Number of co-authors:16
Number of publications with 3 favourite co-authors:Donna P. Tedesco:2Ann Chadwick-Dias:2Douglas J. Gillan:1
Thomas S. Tullis's 3 most productive colleagues in number of publications:Douglas J. Gillan:31Randolph G. Bias:15Robert A. Virzi:11
Computer analyst to programmer: "You start coding. I'll go find out what they want."
-- Popular computer one-liner
Read the fascinating history of Wearable Computing, told by its father, Steve Mann
Read Steve's chapter !
Thomas S. Tullis
Has also published under the name of:
"T. S. Tullis" and "Tom Tullis"
Personal Homepage: members.aol.com/TomTullis/prof.htm
Current place of employment:
Currently Senior Vice President, User Insight, at Fidelity Investments in Boston.
Publications by Thomas S. Tullis (bibliography)
Tullis, Thomas S., Tedesco, Donna P. and McCaffrey, Kate E. (2011): Can users remember their pictorial passwords six years later. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI 2011 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2011. pp. 1789-1794.
Previous research had shown that pictorial passwords, where users recognize their target images among distractors, have potential for improving the usability of authentication systems. A method using personal photos provided by the users as their targets, shown among highly similar distractors, showed the most promise for both accuracy and security. But the longest time period that had been tested between successive login attempts was only about one month. We wanted to see what happens when six years have elapsed. We recruited some of the same participants from the previous study and tested their ability to select their target photos six years later. We found that 12 of 13 participants successfully authenticated themselves. The overall accuracy rate was 95.6%, demonstrating that most users can remember these pictorial passwords even over long periods of time.
© All rights reserved Tullis et al. and/or their publisher
Tullis, Thomas S. and Albert, Bill (2008): Measuring the User Experience: Collecting, Analyzing, and Presenting Usability Metrics. Burlington, MA, USA, Morgan Kaufmann Publishers
Tullis, Thomas S. (2007): Older Adults and the Web: Lessons Learned from Eye-Tracking. In: Stephanidis, Constantine (ed.) Universal Access in Human Computer Interaction. Coping with Diversity, 4th International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction, UAHCI 2007, Held as Part of HCI International 2007, Beijing, China, July 22-27, 2007, Proceedings, Part July 22-27, 2007, Beijing, China. pp. 1030-1039.
Chadwick-Dias, Ann, Bergel, Marguerite and Tullis, Thomas S. (2007): Senior Surfers 2.0: A Re-examination of the Older Web User and the Dynamic Web. In: Stephanidis, Constantine (ed.) UAHCI 2007 - 4th International Conference on Universal Access in Human-Computer Interaction - Part 1 July 22-27, 2007, Beijing, China. pp. 868-876.
Tullis, Thomas S. and Tedesco, Donna P. (2005): Using personal photos as pictorial passwords. In: Proceedings of ACM CHI 2005 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems 2005. pp. 1841-1844.
Pictorial passwords, where the user recognizes "target" images among "distractors", appear to have potential for improving the usability of authentication systems. We conducted three exploratory studies on the use of personal photos for authentication over a three-month period. Participants provided 8-20 photos of personal significance to them but which they believed others would not recognize. They also chose four photos to remember from a set of stock photos. Recognition accuracy for the personal photos was significantly higher than the stock photos. We also manipulated the number of target and distractor photos as well as their similarity, and we tested how well others who know the users could guess their photos. Larger numbers of distractors and greater similarity to the targets made it harder for others to guess the correct photos, while having no impact on the user's own recognition accuracy.
© All rights reserved Tullis and Tedesco and/or ACM Press
Chadwick-Dias, Ann, McNulty, Michelle and Tullis, Thomas S. (2003): Web usability and age: how design changes can improve performance. In: Proceedings of the 2003 ACM Conference on Universal Usability 2003. pp. 30-37.
We conducted two usability studies that included a total of 49 participants ranging in age from 20 to 82. The goal of Study 1 was to learn whether there were differences in how older adults interact with the Web and whether changes in text size would affect performance. Users completed tasks on a prototype employee/retiree benefits site using various text sizes. We learned that older users (55 years or older) had significantly more difficulty using the Web site than younger users. Text size did not significantly affect performance in any age group. In Study 2 new participants performed the same tasks on a version of the site that was redesigned to address the usability problems encountered by older users in Study 1. The goal was to learn whether we could redesign the prototype to improve the performance of older adults. Performance improved significantly for both older and younger users.
© All rights reserved Chadwick-Dias et al. and/or ACM Press
Tullis, Thomas S. (1993): Is User Interface Design Just Common Sense?. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction 1993. pp. 9-14.
This paper presents the results of a test to determine whether or not experienced user interface developers could pick the best user interface for a particular task just using "common sense." In an earlier study, seven different user interfaces for performing a task involving reordering fields in a table were empirically tested. The interfaces studied covered a wide spectrum of styles, including dragging and dropping, button-pressing, and data entry. In the present study, 28 experienced programmers were shown screen images of the seven user interfaces and asked to rank order them from "best" to "worst" for this particular task. Overall, there was virtually no correlation between their rankings and the actual data from the earlier study. The developers ranked the interfaces involving dragging and dropping consistently better than they actually were, while they ranked one of the data entry interfaces consistently worse than it actually was. The results indicate that, at least for this task, good user interface design is not just common sense.
© All rights reserved Tullis and/or Elsevier Science
Bias, Randolph G., Gillan, Douglas J. and Tullis, Thomas S. (1993): Three Usability Enhancements to the Human Factors-Design Interface. In: Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction 1993. pp. 169-174.
In a recent paper (Gillan&Bias, 1992), two of us considered the interaction between human factors (HF) professionals and other software designers. We couched our discussion in familiar human-computer interface (HCI) terms, and then addressed the design of this human-human interface. We identified the objectives or the HF-design interface, listed requirements, and evaluated early interface designs (e.g., where HF experts are involved only at the end of the development cycle). Further, we proposed three design concepts we expected to improve the HF-design interface: education, an electronic gatekeeper, and design analysis software.
© All rights reserved Bias et al. and/or Elsevier Science
Tullis, Thomas S. and Kodimer, Marianne L. (1992): A Comparison of Direct-Manipulation, Selection, and Data-Entry Techniques for Reordering Fields in a Table. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting 1992. pp. 298-302.
A useful feature of data base systems is to allow the user to change the order in which fields appear in the columns of a table. The purpose of this study was to compare the usability of seven different user interfaces for performing this task in the Microsoft Windows environment. The fields to be reordered were file name, file number, size, and creation date. The seven approaches studied covered a range of interaction styles, including dragging and dropping, menu selection, text entry, and button pressing. Fifteen Windows users completed a set of two practice trials using each approach, followed by a set of twelve main trials. For each trial, the user was shown the current order of the fields and a target order to change to. The completion times showed significant differences according to the approach used. Overall, a data-selection technique using radio buttons and a data-entry technique using a single entry area were significantly faster than all of the others. Another data-entry technique, involving multiple entry areas, was consistently the slowest. Somewhat surprisingly, given the current trend toward direct-manipulation interfaces, the two approaches involving dragging and dropping were not among the most effective approaches.
© All rights reserved Tullis and Kodimer and/or Human Factors Society
Virzi, Robert A., Penn, Dick, Tullis, Thomas S. and Greene, Sharon L. (1990): The Uses of Prototyping in User Interface Design and Evaluation. In: D., Woods, and E., Roth, (eds.) Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 34th Annual Meeting 1990, Santa Monica, USA. pp. 264-266.
This panel will explore the varied uses of prototyping in the user interface design process. We expect to show that there is no single thing called "user interface prototyping" and that the differences are, in many ways, greater than the similarities. Panelists have been chosen to represent a wide cross section of user interface design tasks. Collectively, members of the panel have experience in prototyping hardware and software, computer programs and telecommunications services, residential, business, and engineering applications, at various levels of fidelity, and in all parts of the design process. We expect to show how these factors all influence the way prototypes are used and that the designer must be careful in choosing the most appropriate prototyping methodology for his or her needs. Each panelist will begin by characterizing the portion of the design process that he or she will be talking about. This represents a major division in the way prototypes are used, both in the way that they are built and in the type of information sought by the designer. Prototypes used early in the design process (requirements analysis) tend to be of lower fidelity and are used to test preferences for design alternatives, while those used later in the design process (system specification) tend towards higher fidelity and are used to test usability. Each panelist will point out the strengths and weaknesses of his or her prototyping methodology. Each panelist will address the following points: * Appropriate uses of prototyping methodology (early vs. late in design process) * Characteristics of prototypes (platform, level of fidelity, etc.) * Information gathered from the prototypes (evaluate design preferences, measure performance, etc.) * Relative costs of the method (time to build, flexibility, etc.)
© All rights reserved Virzi et al. and/or Human Factors Society
Rossi, Carol A. and Tullis, Thomas S. (1988): A Task-Oriented Prototyping Tool. In ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 19 (3) pp. 75-77.
Sperling, Barbra Bied and Tullis, Thomas S. (1988): Are You a Better "Mouser" or "Trackballer"? A Comparison of Cursor-Positioning Performance. In ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 19 (3) pp. 77-81.
Thacker, Pratapray (Paul), Tullis, Thomas S. and Babu, A. J. G. (1987): Application of Tullis' Visual Search Model to Highlighted and Non-Highlighted Tabular Displays. In: Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 31st Annual Meeting 1987. pp. 1221-1225.
This paper presents a comparison of experimental results with predictions obtained from Tullis' (1984) model of search times for tabular displays. Three levels of information density for displays with and without highlighting were used in a series of experiments. The highlighting of information was done by adding graphic boundaries (lines). Two levels of highlighting were used. A question-answer type of visual search was performed for two different tasks. The search time results are discussed and a method for utilizing Tullis' model for highlighted displays is suggested.
© All rights reserved Thacker et al. and/or Human Factors Society
Tullis, Thomas S. (1986): Optimizing the Usability of Computer-Generated Displays. 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. 604-613.
Previous research indicated that the two best predictors of the time that it takes users to extract information from an alphanumeric display are the number of visual groups of characters on the display and the average visual angle subtended by those groups. As either of these values increases, search time increases. However, the number of groups of characters and their average visual angle are not independent of each other. Using mathematical modelling techniques, an exponential function was derived to describe the relationship between these two display measures. Combining that equation with a regression equation fitting user search time with the two display measures resulted in a U-shaped function relating search time to number of visual groups. The shortest search times were associated with a range of about 19 to 40 groups, which corresponds to an average visual angle of about 4.9 to 2.4 degrees. The results are interpreted as indicating that groups smaller than about 5 degrees allow for a more efficient pattern of visual search, in which the necessary information can be extracted from each group with only one fixation.
© All rights reserved Tullis and/or Cambridge University Press
Tullis, Thomas S. (1985): Designing a Menu-Based Interface to an Operating System. 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. 79-84.
The development of a large menu-based interface to an operating system posed a number of interesting user interface questions. Among those were how to determine the user's view of the relationships among the myriad of functions in the system, and how to reflect those relationships in a menu hierarchy. An experiment utilizing a sorting technique and hierarchical cluster analysis was quite effective in learning the user's perception of the relationships among the system functions. A second experiment comparing a "broad" menu hierarchy to a "deep" menu hierarchy showed that users made significantly fewer inappropriate menu selections with the broad hierarchy.
© All rights reserved Tullis and/or ACM Press
Tullis, Thomas S. (1984): A Computer-Based Tool for Evaluating Alphanumeric Displays. In: Shackel, Brian (ed.) INTERACT 84 - 1st IFIP International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction September 4-7, 1984, London, UK. pp. 719-723.
A computer program has been developed to measure six characteristics of alphanumeric displays: (1) the overall density of characters on the display; (2) the local density of other characters near each character; (3) the number of distinct groups of characters; (4) the average visual angle subtended by those groups; (5) the number of distinct labels or data items; (6) the average uncertainty of the positions of the items on the display. A study of 520 CRT displays that varied on these measures was conducted. Multiple regressions indicated that search times to locate items on the displays could be fit using these display measures (R = .71), as could subjective ratings of ease of use (R = .90).
© All rights reserved Tullis and/or North-Holland
Show this list on your homepage
Join the technology elite and advance:
Changes to this page (author)05 Jul 2011: Added11 Feb 2010: Modified
05 Jun 2009: Added
04 Jun 2009: Added
29 Sep 2008: Added
29 Sep 2008: Modified
24 Sep 2008: Modified
24 Sep 2008: Added
16 Sep 2008: Modified
06 Sep 2008: Modified
29 Jun 2007: Added
28 Jun 2007: Added
28 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
26 Jun 2007: Added
25 Jun 2007: Added
23 Jun 2007: Added
23 Jun 2007: Added
22 Jun 2007: Added
28 Apr 2003: Added
Page maintainer: The Editorial Team