Robert L. Mack
Has also published under the name of:
"Robert Mack"
Publications by Robert L. Mack (bibliography)
Carroll, John M. and Mack, Robert L. (1999): Metaphor, Computing Systems, and Active Learning. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 51 (2) pp. 385-403.
“Recent discussion has resolved the question of how prior knowledge organizes new learning into the technical definition and study of "metaphor". Some theorists have adopted an "operational" approach, focusing on the manifest effects of suggesting metaphoric comparisons to learners. Some have resolved the question formally into a "structural" definition of metaphor. However, structural and operation approaches typically ignore the goal-directed learner-initiated learning process through which metaphors become relevant and effective in learning. Taking this process seriously affords an analysis of metaphor that explains why metaphors are intrinsically open-ended and how their open-endedness stimulates the construction of mental models.”
© All rights reserved Carroll and Mack and/or Academic Press
Mack, Robert L., Druin, Allison, Riederman, David, Scholtz, Jean and Wharton, Cathleen (1998): SIGCHI Needs You! A Call for Volunteers. In ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 30 (4) pp. 94-95.
“Volunteers are the lifeblood of SIGCHI: ACM's Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction. SIGCHI is governed by an all-volunteer, elected Executive Committee which oversees conference activities, finances, publications and general operations. Volunteers organize annual CHI conferences, review papers, and organize conference venues like Panels and Workshop. Volunteers have built and maintained SIGCHI's electronic infrastructure, including Web site, e-mail lists, and databases for organizing technical programs and services for its membership, and the world-wide HCI community. As SIGCHI grows, it retains the services of professional services for its operations which permits the volunteer community to concentrate on advancing the profession. But in the end everything SIGCHI accomplishes is the direct result of volunteer input. And SIGCHI needs more of you.”
© All rights reserved Mack et al. and/or ACM Press
Mack, Robert L., Marks, Linn, Collins, Dave and Instone, Keith (1996): The CHI '95 Conference Electronic Publication: Introduction to an Experiment. In ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 28 (2) pp. 62-75.
“In the spring of 1994, the CHI '95 Conference Committee decided to produce an electronic Conference Proceedings and Companion, to be delivered on CD-ROM. The CD-ROM version of the Proceedings and Companion were delivered to attendees of the CHI '95 Conference. Soon after the conference, the fourth author created the World Wide Web, or "Web" version based on the CD-ROM contents, which is accessible via: http://www.acm.org/ in directories /sigchi/chi95/Electronic/chi95cd.htm. This report describes the rationale and development process for the CD-ROM, and introduces the ACM/SIGCHI experiment in electronic, Web-based Conference publication.”
© All rights reserved Mack et al. and/or ACM Press
Katz, Irvin R., Mack, Robert L., Marks, Linn, Rosson, Mary Beth and Nielsen, Jakob (eds.) Proceedings of the ACM CHI 95 Human Factors in Computing Systems Conference May 7-11, 1995, Denver, Colorado.
Nielsen, Jakob and Mack, Robert L. (eds.) (1994): Usability Inspection Methods. New York, John Wiley and Sons
Carroll, John M., Mack, Robert L., Robertson, Scott P. and Rosson, Mary Beth (1994): Binding Objects to Scenarios of Use. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 41 (1) pp. 243-276.
“Scenarios are a natural and effective medium for thinking in general and for design in particular. Our work seeks to develop a potential unification between recent scenario-oriented work in object-oriented analysis/design methods and scenario-oriented work in the analysis/design of human-computer interaction. We illustrate this perspective by showing: (1) how scenario questioning can be used to systematically interrogate the knowledge and practices of potential users, and thereby to create object-oriented analysis models that are psychologically valid; (2) how depicting an individual object's point-of-view can serve as a pedagogical scaffold to help students of object-oriented analysis see how to identify and assign object responsibilities in creating a problem domain model; and (3) how usage scenarios can be employed to motivate and coordinate the design implementation, refactoring and reuse of object-oriented software.”
© All rights reserved Carroll et al. and/or Academic Press
Mack, Robert L. and Nielsen, Jakob (1993): Usability Inspection Methods: Report on a Workshop Held at CHI'92, Monterey, CA, May 3-4, 1992. In ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 25 (1) pp. 28-33.
“Usability inspection methods, based on informed intuitions about interface design quality, hold promise of providing faster, more cost-effective ways to generate usability evaluations, compared to empirical user evaluation methods. Examples of inspection methods include heuristic evaluation (Nielsen&Molich, 1990), usability walkthroughs (Bias, 1991; Karat&Bennett, 1991a, 1991b), cognitive walkthroughs (Lewis, Polson, Wharton&Reiman, 1990), and applications of guidelines in walkthroughs (Jeffries, Miller, Wharton,&Uyeda, 1991). These methods have been used in development for some time in one form or another (perhaps by other names), often because there is simply no alternative like user testing. Usability inspection methods have been an object of research in the last two years or so. Progress has been made in refining methods, and understanding their role in usability engineering. We organized this workshop because the time seemed right for a group of practitioners and researchers involved with these methods to review the state of the practice. Thirteen people participated in the two-day workshop. On the first day each participant led the group through a half hour demonstration and discussion of a specific method or methodological issue. Participants were asked to read position papers prepared before the workshop, in order to provide a common background. On the second day, the group engaged in a wide-ranging discussion of issues raised on the previous day. Procedurally, this discussion began with the development of a issue space consisting of key issues written on index cards, pinned up on a wall and grouped into larger topics. This SIGCHI report is our initial summary of what we discussed and in some cases, what we concluded. We also plan to produce an edited collection of papers based on the workshop.”
© All rights reserved Mack and Nielsen and/or ACM Press
Mack, Robert L. and Montaniz, Frank (1991): A Comparison of Touch and Mouse Interaction Techniques for a Graphical Windowing Software Environment. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting 1991. pp. 286-289.
“This paper reports a behavioral evaluation of touch interface techniques intended to be used with highly interactive, graphical, windowing software environments. Previous research (Mack and Lang, 1989) indicated that touch interface techniques can produce levels of task performance in such environments comparable to that obtained using conventional mouse pointing devices. The touch technology in that study enabled users to emulate the basic interactions associated with using a mouse: that is, to emulate click, double click and dragging techniques using taps, double taps and tap, hold and drag. While encouraging, problems remained, especially when the finger was used as the input device. The purpose of this study was to compare mouse and touch techniques using an alternative to mouse emulation for controlling touch interactions. Instead, users selected one of three possible touch "modes". In each mode, a simple tap (contact and lift-off) was interpreted by the software in ways corresponding to the three basic mouse interaction techniques. Performance on realistic office task scenarios using a finger and stylus touch techniques and the new touch control method, resulted in comparable performance between mouse and touch stylus when the stylus (but not mouse) was used with a tilted display. Experience with mouse pointing devices, or graphical interfaces enabling direct manipulation, did not affect performance.”
© All rights reserved Mack and Montaniz and/or Human Factors Society
Montaniz, Frank and Mack, Robert L. (1991): A Comparison of Touch Interface Techniques for a Graphical Windowing Software Environment. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 35th Annual Meeting 1991. pp. 290-294.
“This paper reports a behavioral evaluation of touch interface techniques intended for use with highly interactive, graphical, windowing software environments. Previous research (Mack and Lang, 1989) indicated that touch interface techniques can produce levels of task performance in such environments comparable to that obtained using conventional mouse pointing devices. In the Mack and Lang study, touch interactions emulated mouse techniques such that single and double taps (contact and lift-off), and tap, hold and drag corresponded to mouse clicks and double-clicks, and dragging with the mouse. While the results were encouraging, problems with the touch techniques remain. The purpose of this study was to compare two alternatives to direct mouse emulation for controlling the interpretation of touch interactions using a stylus or finger as input devices. This study also evaluated two touch-tailored interface techniques: gesture-based commands and pop-up (display) keyboard. Finger performance improved to levels comparable to those for stylus when an alternative protocol for controlling interaction modes was employed. Gestures led to performance comparable to conventional menu bar and pull-down menu techniques. The pop-up keyboard significantly slowed performance.”
© All rights reserved Montaniz and Mack and/or Human Factors Society
Lewis, James R., Henry, Suzanne C. and Mack, Robert L. (1990): Integrated Office Software Benchmarks: A Case Study. 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. 337-343.
“In this paper we present a case study of a benchmark evaluation of integrated office systems. The case study includes developing scenarios, benchmark measures, and quantitative and qualitative analysis of user performance and user problems. We studied two systems, one loosely integrated windowing environment and one more tightly integrated (with respect to consistent graphical interface style). Multivariate analyses showed that significant differences were attributable to performance/analytical variables and to patterns of error impact classifications, but not to subjective ratings. Somewhat surprisingly, users experienced serious problems with the seemingly more integrated (consistent) system largely because of a handful of serious problems. This was taken as evidence that improvement of the poorer performing system should be based primarily on an analysis of errors. Some examples are presented to indicate the potential diagnostic value of analyzing of problems and the development of testable behavioral objectives from benchmark measures.”
© All rights reserved Lewis et al. and/or North-Holland
Mack, Robert L. and Lang, Kathy (1989): A Benchmark Comparison of Mouse and Touch Interface Techniques for an Intelligent Workstation Windowing Environment. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 33rd Annual Meeting 1989. pp. 325-329.
“This study presents evidence that a prototype touch interface technology emulating basic interaction techniques of a mouse pointing device is comparable in overall usability to a conventional mouse for a direct manipulation, graphical windowing software environment. The touch technology prototype involves using either a stylus or finger, with an overlay sensitive to changes in capacitance. Users practiced each technique (mouse, stylus, finger, keyboard with no mouse), in the context of carrying out office-related tasks on the first of a two day study, and then eight similar test tasks on the second day, in a completely within-subject design. Significant effects for time on task were found for Techniques and Tasks for five practice tasks on the second day of the study. The clearest significant effect was that the stylus technique was faster than the keyboard. A qualitative analysis of errors indicates that there were problems with the precision of pointing using the finger, and to a lesser extent the stylus and mouse. User comments and ratings indicate that the stylus and mouse were preferred comparably, and were preferred to the finger and keyboard techniques.”
© All rights reserved Mack and Lang and/or Human Factors Society
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.”
© All rights reserved Mack et al. and/or ACM Press
Mack, Robert L. (1985): Identifying and Designing Toward New User Expectations in a Prototype Text-Editor. 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. 139-141.
Carroll, John M., Mack, Robert L., Lewis, Clayton H., Grischkowsky, Nancy L. and Anderson, Scott R. (1985): Exploring Exploring a Word Processor. In Human-Computer Interaction, 1 (3) pp. 283-307.
“Studies of people learning to use contemporary word-processing equipment suggest that effective learning is often "active," proceeding by self-initiated problem solving. The instructional manuals that accompany current word-processing systems often penalize and impede active learning. A set of instructional materials was constructed for a commercial word processor, specifically designed to support and encourage an active learning orientation. These "guided exploration" (GE) materials are modular, task oriented, procedurally incomplete, and address error recognition and recovery. Learners using the GE materials spent substantially less time yet still performed better on a transfer of learning posttest than learners using commercially developed self-study materials. Qualitative analysis of aspects of the learning protocols of participants suggested that active learning mechanisms may underlie this advantage.”
© All rights reserved Carroll et al. and/or Taylor and Francis
Carroll, John M. and Mack, Robert L. (1985): Metaphor, Computing Systems, and Active Learning. In International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 22 (1) pp. 39-57.
“Recent discussion has resolved the question of how prior knowledge organizes new learning into the technical definition and study of "metaphor". Some theorists have adopted an "operational" approach, focusing on the manifest effects of suggesting metaphoric comparisons to learners. Some have resolved the question formally into a "structural" definition of metaphor. However, structural and operation approaches typically ignore the goal-directed learner-initiated learning process through which metaphors become relevant and effective in learning. Taking this process seriously affords an analysis of metaphor that explains why metaphors are intrinsically open-ended and how their open-endedness stimulates the construction of mental models.”
© All rights reserved Carroll and Mack and/or Academic Press
Mack, Robert L., Lewis, Clayton H. and Carroll, John M. (1983): Learning to Use Word Processors: Problems and Prospects. In ACM Transactions on Information Systems, 1 (3) pp. 254-271.
“Computer text editors are powerful, but complex, tools. Particularly in the early stages of learning, the complexity of these tools can cause serious problems for users who are not experienced with computers. The problems of new users were studied by asking the users to think out loud while learning to use word-processing systems. In this paper several of the most typical and debilitating problems these users had understanding and following directions in using training manuals, as well as problems understanding and using interface functions to accomplish word processing tasks, are taxonomized and analyzed. Approaches for improving design features of the interface functions and the training methods used for learning are discussed.”
© All rights reserved Mack et al. and/or ACM Press
Lewis, Clayton H. and Mack, Robert L. (1982): Learning to Use a Text Processing System: Evidence from "Thinking Aloud" Protocols. In: Nichols, Jean A. and Schneider, Michael L. (eds.) Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems March 15-17, 1982, Gaithersburg, Maryland, United States. pp. 387-392.
Show this list on your homepage
Knowledge wants to be free !
We have decided to give away world-class educational materials
because we believe that universal access to high quality education is key to the building
of peace, sustainable social and economic development, and intercultural dialogue.
To calculate just have much we have saved you, our wonderful readers, we compare our free encyclopedia to two
books we love:
$110: Human-Computer Interaction by Dix et al (a great textbook but without video interviews)
$116: Shneiderman's Designing the User Interface
(a great textbook but without video interviews).
As you are reading our encyclopedia on your iPad/tablet (and saving a few trees), we estimate that the price would be $90 if sold as an eBook.
With that number, we can calculate how much money we have saved our readers, based on calculating the number of readers.
How we calculate readership
Because of our online and tablet/iPad approach to publishing, we are able to precisely measure reading behaviour across hundreds of parameters in realtime: Anything from reading
speed, drop-off points in the text, reader demographics, and much more.
Based on our server logs and the Google Analytics API,
we calculate the number of readers as described in the calculation method below.
A reader is not the same as a simple pageview and a reader is not the same as a
website visitor (as described in our calculation method below).
We calculate readership for two types of readers:
- Readers that have read our whole encyclopedia, much the same way you read a printed book
- Readers that have reader an individual chapter
Calcalution method: How we define a reader
- First we use the Google Analytics API to get a report of the number of unique human visitors to a chapter/page. Google runs its business on ads and thus completely relies on the ability to distinguish between a human visitor and an automated request. If not, you could earn millions on automating clicks on Google Ads.
- We then compare that number to our Apache webserver logs, which report the much higher number of actual visits to a chapter/page (both human and automated). We calculate the difference in percent, which we call an "exaggeration factor", which we use in step 6 below.
- With a large part of the visitors excluded, we further exclude any visitor who:
- has not remained on the page for at least 3 minutes (this factor is calculated by recording visit durations of 1000 randomly selected visitors) or has not printed the page (i.e. has not visited the printerfriendly version of the chapter/page)
- has not scrolled the page (this factor is calculated by recording scroll movements on 1000 randomly selected visitors)
- We then further exclude "double readers", i.e. readers who read a portion of a chapter and then returns in,
say, a week or a month to read the rest.
Although this person's reading activity spans multiple server sessions, the person is only counted as a single reader.
We categorize a "double reader" as a visitor who:
- visits a page, or multiple pages, across multiple server sessions
- qualifies to be defined as a reader, cf step 1-3 above, in all server sessions
- uses the same originating IP address
- We then subtract 5% from the final number to counter-balance a last remaining factor, namely the situation where one reader reads a chapter on his/her tablet
using a WiFi connection (and counted as one reader) but then picks up his other tablet using a 3G dongle
(with another IP address) and re-reads some of the chapter. That will equal two readers, not one. We have no way
of calculating how many times this situation arises, but to be on the safe side we subtract 5%
from the final number.
- We then take half of the "exaggeration factor" from step 2 and substract from the final number. We do this for no rational reason. We do it only as a further measure to be certain that our number of readers is not inflated.
- To qualify as a reader who has read our whole encyclopedia - much the same way you read a printed book - that person must have qualified as a reader (cf. 1-6 above) of at least 80% of the encyclopedia chapters.
As a result, we have eliminated everything from automated requests to the more casual visitors. That leaves us with what we can safely call readers.
Changes to this page (author)
23 Feb 2010: Enabled abstracts to be shown on Robert L. Mack's author page.12 Jun 2009: Author was edited (approved by an editor)27 Jun 2007: Author was edited
26 Jun 2007: Author was edited
26 Jun 2007: Author was edited
26 Jun 2007: Author was edited
24 Jun 2007: Author was edited
24 Jun 2007: Author was edited
24 Jun 2007: Author was added to the bibliography
28 Apr 2003: Added the author to the bibliography
Page Information
Page maintainer:
The Editorial TeamHow to cite/reference this page
URL: http://www.interaction-design.org/references/authors/robert_l__mack.html
