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

Steve Wolf

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 Steve Wolf (bibliography)

1997

Edit | Del

Klein, Gary, Kaempf, George L., Wolf, Steve, Thorsden, Marvin and Miller, Thomas (1997): Applying Decision Requirements to User-Centered Design. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 46 (1) pp. 1-15.

“The decision requirements of a task are the key decisions and how they are made. Most task analysis methods address the steps that have to be followed; decision requirements offer a complementary picture of the critical and difficult judgments and decisions needed to carry out the task. This article describes the use of Cognitive Task Analysis methods to identify decision requirements, as part of a project to improve the decision making of AEGIS cruiser officers in high-stress situations. We found that by identifying these requirements, and centering the system design process on them, we could develop storyboards for a human-computer interface that reflected the user's needs.”

1995

Edit | Del

Klein, Gary and Wolf, Steve (1995): Decision-Centered Training. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting 1995. pp. 1249-1252.

“What can the Naturalistic Decision Making (NDM) perspective tell us about training people to make better decisions? The NDM framework offers four guidelines for training. (i) Build expertise, rather than teaching generic analytical strategies; (ii) Support, rather than replace, the strategies people use; (iii) Make the decision requirements specific to the task context; (iv) Model the cognitive processes of subject-matter experts. Training can be implemented using better scenarios and through cognitive modeling. A recent project is described, in which decision-centered training was used at the National Emergency Training Center to revise a set of course materials. The revisions emphasized opportunities to improve situation awareness skills through better specification of critical cues and patterns, and recommendations about using the debriefs following exercises to probe for cognitive processes underlying judgments and decisions.”

1993

Edit | Del

Kaempf, George L., Wolf, Steve and Miller, Thomas E. (1993): Decision Making in the AEGIS Combat Information Center. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 37th Annual Meeting 1993. pp. 1107-1111.

“This paper presents the methods and findings of a study designed to identify the decision requirements for anti-air warfare officers in the Combat Information Center of an AEGIS cruiser. Decision requirements include the decisions that systems operators make, the cognitive strategies they invoke to make these decisions, and the cues and factors essential for making these decisions. These requirements can be used to design training, human-computer interfaces, or decision supports. The researchers adopted a method based on Naturalistic Decision Making (NDM) research. NDM describes how people make decisions in real-world settings under conditions of time pressure, high risk, and ambiguity. This paper describes a process for obtaining data necessary for describing these decision processes. The central method is a semi-structured interview method, the Critical Decision method (CDM). CDM was used to interview 31 experienced AEGIS personnel resulting in 14 incidents that reflect real problems experienced by the operational fleet. Analysis of these incidents revealed 183 decisions. Of these, 103 concerned situation assessments (SA). The operators used feature matching and story building to make all SA decisions. The operators invoked recognitional strategies to generate 95% of the course of action (COA) options and compared multiple options in only 5% of the COA decisions. The findings reported here indicate that under conditions of time pressure and ambiguity: decision makers rarely use analytical decision strategies, they usually satisfice rather than optimize, they rely heavily on diagnostic decisions, and they invoke singular rather than comparative evaluations of courses of action.”

Add publication