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 25

“ Civilization advances by extending the number of important operations which we can perform without thinking of them. ”

-- Alfred North Whitehead

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

Rosemary J. Stevenson

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 Rosemary J. Stevenson (bibliography)

1998

Edit | Del

Mcdonald, Sharon and Stevenson, Rosemary J. (1998): Navigation in Hyperspace: An Evaluation of the Effects of Navigational Tools and Subject Matter Expertise on Browsing and Information Retrieval in Hypertext. In Interacting with Computers, 10 (2) pp. 129-142.

“This study examined the effectiveness of a map and a textual contents list on the navigation performance of subjects with and without prior knowledge of the text topic. After reading the text, subjects used the document to answer ten questions. The results showed that performance in the map condition was superior to that of the contents list condition, which in turn was superior to that of the hypertext only condition (no navigational aid). In addition, knowledgeable subjects performed better than non-knowledgeable subjects, except in the map condition where their performance was equivalent. The results also show that non-knowledgeable users tend to rely more heavily on navigational aids than knowledgeable users, and that aids were used primarily during browsing. These results are discussed in relation to the ways in which navigational aids interact with the prior knowledge of the user to enhance or impede performance.”

1988

Edit | Del

Stevenson, Rosemary J., Manktelow, K. I. and Howard, M. J. (1988): Knowledge Elicitation: Dissociating Conscious Reflections from Automatic Processes. 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. 565-579.

“One major difficulty with standard techniques of knowledge elicitation is that they require an expert to give a verbal report of his or her knowledge. This assumes that people have conscious access to all of their cognitive processes. 'Thinking aloud' techniques explicitly make this assumption. However, recent developments in cognitive psychology suggest that this assumption is not appropriate. When solving a problem, people may use fast, automatic processes which are not available to conscious reflection. These fast automatic processes can be distinguished from conscious reflection. Two computer programming experts were videoed while each taught a class of students some basic programming concepts. Four 'novice' students from each class were also videoed while explaining the taught material to another person. These videos recorded the fast, automatic actions of people describing concepts. A week later, each person's video was played back to them and key questions were asked about the subject's intentions at different points in the video. These interviews recorded the conscious evaluations and interpretations of the original performance. The reports given at these interviews were classified into production rules. A standard knowledge elicitation technique was also used on the same subjects and the same material. Subjects were presented with ten concept names from the lectures and carried out paired comparisons of the ten concept names. The outcome of the paired comparisons was then subjected to multidimensional scaling. The type and extent of the knowledge elicited in the two situations is compared for both experts and novices.”

Add publication