Interaction Design Foundation
Free educational materials - made by the world's technology elite
 
Join us on Linkedin
Join us on Twitter
Join us on Google plus
Get our RSS Feed
 
 
ReferencesNavigation arrowAuthorsNavigation arrowTerence S. Andre

Publication statistics

Pub. period:1994-2009
Pub. count:8
Number of co-authors:12



Co-authors

Number of publications with 3 favourite co-authors:

H. Rex Hartson:4
Robert C. Williges:3
Randall W. Gibb:1

 

 

Productive colleagues

Terence S. Andre's 3 most productive colleagues in number of publications:

H. Rex Hartson:30
Robert C. Williges:23
Chad C. Tossell:5
 
 
 
Jun 18

“ Computer programs emerge as the outcome of complex human processes of cognition, communication and negotiation, which serve to establish the meaningful embedding of the computer system in its intended use context. ”

-- Floyd, 1992, p. 24

 
 

Featured chapter

Read the fascinating history of Wearable Computing, told by its father, Steve Mann

Read Steve's chapter !

 
 

Latest books

The Social Design of Technical Systems: Building technologies for communities
by Brian Whitworth and Adnan Ahmad

 
Start reading

The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd Ed.
by Mads Soegaard and Rikke Friis Dam

 
Start reading
 
 

Help us help you!

 
 

Terence S. Andre

Picture of Terence S. Andre. Copyright unknown.
Add description
Add publication

Publications by Terence S. Andre (bibliography)

 what's this?
2009
 
Edit | Del

Tidball, Brian E., Gibb, Randall W., Andre, Terence S. and Tossell, Chad C. (2009): Undergraduate Human Factors Curriculum at the United States Air Force Academy. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 53rd Annual Meeting 2009. pp. 469-473.

“This paper shares one organization's journey to assess its human factors curriculum, develop improved course content to address current topics and accommodate the growing number of systems engineers in the human factors classroom.”

© All rights reserved Tidball et al. and/or their publisher

2007
 
Edit | Del

Howarth, Jonathan, Andre, Terence S. and Hartson, Rex (2007): A Structured Process for Transforming Usability Data into Usability Information. In Journal of Usability Studies, 3 (1) pp. 7-23.

“Much research has been devoted to developing usability evaluation methods that are used in evaluating interaction designs. More recently, however, research has shifted away from evaluation methods and comparisons of evaluation methods to issues of how to use the raw usability data generated by these methods. Associated with this focus is the assumption that the transformation of the raw usability data into usability information is relatively straightforward. We would argue that this assumption is incorrect, especially for novice usability practitioners. In this article, we present a structured process for transforming raw usability data into usability information that is based on a new way of thinking about usability problem data. The results of a study of this structured process indicate that it helps improve the effectiveness of novice usability practitioners.”

© All rights reserved Howarth et al. and/or Usability Professionals Association

2003
 
Edit | Del

Hartson, H. Rex, Andre, Terence S. and Williges, Robert C. (2003): Criteria For Evaluating Usability Evaluation Methods. In International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 15 (1) pp. 145-181.

“The current variety of alternative approaches to usability evaluation methods (UEMs) designed to assess and improve usability in software systems is offset by a general lack of understanding of the capabilities and limitations of each. Practitioners need to know which methods are more effective and in what ways and for what purposes. However, UEMs cannot be evaluated and compared reliably because of the lack of standard criteria for comparison. In this article, we present a practical discussion of factors, comparison criteria, and UEM performance measures useful in studies comparing UEMs. In demonstrating the importance of developing appropriate UEM evaluation criteria, we offer operational definitions and possible measures of UEM performance. We highlight specific challenges that researchers and practitioners face in comparing UEMs and provide a point of departure for further discussion and refinement of the principles and techniques used to approach UEM evaluation and comparison.”

© All rights reserved Hartson et al. and/or Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

2001
 
Edit | Del

Andre, Terence S., Hartson, H. Rex, Belz, Steven M. and McCreary, Faith A. (2001): The User Action Framework: A Reliable Foundation for Usability Engineering Support Tools. In International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 54 (1) pp. 107-136.

“Although various methods exist for performing usability evaluation, they lack a systematic framework for guiding and structuring the assessment and reporting activities. Consequently, analysis and reporting of usability data are ad hoc and do not live up to their potential in cost effectiveness, and usability engineering support tools are not well integrated. We developed the User Action Framework, a structured knowledge base of usability concepts and issues, as a framework on which to build a broad suite of usability engineering support tools. The User Action Framework helps to guide the development of each tool and to integrate the set of tools in the practitioner's working environment. An important characteristic of the User Action Framework is its own reliability in term of consistent use by practitioners. Consistent understanding and reporting of the underlying causes of usability problems are requirements for cost-effective analysis and redesign. Thus, high reliability in terms of agreement by users on what the User Action Framework means and how it is used is essential for its role as a common foundation for the tools. Here we describe how we achieved high reliability in the User Action Framework, and we support the claim with strongly positive results of a summative reliability study conducted to measure agreement among 10 usability experts in classifying 15 different usability problems. Reliability data from the User Action Framework are also compared to data collected from nine of the same usability experts using a classic heuristic evaluation technique.”

© All rights reserved Andre et al. and/or Academic Press

 
Edit | Del

Hartson, H. Rex, Andre, Terence S. and Williges, Robert C. (2001): Criteria For Evaluating Usability Evaluation Methods. In International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 13 (4) pp. 373-410.

“The current variety of alternative approaches to usability evaluation methods (UEMs) designed to assess and improve usability in software systems is offset by a general lack of understanding of the capabilities and limitations of each. Practitioners need to know which methods are more effective and in what ways and for what purposes. However, UEMs cannot be evaluated and compared reliably because of the lack of standard criteria for comparison. In this article, we present a practical discussion of factors, comparison criteria, and UEM performance measures useful in studies comparing UEMs. In demonstrating the importance of developing appropriate UEM evaluation criteria, we offer operational definitions and possible measures of UEM performance. We highlight specific challenges that researchers and practitioners face in comparing UEMs and provide a point of departure for further discussion and refinement of the principles and techniques used to approach UEM evaluation and comparison.”

© All rights reserved Hartson et al. and/or Lawrence Erlbaum Associates

1999
 
Edit | Del

Hartson, H. Rex, Andre, Terence S., Williges, Robert C. and Rens, Linda van (1999): The User Action Framework: A Theory-Based Foundation for Inspection and Classification of Usability Problems. In: Bullinger, Hans-Jörg (ed.) HCI International 1999 - Proceedings of the 8th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction August 22-26, 1999, Munich, Germany. pp. 1058-1062.

1995
 
Edit | Del

Andre, Terence S. and Pouraghabagher, A. Reza (1995): Evaluation of Computer-Based Progress Indicators in the Missile Launch Control Center. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 39th Annual Meeting 1995. pp. 40-44.

“Missile crew members are subject to certain inefficiencies in the daily operations of maintaining a missile on strategic alert. A computer-based display of procedural information offers several features that can assist a missile crew member. One of these features is the capability to provide progress information (i.e., feedback) to the operator during checklist execution. An experiment was conducted to examine differences between experts and non-experts in three computer-based formats with respect to the current paper-based system. The computer-based formats varied as to the type of feedback provided to the operators. The results indicated that experts responded faster and more accurately than non-experts. Computer-based checklists allowed experts and non-experts to substantially reduce their error rates compared to the paper-based system. User-initiated scrolling time for the computer-based formats had no impact on overall performance.”

© All rights reserved Andre and Pouraghabagher and/or Human Factors Society

1994
 
Edit | Del

Andre, Terence S. and Charlton, Samuel G. (1994): Strategy-to-Task: Human Factors Operational Test and Evaluation at the Task-Level. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 38th Annual Meeting 1994. pp. 1085-1089.

“Human factors operational test and evaluation (OT&E) at the function/characteristic level has not always provided an appropriate balance of addressing both the needs of the system user and the decision-maker. System users are primarily concerned with the characteristics and capabilities of their system. Acquisition decision-makers, on the other hand, are more concerned with force structure and how potential military systems fit within the national military strategy. Human factors OT&E has traditionally considered the user of the system by testing human factors at a characteristic, rather than mission or operational task-level. In order to address the needs of the decision-maker, OT&E has adopted a strategy-to-task formulation that can have the undesirable side effect of decreasing the visibility of human factors test results. Because human factors measures are considered at the system function/characteristic level, significant human performance/human-machine interface issues are not always visible at the level of higher task elements and missions. Systems which require significant human-in-control or human-in-the-loop operability may lend themselves to consideration at the task-level. Testing human factors at the task-level within the strategy-to-task framework provides both the decision-maker and user with the necessary information to buy and properly operate the system.”

© All rights reserved Andre and Charlton and/or Human Factors Society

 
Add publication
Show list on your website
 
 

Join the technology elite and advance:

 
1.

Your career

 
2.

Your network

 
 3.

Your skills

 
 
 
 
 
 

Changes to this page (author)

18 Nov 2010: Modified
03 Nov 2010: Modified
05 Jun 2009: Modified
26 Jun 2007: Modified
26 Jun 2007: Modified
28 Apr 2003: Added

Page Information

Page maintainer: The Editorial Team
URL: http://www.interaction-design.org/references/authors/terence_s__andre.html

Publication statistics

Pub. period:1994-2009
Pub. count:8
Number of co-authors:12



Co-authors

Number of publications with 3 favourite co-authors:

H. Rex Hartson:4
Robert C. Williges:3
Randall W. Gibb:1

 

 

Productive colleagues

Terence S. Andre's 3 most productive colleagues in number of publications:

H. Rex Hartson:30
Robert C. Williges:23
Chad C. Tossell:5
 
 
 
Jun 18

“ Computer programs emerge as the outcome of complex human processes of cognition, communication and negotiation, which serve to establish the meaningful embedding of the computer system in its intended use context. ”

-- Floyd, 1992, p. 24

 
 

Featured chapter

Read the fascinating history of Wearable Computing, told by its father, Steve Mann

Read Steve's chapter !

 
 

Latest books

The Social Design of Technical Systems: Building technologies for communities
by Brian Whitworth and Adnan Ahmad

 
Start reading

The Encyclopedia of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd Ed.
by Mads Soegaard and Rikke Friis Dam

 
Start reading
 
 

Help us help you!

 
 
 
 
About | Press kit / Media kit | Copyright/IP Policy | General Terms of Use / General Site Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy

How to help | Site Map

RSS Subscribe through an RSS feed
 
.