PUMs) are tools based on psychological theory that enable interface designers to predict the usability of a proposed design. This paper presents a variant in which the PUM, implemented in Soar and incorporating the constraints of Display-based Task-Action Grammars, learns the task-action mapping by being guided by the designer during performance. We show that the more consistent and interactive the interface, the easier it is for the designer to teach the PUM the necessary task-action mapping.”
Copyrights may apply
MacLean, Allan, Bellotti, Victoria, Young, Richard M. and Moran, Thomas P. (1991): Reaching Through Analogy: A Design Rationale Perspective on Roles of Analogy. 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. 167-172. Available online
“A powerful way of reaching through technology is to use analogy to make the technology transparent by exploiting the user's familiarity with other situations. However, analogy has a number of roles in user interface design in addition to the one of helping the user understand the system. In this paper we consider some of these roles and their relationship to our Design Rationale (DR) framework (MacLean et al., 1989). Our goals are to develop the DR framework by exploring the implications of explicitly taking account of analogy, and to articulate an account of the roles of analogy in design by organising them around DR concepts.”
Copyrights may apply
Hammond, Nick, Barnard, Philip J., Coutaz, Joëlle, Harrison, Michael, MacLean, Allan and Young, Richard M. (1991): Modelling User, System and Design: Results of a Scenarios Matrix Exercise. 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. 377-380. Available online
“This panel will discuss the results of an exercise aimed at investigating how various modelling approaches from Cognitive Science and Software Engineering can be integrated into HCI design. Each panelist will outline their approach and present their approach's performance on two agreed upon design scenarios.”
Copyrights may apply
Sutcliffe, Alistair, Carroll, John M., Young, Richard M. and Long, John (1991): HCI Theory on Trial. 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. 399-401. Available online
“This panel will examine the potential of artifact theory to deliver usable designs in contention with two rival theories, the HCI conception of engineering, and cognitive modelling. The aim will be to explore how well artifact theory and alternative approaches can deliver good design and the contribution the theory makes to the process and product of design.”
Copyrights may apply
MacLean, Allan, Young, Richard M., Bellotti, Victoria and Moran, Thomas P. (1991): Questions, Options, and Criteria: Elements of Design Space Analysis. In Human-Computer Interaction, 6 (3) pp. 201-250
“Design Space Analysis is an approach to representing design rationale. It uses a semiformal notation, called QOC (Questions, Options, and Criteria), to represent the design space around an artifact. The main constituents of QOC are Questions identifying key design issues, Options providing possible answers to the Questions, and Criteria for assessing and comparing the Options. Design Space Analysis also takes account of justifications for the design (and possible alternative designs) that reflect considerations such as consistency, models and analogies, and relevant data and theory. A Design Space Analysis does not produce a record of the design process but is instead a coproduct of design and has to be constructed alongside the artifact itself. Our work is motivated by the notion that a Design Space Analysis will repay the investment in its creation by supporting both the original process of design and subsequent work on redesign and reuse by (a) providing an explicit representation to aid reasoning about the design and about the consequences of changes to it and (b) serving as a vehicle for communication, for example, among members of the design team or among the original designers and later maintainers of a system. Our work to date emphasizes the nature of the QOC representation over processes for creating it, so these claims serve as goals rather than objectives we have achieved. This article describes the elements of Design Space Analysis and illustrates them by reference to analyses of existing designs and to studies of the concepts and arguments used by designers during design discussions.”
Copyrights may apply
Young, Richard M. and Barnard, Philip J. (1991): Signature Tasks and Paradigm Tasks: New Wrinkles on the Scenarios Methodology. In: Diaper, Dan and Hammond, Nick (eds.) Proceedings of the Sixth Conference of the British Computer Society Human Computer Interaction Specialist Group - People and Computers VI August 20-23, 1991, Heriot-Watt University, Edinburgh, UK. pp. 91-101.
“Scenarios are increasingly being used in HCI to explore alternative designs or assess user models. We seek to strengthen the use of scenarios within modelling methodologies by clarifying what scenarios are good for and what makes a good scenario. The first clarification concerns scenarios that are "privileged" in certain ways with respect to the modelling technique used to analyse them. A signature task is one deliberately chosen to match the capabilities of the technique. A paradigm task is one which has been thoroughly analysed and understood in terms of the technique. Perhaps surprisingly, signature tasks and paradigm tasks are often not the same. The second clarification is that although scenarios represent a particular concrete instance of human-computer interaction, some form of contrast is generally involved -- whether explicitly stated or merely implied. Good scenarios are characterised by the presence of a meaningful contrast that captures an issue and focuses the analysis.”
Copyrights may apply
» 1990 «
Young, Richard M. and Whittington, Joyce (1990): Using a Knowledge Analysis to Predict Conceptual Errors in Text-Editor Usage. In: Carrasco, Jane and Whiteside, John (eds.) Proceedings of the ACM CHI 90 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference 1990, Seattle, Washington,USA. pp. 91-97.
“The knowledge analysis of a device and a task, when written in an external Instruction Language and translated into rules for a programmable cognitive architecture, enables a designer to predict conceptual errors in device usage. This kind of prediction lies outside the scope of GOMS-based models. The cognitive architecture, which is referred to as a "Programmable User Model" (PUM), incorporates a limited problem-solving capability based upon means-ends analysis and multiple problem spaces. The example presented, concerning a simple text editor, illustrates the application of a PUM and demonstrates that a correct description of local knowledge does not necessarily lead to correct behaviour. This can serve to alert the designer to difficulties with the usability of a proposed interface.”
Copyrights may apply
Young, Richard M., Howes, Andrew and Whittington, Joyce (1990): A Knowledge Analysis of Interactivity. In: Diaper, Dan, Gilmore, David J., Cockton, Gilbert and Shackel, Brian (eds.) INTERACT 90 - 3rd IFIP International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction August 27-31, 1990, Cambridge, UK. pp. 115-120.
“Most existing techniques for predicting users' behaviour do not cope well with highly interactive computer usage, such as is typically found with workstations or personal computers. This paper explores the interactivity inherent in a simple task on an Apple Macintosh computer. An analysis of the knowledge required for performing the task provides the basis for understanding how internal knowledge and information present in the display are combined to guide the behaviour of users spanning the spectrum of expertise from novice to expert.”
Copyrights may apply
MacLean, Allan, Bellotti, Victoria and Young, Richard M. (1990): What Rationale is There in Design?. In: Diaper, Dan, Gilmore, David J., Cockton, Gilbert and Shackel, Brian (eds.) INTERACT 90 - 3rd IFIP International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction August 27-31, 1990, Cambridge, UK. pp. 207-212.
“Design Rationale is a framework for locating a proposed design within a design space. It incorporates an explicit representation of design Options, and an explicit representation of Criteria for choosing among the Options. This paper explores the relationship between Design Rationale and design practice. It uses Design Rationale as a way of analysing the content of a design session to help us understand requirements for future ways of improving the design process.”
Copyrights may apply
» 1989 «
Young, Richard M., Green, T. R. G. and Simon, Tony (1989): Programmable User Models for Predictive Evaluation of Interface Designs. 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. 15-19.
“A Programmable User Model (PUM) is a psychologically constrained architecture which an interface designer is invited to program to simulate a user performing a range of tasks with a proposed interface. It provides a novel way of conveying psychological considerations to the designer, by involving the designer in the process of making predictions of usability. Development of the idea leads to a complementary perspective, of the PUM as an interpreter for an "instruction language". The methodology used in this research involves the use of concrete HCI scenarios to assess different approaches to cognitive modelling. The research findings include analyses of the cognitive processes involved in the use of interactive computer systems, and a number of issues to be resolved in future cognitive models.”
Copyrights may apply
MacLean, Allan, Young, Richard M. and Moran, Thomas P. (1989): Design Rationale: The Argument Behind the Artifact. 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. 247-252.
“We assert that the product of user interface design should be not only the interface itself but also a rationale for why the interface is the way it is. We describe a representation for design based around a semi-formal notation which allows us explicitly to represent alternative design options and reasons for choosing among them. We illustrate the approach with examples from an analysis of scrolling mechanisms. We discuss the roles we expect such a representation to play in improving the coherence of designs and in communicating reasons for choices to others, whether designers, maintainers, collaborators or end users.”
Copyrights may apply
Young, Richard M., Barnard, Philip J., Simon, Tony and Whittington, Joyce (1989): How Would Your Favourite User Model Cope with These Scenarios?. In ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 20 (4) pp. 51-55
» 1988 «
Young, Richard M. and MacLean, Allan (1988): Choosing Between Methods: Analysing the User's Decision Space in Terms of Schemas and Linear Models. 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. 139-143.
“We offer an account of how users choose between alternative methods which take different times to accomplish the same task. Users offered a choice between two methods do not necessarily pick the faster. We argue that users reduce the complexity of the decision space by applying a 'simple compensation schema' acquired from everyday experience. Linear models of performance time enable us to predict how users will view the situation in terms of this schema, and how accurate assessment of the optimal choices within the schema-based assimilations can result in an apparent bias in favour of one method.”
Copyrights may apply
Simon, Tony and Young, Richard M. (1988): GOMS Meets STRIPS: The Integration of Planning with Skilled Procedure Execution in Human-Computer Interaction. In: Jones, Dylan M. and Winder, R. (eds.) Proceedings of the Fourth Conference of the British Computer Society Human Computer Interaction Specialist Group - People and Computers IV August 5-9, 1988, University of Manchester, UK. pp. 581-594.
“In the context of modelling user behaviour in HCI, deliberate planning based on problem solving and the fluent execution of skilled procedures are usually treated as different kinds of behaviour and modelled by different kinds of model. In this paper we draw on previous work which argues that user modelling requires a different notion of planning from that commonly discussed in the Artificial Intelligence literature, and show that problem solving and routine cognitive skill can be regarded as opposite ends of the same continuum. A simple planner, making use of a flexible hierarchical representation for plans and operators, can provide a single mechanism able to generate behaviour spanning the entire spectrum. This integration of planning with routine cognitive skill offers a basis for unifying existing models of HCI and for extending their scope.”
Copyrights may apply
» 1987 «
Young, Richard M. and Simon, Tony (1987): Planning in the Context of Human-Computer Interaction. In: Carroll, John M. and Tanner, Peter P. (eds.) Proceedings of the ACM CHI 87 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference April 5-9, 1987, Toronto, Canada. pp. 363-370.
“Interacting with a computer system requires the user to undertake a certain amount of planning, although good interactive systems minimise the need for this kind of cognitive activity. The planning relevant in an HCI context differs in emphasis from that studied in Artificial Intelligence. The very nature of interactive computing environments generates a number of implications for the planning process, the chief of which are (1) that the activity of planning is intimately interleaved with the execution of the plans, and (2) that simple, partial plans are more appropriate than complex, detailed ones. Such an approach to planning yields behaviour bridging the spectrum from backwards-chaining puzzle-like problem solving at one extreme, to the smooth execution of routine methods at the other.”
Copyrights may apply
Young, Richard M. and Simon, Tony (1987): Planning in the Context of Human-Computer Interaction. In: Diaper, Dan and Winder, Russel (eds.) Proceedings of the Third Conference of the British Computer Society Human Computer Interaction Specialist Group - People and Computers III August 7-11, 1987, University of Exeter, UK. pp. 363-370.
“Interacting with a computer system requires the user to undertake a certain amount of planning, although good interactive systems minimise the need for this kind of cognitive activity. The planning relevant in an HCI context differs in emphasis from that studied in Artificial Intelligence. The very nature of interactive computing environments generates a number of implications for the planning process, the chief of which are (1) that the activity of planning is intimately interleaved with the execution of the plans, and (2) that simple, partial plans are more appropriate than complex, detailed ones. Such an approach to planning yields behaviour bridging the spectrum from backwards-chaining puzzle-like problem solving at one extreme, to the smooth execution of routine methods at the other.”
Copyrights may apply
Young, Richard M. and Barnard, Philip J. (1987): The use of scenarios in human--computer interaction research: Turbocharging the Tortoise of cumulative science. In: Graphics Interface 87 (CHI+GI 87) April 5-9, 1987, Toronto, Ontario, Canada. pp. 291-296.
» 1986 «
Young, Richard M. and Harris, John E. (1986): A Viewdata-Structure Editor Designed Around a Task/Action Mapping. In: Harrison, Michael D. and Monk, Andrew (eds.) Proceedings of the Second Conference of the British Computer Society Human Computer Interaction Specialist Group - People and Computers II August 23-26, 1986, University of York, UK. pp. 435-446.
“This paper reports an exploratory attempt to design an editor for viewdata networks based explicitly around a task/action mapping. Task analysis reveals that one editing task can imply the need for another, leading to a view of the overall task as a set of frame-edits joined by a web of implications. A viewdata editor to capitalise on this task structure supplements the frame editor itself with a helpful "assistant" which keeps track of the implications, and at appropriate times reminds the user of the tasks remaining to be done and suggests one to work on next. The order in which tasks are offered to the user is crucial to the success of the system, and is determined by the interaction between four heuristic ordering principles.”
Copyrights may apply
» 1981 «
Young, Richard M. (1981): The Machine Inside the Machine: Users' Models of Pocket Calculators. In International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 15 (1) pp. 51-85
“For an interactive device to be satisfactory, its intended users must be able to form a "conceptual model" of the device which can guide their actions and help them interpret its behaviour. Three designs of pocket calculator are analysed for the models implied by their behaviour. Two different kinds of model are illustrated, oriented primarily to answering different questions about the calculator's behaviour. Implied register models, aimed at predicting how the calculator will respond to a given sequence of inputs, provide a simple "cover story" for how the calculator works. Task/action mapping models, aimed more at deriving an appropriate input sequence to achieve a given task, focus on the relations between the actions a user performs and the task the calculator carries out. The "core" of these relations acts as the conceptual model. Complexities in the model, for example, give rise to corresponding difficulties in the use of the calculator. Three applications of mapping models are discussed, the analysis in each case yielding empirically testable consequences for the user's behaviour.”
Copyrights may apply
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 21st, 2010
Changes to this page (author)
11 Feb 2010: Enabled abstracts to be shown on Richard M. Young's author page.01 Jun 2009: Author was edited 24 Jun 2007: Author was edited
24 Jun 2007: Author was edited
23 Jun 2007: Author was edited
28 Apr 2003: Added the author to the bibliography
