This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Notes
- 1.
The predominance of the physical aspects of computing is illustrated by the names of the older scientific organizations dealing with information technology, such as the Association for Computing Machinery or the British Computer Society—explicit reference is made to the physical equipment.
- 2.
The study of software architecture is, in large, part a study of software structure. Edsger Dijkstra (1976) pointed out the importance of how software is partitioned and structured, as opposed to simply programming so as to produce a correct result. David Parnas contributed to the field with his seminal publications on information-hiding in modules (1972) and software structures (1974).
- 3.
Bill Buxton explained the designers’ call for a “green light process”, with an up-front design phase preceding software engineering (Buxton, 2003) to be motivated by the same dilemma: development often follows functional specifications, adding more and more functionality, without an understanding of the overall design vision.
- 4.
As discussed later, it is sometimes difficult to decide what exactly the core functionality of a design might be—due to changing requirements, changing environments, novelty or an interaction of design with use. Iterative and agile development can thus also help to define core functionality.
- 5.
Tupperware seems to have implemented a very successful process that combines user research with marketing with distribution. Unfortunately, very little research data has found its way into usability.
- 6.
Rolland et al. (1998) classify scenarios according to their role in the requirements engineering process; they distinguish descriptive, exploratory and explanatory scenarios. The first two map to (1) and (2), respectively, while explanatory scenarios are used to mark human or system errors, and clarify design rationale. Explanatory scenarios thus map to both (1) and (3) here. Rolland et al. do not explicitly examine the function of scenarios as representations of a design specification—in this article, their discussion is limited to requirements engineering and stops short of the design activity.
- 7.
In this approach to usability engineering, scenarios are employed in different stages of the design process to describe both the current and envisioned work context, facilitate communication between user and designer, and serve as a medium for exploration. Although this focus on scenarios as a medium might seem -academic, the design process illustrates the different uses that scenarios can have in real processes.
- 8.
The documentation of design rationale in the form of “claims”, lists of trade-offs implied by design decisions, is omitted here for brevity, although it forms an important part of the SBD process (ibid., 72).
- 9.
A number of sub-disciplines of computer science have influenced the development of more or less formal conceptual models: Databases (ER-diagrams), AI and programming languages contributed to this research area. (For an early account of the different disciplines, see Brodie et al., 1984).
- 10.
The acronym KISS is often translated to “keep it small and simple”, or the less politically correct “keep it simple, stupid”. The term was coined long before it was used to describe simplicity in agile processes. Example uses include the description of software functionality (Dorsey, 1983), and the formulation of slogans in marketing and articles in the press; links to Ockham’s razor (1654) illustrate the KISS rule’s ancient history.
- 11.
It also helps to react to change—either induced by the introduction of the software itself, or because the customer environment changed during development. This is a frequent problem: In 8,000 large software projects, about 40 percent of requirements arrived after development had begun. (Jones, 1995)
- 12.
This does not necessarily mean that collaboration between individuals is impossible in any given project, nor will a lack of defined collaboration prevent sound designs. However, if collaboration is reduced to documents in a process, this speaks about the existing culture divide in a company.
- 13.
The second edition of Extreme Programming: Explained (Beck and Andres, 2004) softens this requirement with the “core practice” called “Whole Team”, acknowledging specific roles, but still demanding that “all the contributors to an XP project sit together, members of one team” (Jeffries, 2001; Jeffries et al., 2000).
- 14.
Seffah et al. (2004) described the preconditions for integrating Usability Engineering and Software Engineering as follows: “Historically, UCD has been described as the opposite of the system-driven philosophy generally used in engineering (Norman and Draper, 1986). … This Cartesian dichotomy that decouples the UI from the remaining system and builds a barrier between engineers and psychologists is not an engineering approach. … usability specialists must think and work like engineers (Mayhew, 1999).”
- 15.
For an example, Beyer et al., (2004) had to significantly reduce their Contextual Design method to make it more lightweight. Still, the design and the development team need to interact, and in practice this interaction is often limited to iteration meetings, thus introducing a need for documentation into the agile process, effectively reducing its agility.
- 16.
Essential use cases are a generalized form of use cases as they are defined in the Unified Modeling Language (comp. Fowler, 2003), and try to capture essential interactions between the user and the system instead of individual steps.
- 17.
In the academic setting, a student project realized a distributed calendar application, with a client-server architecture; in one industrial project, the relationship of different workflows for registering insurance records, and the necessities for interfacing with other software components were captured in scenarios.
- 18.
Eastwood reports that in Fortune 1000 companies, 75% of the total IT budget goes to maintenance. (for further figures see Koskinen, 2003)
- 19.
- 20.
Worth-centered development started out as value-based development. The name change was made to highlight the importance of delivering worth, “focusing on specific arenas of value”, and broadens the focus of design factors to include “‘needs’, ‘quality’, ‘values’ and ‘wants’” (Cockton, 2006).
- 21.
CommSy is available from http://www.commsy.net
- 22.
Jackewitz et al., (2002) expand the notion of simplicity to “clear functionality…simple structure…simple layout”, and “simple access”. However, unlike the simplicity of functionality, the other interpretations cease to be part of recent CommSy versions: the “simple” that here denotes a unified structure was later dropped in favor of structural minimalism, and the “simple layout” is also changing in current versions with the addition of icons. Still relevant is the “simple access” by relying on Web standards, yet this infrastructure-based understanding of simplicity is beyond the scope of this analysis.
- 23.
Communities of practice were already used by John Seely Brown, “They are peers in the execution of ‘real work’. What holds them together is a common sense of purpose and a real need to know what each other knows. There are many communities of practice within a single company, and most people belong to more than one of them.” (Brown, 1990), and made popular by Etienne Wenger who defined them as “a group of people informally bound together by shared expertise and passion for a joint enterprise.” (Wenger and Snyder, 2000)
- 24.
Values are here again used in the broadest sense, limited neither to the design itself as in the case study nor to software costs (comp. Boehm, 2003).
- 25.
The inclusion of use in product design and development can also help better estimate acceptance—software development methods often relate little to customers and do not connect the product to its use (comp. Forlizzi, 2008; Rainey, 2005, 482) and marketing approaches consider customer satisfaction as a static after-market result(comp. Vanalli and Cziulik, 2003).
References
37signals (2006). Getting Real. https://gettingreal.37signals.com/toc.php_q?_4
Ambler, S. W., and Jeffries, R. (2002). Agile Modeling: Effective Practices for Extreme Programming and the Unified Process. New York, NY: Wiley.
Balzert, H. (1985). Allgemeine Prinzipien des Software Engineering. Angewandte Informatik, 1, 1–8.
Balzert, H. (2000). Lehrbuch der Software- Technik 1/2. mit 3 CD-ROMs. Band 1 (2. Auflage, 2000), Band 2 (1. Auflage, 1998) Software- Entwicklung / Software-Management, Software-Qualitätssicherung, Unternehmensmodellierung. Berlin: Spektrum Akademischer Verlag.
Beck, K. (1999). Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change. New York, NY: Addison Wesley.
Beck, K., and Andres, C. (2004). Extreme Programming Explained: Embrace Change (2nd Edition). New York, NY: Addison-Wesley Professional.
Beck, K., Beedle, M., van Bennekum, A., Cockburn, A., Cunningham, W., Fowler, M., Grenning, J., Highsmith, J., Hunt, A., Jeffries, R., Kern, J., Marick, B., Martin, R. C., Mellor, S., Schwaber, K., Sutherland, J., and Thomas, D. (2001). Agile Manifesto. www.agilemanifesto.org Accessed 2.7.2008
Beyer, H., and Holtzblatt, K. (1997). Contextual Design: A Customer-Centered Approach to Systems Designs (The Morgan Kaufmann Series in Interactive Technologies). San Fransisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Beyer, H. R., and Holtzblatt, K. (1995). Apprenticing with the customer. Communications of ACM, 38(5), 45–52.
Beyer, H. R., Holtzblatt, K., and Baker, L. (2004). An Agile Customer-Centered Method: Rapid Contextual Design. Extreme Programming and Agile Methods – XP/Agile Universe 2004, 50–59. Available online at http://www.incontextdesign.com/resource/pdf/XPUniverse2004.pdf
Bjerknes, G., and Bratteteig, T. (1995). User participation and democracy: a discussion of Scandinavian research on systems development. Scandinavian Journal of Information Systems, 7(1), 73–98.
Blomquist, Å., and Arvola, M. (2002). Personas in Action: Ethnography in an Interaction Design Team. NordiCHI '02: Proceedings of the second Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction, New York, NY, USA, 197–200.
Boehm, B. (1975). The high cost of software. Addison-Wesley.
Boehm, B. (2003). Value-based software engineering. SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 28(2), 4.
Bolchini, D., Garzotto, F., and Paolini, P. (2008). Value-Driven Design for “Infosuasive” Web Applications. Beijing, China, 745–754. Available online at http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1367497.1367598
Bødker, S., and Christiansen, E. (1997). Scenarios as springboards in the design of CSCW. In Be al. (Ed.), Social Science Research, Technical Systems and Cooperative. 217–234. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Bødker, S., and Christiansen, E. (2004). Designing for Ephemerality and Prototypicality. DIS '04: Proceedings of the 2004 conference on Designing interactive systems, New York, NY, USA, 255–260.
Braa, K. (1995). Priority Workshops: Springboard for User Participation in Redesign Activities. Proc. COOCS 1995, New York, NY, USA, 246–255.
Brandt, E. (2006). Designing Exploratory Design Games: A Framework for Participation in Participatory Design? Participatory Design Conference, Trento, Italy, 57–66.
Brandt, E., and Messeter, J.,rn. (2004). Facilitating Collaboration Through Design Games. PDC 04: Proceedings of the eighth conference on Participatory design, New York, NY, USA, 121–131.
Brechin, E. (2002). Reconciling market segments and Personas. http://www.cooper.com/journal/2002/03reconciling_market_segments_an.html/
Brodie, M. L., Mylopoulos, J., and Schmidt, J. W. (1984). On Conceptual Modelling: Perspectives from Artificial Intelligence, Databases, and Programming Languages (Topics in Information Systems). Berlin: Springer-Verlag.
Brooks, Jr. F. P. (1987). No silver bullet – Essence and accidents of software engineering. IEEE Computer, 20(4), 10–19.
Brown, J. S., and Duguid, P. (1991). Organizational learning and communities-of-practice: toward a unified view of working, learning, and innovation, organization. Science, 2(1), 40–57.
Brown, J. S. (1990). Research that reinvents the corporation. Harvard Bus. Rev, 68(1), 102.
Butler, K. A. (1996). Usability engineering turns 10. Interactions, 3(1), 58–75.
Buxton, B. (2003). Performance by Design: The Role of Design in Software Product Development. Proceedings of the second international conference on usage-centered design, Portsmouth, NH, 1–15.
Carroll, J. M, (1992). Making errors, making sense, making use. In C Floyd (Ed.), Software Development and Reality Construction. 155–167. Berlin Heidelberg New York: Springer.
Carroll, J. M. (1995). Scenario-Based Design: Envisioning Work and Technology in System Development. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons.
Carroll, J. M. (1997). Reconstructing Minimalism. SIGDOC '97: Proceedings of the 15th annual international conference on computer documentation, New York, NY, USA, 27–34.
Carroll, J. M. (2002). Scenarios and Design Cognition. IEEE joint international conference on requirements engineering (RE’02), Essen, 3. Available online at http://doi.ieeecomputersociety.org/10.1109/ICRE.2002.1048498
Carroll, J. M., Chin, G., Rosson, M. B., and Neale, D. C. (2000). The Development of Cooperation: Five Years of Participatory Design in the Virtual School. DIS '00: Proceedings of the conference on designing interactive systems, New York, NY, USA, 239–251.
Carroll, J. M., and Rosson, M. B. (1992). Getting around the task-artifact cycle: how to make claims and design by scenario. ACM Transactions on the Information Systems, 10(2), 181–212.
Carroll, J. M., Rosson, M. B., Jr., George, C., and Koenemann, J. (1998). Requirements Development in Scenario-Based Design. IEEE Transactions On the Software Engineering, 24(12), 1156–1170.
Carroll, J. M., Singley, M. K., and Rosson, M. (1992). Integrating theory development with design evaluation. Behavior & Information Technology, 11, 247–255.
Chin, G. J., Rosson, M. B., and Carroll, J. M. (1997). Participatory Analysis: Shared Development of requirements from scenarios. CHI '97: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in computing Systems, New York, NY, USA, 162–169.
Clements, P. C. (1999). Constructing Superior Software (Software Quality Institute Series). Indianapolis, IN: Sams Publishing.
Coad, P., Lefevre, E., and DeLuca, E. (1999). Java Modeling in Color with UML: Enterprise Components and Process. New Jersey, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Cockton, G. (2004a). From Quality in Use to Value in the World. CHI '04: CHI '04 extended abstracts on Human factors in computing systems, Vienna, Austria: ACM Press.
Cockton, G. (2004b). Value-centred HCI. NordiCHI '04: Proceedings of the third Nordic conference on Human-computer interaction, New York, NY, USA, 149–160.
Cockton, G. (2005). A Development Framework for Value-Centred Design. CHI 2005 Extended Abstracts, 1292–1295, Portland, OR: ACM Press.
Cockton, G. (2006). Designing worth is worth designing. Oslo, Norway, 165–174. Available online at http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1182475.1182493
Cockton, G. (2007). Putting Value into E-valu-ation. In E Law, E Hvannberg, and G Cockton (Eds.), Maturing Usability: Quality in Software, Interaction and Value. Berlin: Springer.
Cohn, M. (2004). User Stories Applied: For Agile Software Development. New Jersey, NJ: Addison Wesley.
Constantine, L. L., and Lockwood, L. A. D. (2002). Usage-centered engineering for web applications. IEEE Software, 19(2), 42–50.
Constantine, L. L., and Lockwood, L. A. D. (1999). Software for Use: A Practical Guide to the Models and Methods of Usage-Centered Design (Acm Press Series). New Jersey, NJ: Addison-Wesley Professional.
Cooper, A. (1999). The Inmates Are Running the Asylum : Why High Tech Products Drive Us Crazy and How To Restore The Sanity, Indianapolis, IN: Macmillian Publishing.
Cooper, A. (2003). The Origin of Personas. http://www.cooper.com/journal/2003/08/the_origin_of_personas.html
Cooper, A., and Reimann, R. M. (2003). About Face 2.0: The Essentials of Interaction Design. New York, NY: Wiley.
Dalsgård, P., and Halskov, K. (2006). Real life Experiences with Experience Design. Oslo, Norway, 331–340. Available online at http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1182475.1182510
Davis, A. M. (1995). 201 Principles of Software Development. Columbus, OH: McGraw-Hill.
de Luca, J. (1998). Original FDD Processes. http://www.nebulon.com/articles/fdd/originalprocesses.html Accessed 2.7.2008
de Luca, J. (2002). Latest FDD Processes. http://www.nebulon.com/articles/fdd/download/fddprocessesA4.pdf Accessed 2.7.2008
Dijkstra, E. (1976). A Discipline of Programming.
Dijkstra, E. W. (1972). The humble programmer. Communications of the ACM, 15(10), 859–866.
Dix, A., Ormerod, T., Twidale, M., Sas, C., Gomes da Silva P., and McKnight, L. (2006). Why Bad Ideas are a Good Idea. Proceedings of HCIEd.2006-1 Inventivity, Ballina/Killaloe, Ireland,. Available online at http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/computing/users/dixa/papers/HCIed2006-badideas/
Djajadiningrat, J. P., Gaver, W. W., and Fres, J. W. (2000). Interaction Relabelling and Extreme Characters: Methods for Exploring Aesthetic Interactions. DIS '00: Proceedings of the conference on Designing interactive systems, New York, NY, USA, 66–71.
Donovan, J., and Brereton, M. (2004). Meaning in Movement: A Gestural Design Game. Extended Abstracts PDC2004 Artful integration: Interweaving Media, Materials and Practices, Toronto, Canada.
Dorsey, J. G. (1983). Word Processing in an M.I.S Environment. ACM 83: Proceedings of the 1983 annual conference on computers : Extending the human resource, New York, NY, USA, 225.
Fenton, N. E., and Pfleeger, S. L. (1996). Software Metrics: A Rigorous and Practical Approach. Boston, MA: International Thomson Computer Press.
Finck, M., and Jackewitz, I. (2006). Flyer zur Software CommSy. http://service.commsy.net/downloads/commsy_flyer_produkt.pdf Accessed 13.10.2008
Finck, M., Janneck, M., Obendorf, H., and Gumm, D. (2006). CCS – eine Methode zur kontextübergreifenden Softwareentwicklung. Mensch & Computer 2006: Mensch und Computer im StrukturWandel, München, 93–102.
Fischer, G. (2001). External and Sharable Artifacts as Sources for Social Creativity in Communities of Interest. Computational and cognitive models of creative design V: Reprints of the fifth international roundtable conference on computational and cognitive models of creative design, Sydney, 67–89.
Fischer, G. (2004). Social Creativity: Turning Barriers into Opportunities for Collaborative Design. PDC 04: Proceedings of the eighth conference on Participatory design, New York, NY, USA, 152–161.
Fischer, G. (2006). Beyond binary choices: Understanding and exploiting trade–offs to enhance creativity. First Monday, 4(11).
Flanagan, M., Howe, D. C., and Nissenbaum, H. (2005). Values at Play: Design Tradeoffs in Socially-Oriented Game Design. Portland, Oregon, USA, 751–760.
Floyd, C. (1987). Outline of a Paradigm Change in Software Engineering. In Be al. (Ed.), Computers and Democracy – A Scandinavian Challenge, 253–350, Avebury, England: Avebury.
Floyd, C. (1993). STEPS – A Methodical Approach to PD. Commun. ACM, 36(6), 83.
Floyd, C., and Piepenburg, U. (1993). STEPS – ein softwaretechnischer Projektansatz und seine arbeitswissenschaftliche Begründung. GI Jahrestagung, 145–150.
Floyd, C., Reisin, F-M., and Schmidt, G. (1989). STEPS to Software Development with Users. ESEC '89, 2nd European Software Engineering Conference, 48–64.
Forlizzi, J. (2008). The Product Ecology: Understanding Social Product Use and Supporting Design Culture. International Journal of Design, 2(1), pp. 11–20.
Fowler, M. (2003). UML Distilled: A Brief Guide to the Standard Object Modeling Language, Third Edition. New Jersey, NJ: Addison-Wesley Professional.
Fowler, M., Beck, K., Brant, J., Opdyke, W., and Roberts, D. (1999). Refactoring: Improving the Design of Existing Code. New Jersey, NJ: Addison-Wesley Professional.
Freeman-Benson, B., and Borning, A. (2003). YP and Urban Simulation: Applying an Agile Programming Methodology in a Politically Tempestuous Domain. Agile Development Conference, Salt Lake City, Utah.
Friedman, B. (1996). Value-sensitive design. Interactions: New Visions of Human-Computer Interaction, 3(6), 17–23.
Friedman, B. (1997). Human Values and the Design of Computer Technology. Stanford: CSLI publications.
Friedman, B., Kahn, P. H., Jr., and Borning, A. (2008). Value sensitive design and information systems. In KE Himma and HT Tavani (Eds.), The Handbook of Information and Computer Ethics. 69–101. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.
Gabriel, R. P. (1991). Lisp: Good news, bad news, how to win big. AI Expert 6, pp. 31–39. Available online: http://www.dreamsongs.org/WIB.html.
Gedenryd, H. (1998). How Designers Work (Lund University cognitive studies). Unpublished PhD Dissertation, Lund University, Lund. Available online at http://www.lucs.lu.se/People/Henrik.Gedenryd/HowDesignersWork/
Gilmore, D. J., Cockton, G., Churchill, E., Kujala, S., Henderson, A., and Hammontree, M. (2008). Values, Value and Worth: Their Relationship to hci? Florence, Italy, 3933–3936.
Goodwin, K. (2001). Perfecting your Personas. http://www.cooper.com/journal/2001/08/perfecting_your_personas.html
Goodwin, K. (2002). Getting from Research to Personas: Harnessing the Power of Data. http://www.cooper.com/journal/2002/11/getting_from_research_to_perso.html
Green, T. R. G. (1989). Cognitive dimensions of notations. In A Sutcliffe and L Macaulay: People and Computers v 443–460. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Greenbaum, J., Kyng, M., and King, M. (1991). Design at Work: Cooperative Design of Computer Systems. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, US.
Greenwood, W. (2002). Product complexity driving you crazy? Learn where to cut. http://www.cooper.com/newsletters/2002_06/product_complexity-learn_where_to_cut.htm Accessed 13.10.2008
Grudin, J., and Pruitt, J. (2002). Personas, Participatory Design and Product Development: An Infrastructure for Engagement. Participatory Design Conference, Malmö, Sweden.
Grudin, J. (1994). Groupware and social dynamics: eight challenges for developers. Communications of ACM, 37(1), 92–105.
Hackos, J., and Redish, J. (1998). User and task analysis for interface design. Sciences, 4, 515–526.
Hassenzahl, M., Platz, A., Burmester, M., and Lehner, K. (2000). Hedonic and Ergonomic Quality Aspects Determine a Software's Appeal. CHI '00: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, New York, NY, USA, 201–208.
Hassenzahl, M., and Ullrich, D. (2007). To do or not to do: Differences in user experience and retrospective judgments depending on the presence or absence of instrumental goals. Interacting with Computers, 19(4), 429–437.
Henderson, A., Anderson, L., Ashley, J., Heuman, P., and Rohn, J. (2006). The Route to the Sea for User Value. MontrÈal, QuÈbec, Canada, 53–56.
Henderson, A., and Bradt, A. (2006). Building User Value into the Business Case. MontrÈal, QuÈbec, Canada, 25–27.
Hertzum, M. (2003). Making use of scenarios: a field study of conceptual design. International Journal on Human-Computer Studies, 58(2), 215–239.
Highsmith, J. (2002). Agile Software Development Ecosystems. Addison Wesley.
Hirschheim, R., Klein, H, K., and Lyytinen, K. (1995). Information Systems Development and Data Modeling: Conceptual and Philosophical Foundations (Cambridge Tracts in Theoretical Computer Science). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Holtzblatt, K. (2002). Personas and Contextual Design. http://www.incent.com/community/design_corner/02_0913.html
Holtzblatt, K., Wendell, J. B., and Wood, S. (2004). Rapid Contextual Design: A How-to Guide to Key Techniques for User-Centered Design (The Morgan Kaufmann Series in Interactive Technologies). San Fransisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
IEEE. (1990). 610.12-1990: IEEE Standard Glossary of Software Engineering Terminology (610.12). IEEE.
Jackewitz, I., Janneck, M., and Pape, B. (2002). Vernetzte Projektarbeit mit CommSy. Mensch & Computer 2002: Vom interaktiven Werkzeug zu kooperativen Arbeits- und Lernwelten.
Janneck, M., Finck, M., and Obendorf, H. (2006). Grenzen bei der Verwendung von Leitbildern – ein Fallbeispiel. Mensch & Computer 2006: Mensch und Computer im StrukturWandel, München, 73–82.
Jarke, M., Bui, X. T., and Carroll, J. M. (1998). Scenario management: An interdisciplinary approach. Requirements Engineering Journal, 3(3–4), pp. 155–173.
Jeffries, R., Anderson, A., Hendrickson, C., and Jeffries, R. E. (2000). Extreme Programming Installed. Addison-Wesley Professional.
Jeffries, R. (2001). What is Extreme Programming? http://www.xprogramming.com/xpmag/whatisxp.htm#whole Accessed 6.8.2008
Johnson, J., and Henderson, A. (2002). Conceptual models: Begin by designing what to design. Interactions, 9(1), 25–32.
Jones, C. (1995). Patterns of Software Systems Failure and Success. Boston, MA: International Thomson Computer Press.
Kahn, H. (1962). Thinking the unthinkable. London: Weidenfeld and Nicolson.
Koskinen, J. (2003). Software Maintenance Costs. http://users.jyu.fi/˜koskinen/smcosts.htm
Kuniavsky, M. (2003). Observing the User Experience: A Practitioner's Guide to User Research. San Fransisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Kyng, M. (1995a). Creating contexts for design. Scenario-Based Design: Envisioning Work and Technology in System Development. 85–107. New York, NY: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. New York, NY, USA.
Kyng, M. (1995b). Making representations work. Commun. ACM, 38(9), 46–55.
Lauesen, S. (2003). Task descriptions as functional requirements. IEEE Software, 20(2), 58–65.
Lauesen, S. (2005). User Interface Design: A Software Engineering Perspective. Boston, MA: Addison-Wesley Longman Publishing Co., Inc.
Lauesen, S., and Harning, M. B. (2001). Virtual windows: Linking user tasks, data models, and interface design. IEEE Software, 18(4), 67–75.
Law, E. L-C., Hvannberg, E., and Cockton, G. (2007). Maturing Usability: Quality in Software, Interaction and Value (Human-Computer Interaction Series). Secaucus, NJ: Springer-Verlag New York, Inc.
Leitner, M., Wolkerstorfer, P., Sefelin, R., and Tscheligi, M. (2008). Mobile Multimedia: Identifying User Values Using the Means-End Theory. Amsterdam, The Netherlands, 167–175. Available online at http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1409240.1409259
Light, A., Wild, P. J., Dearden, A., and Muller, M. J. (2005). Quality, Value(s) and Choice: Exploring Deeper Outcomes for HCI Products. Portland, OR, USA, 2124–2125.
Löwgren, J. (1995). Applying Design Methodology to Software Development. New York, NY, USA, 87–95.
Mayhew, D. J. (1999). The Usability Engineering Lifecycle: A Practitioner's Handbook for User Interface Design (The Morgan Kaufmann Series in Interactive Technologies). San Fransisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Mello, S. (2003). Customer-Centric Product Definition: The Key to Great Product Development. PDC Professional Publishing.
Mikkelson, N., and Lee, W. O. (2000). Incorporating user archetypes into scenario-based design. UPA 2000.
Miller, J, K., Friedman, B., and Jancke, G. (2007). Value tensions in design: the value sensitive design, development, and appropriation of a corporation's groupware system. Sanibel Island, Florida, USA, 281–290.
Molich, R., and Nielsen, J. (1990). Improving a human-computer dialogue. Communications of ACM, 3, 338–348.
Moore, G. A. (1991). Crossing the Chasm. New York, NY: Harper Collins Publishers.
Mulder, S., and Yaar, Z. (2007). The User Is Always Right: A Practical Guide to Creating and Using Personas for the Web. Indianapolis, IN: New Riders.
Mylopoulos, J., Chung, L., and Yu, E. (1999). From object-oriented to goal-oriented requirements analysis. Communications of the ACM, 42(1), 31–37.
Ltd. N (2005). FDD overview.
Nelson, T. H. (1990). The right way to think about software design. In B Laurel and D Mills (Eds.), The Art of Human-Computer Interface Design. Ontario: Addison-Wesley Publishing Company Inc.
Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability Engineering. Boston: Academic Press.
Nielsen, L. (2004). Engaging Personas and Narrative Scenarios. Copenhagen: Copenhagen Business School.
Norman, D. A. (2004). Ad-Hoc Personas & Empathetic Focus. http://www.jnd.org/dn.mss/adhoc_personas_em.html
Norman, D. A. (2002). Emotion & design: attractive things work better. interactions, 9(4), 36–42.
Norman, D. A., and Draper, S. (1986). User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
O'Day, V. L., Bobrow, D. G., Hughes, B., Bobrow, K. B., Saraswat, V. A., Talazus, J., Walters, J., and Welbes, C. (1996). Community designers. Proceedings of the PDC’96, 3–13.
Obendorf, H., Schmolitzky, A., and Finck, M. (2006). XPnUE – Defining and Teaching a Fusion of eXtreme Programming and Usability Engineering. HCI educators workshop 2006: HCIEd.2006-1 inventivity: Teaching theory, design and innovation in HCI, Limerick, Ireland,. Available online at http://www.idc.ul.ie/hcieducators06/Procs
Obendorf, H., Finck, M., and Janneck, M. (in press). Intercontextual Participatory Design: Communicating Design Philosophy and Enriching the User Experience. Prepared for Scandinavian Journal on Information Systems (SJIS).
Obendorf, H., and Finck, M. (2007). Szenariotechniken & Agile Softwareentwicklung. Mensch & Computer. pp. 19–29. München: Oldenbourg Verlag.
Obendorf, H., and Finck, M. (2008). Scenario-Based Usability Engineering Techniques in Agile Development Processes. CHI '08: ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, Florence.
Obendorf, H., Finck, M., and Schmolitzky, A. (2005). Teaching balance and respect: HCI Group & Software Technology Group at the University of Hamburg. Interactions, 12(5), 36–37.
Palmer, S., and Felsing, M. (2002). A Practical Guide to Feature Driven Development. New Jersey, NJ: Prentice Hall PTR.
Pape, B., Krause, D., and Oberquelle, H. (2004). Wissensprojekte: Gemeinschaftliches Lernen aus didaktischer, softwaretechnischer und organisatorischer Sicht. Münster [u.a.]: Waxmann.
Parnas, D. L. (1972). On the criteria to be used in decomposing systems into modules. Commun. ACM, 15(12), 1053–1058.
Parnas, D. L. (1974). On a ‘Buzzword’: Hierarchical Structure. In Software pioneers: contributions to software engineering (2002), pp. 429–440, New York, NY: Springer.
Patton, J. (2008). Twelve Emerging Best Practices for Adding UX Work to Agile Development: How Experienced UX Practitioners have Adapted to Work Happily in Agile Environments. http://agileproductdesign.com/blog/emerging_best_agile_ux_practice.html
Perfetti, C. (2002). Personas: Matching a Design to the Users' goals. http://www.uiconf.com/uie-7/goodwin_article.htm
Pruitt, J., and Grudin, J. (2003). Personas: Practice and Theory. CHI 2003 Extended Abstracts.
Pruitt, J., and Adlin, T. (2005). The Persona Lifecycle: A Field Guide for Interaction Designers. Keeping People in Mind Throughout Product Design. San Fransisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Rainey, D. L. (2005). Product Innovation: Leading Change through Integrated Product Development. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Reeder, R. W., and Maxion, R. A. (2005). User Interface Dependability through Goal-Error Prevention. DSN '05: Proceedings of the 2005 International Conference on Dependable Systems and Networks (DSN'05), 60–69. Available online at http://www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs.cmu.edu/user/maxion/www/pubs/ReederMaxionDSN05.pdf
Reichelt, L. (2007). Yes, you should be using personas.
Rettig, M. (1994). Prototyping for tiny fingers. Communications of the ACM, 37(4), 21–27.
Rolland, C., Ben Achour, C., Cauvet, C., Ralyté J., Sutcliffe, A., Maiden, N. A. M., Jarke, M., Haumer, P., Pohl, K., Dubois, E., and Heymans, P. (1998). A Proposal for a Scenario Classification Framework. Requirements Engineering Journal, 3(1), 23–47.
Rosson, M. B. (1999). Integrating development of task and object models. Communications of the ACM., 42(1), 49–56.
Rosson, M. B., and Carroll, J. M. (2001). Usability Engineering Scenario-based Development of Human Computer Interaction. San Fransisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann Publishers Inc,US.
Scaife, M., Rogers, Y., Aldrich, F., and Davies, M. (1997). Designing for or Designing with? Informant Design for Interactive Learning Environments. CHI '97: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, New York, NY, USA, 343–350.
Schwaber, K. (2004). Agile Project Management with Scrum (Microsoft Professional). Washington, DC: Microsoft Press.
Schwaber, K., and Beedle, M. (2001). Agile Software Development with SCRUM. New Jersey, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Schwartz, B. (2004). Paradox of Choice. New York, NY: Harper Perennial.
Seffah, A., and Metzker, E. (2004). The obstacles and myths of usability and software engineering. Communications of the ACM, 47(12), 71–76.
Shneiderman, B. (2000). Universal usability. Communications of the ACM, 43(5), 84–91.
Snyder, C. (2003). Paper Prototyping: The Fast and Easy Way to Design and Refine User Interfaces (The Morgan Kaufmann Series in Interactive Technologies). San Fransisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.
Spool, J. M. (2006). When Should You Use Personas? http://www.uie.com/brainsparks/2006/12/26/when-should-you-use-personas/
Suchman, L. (1995). Making work visible. Communications of the ACM, 38(9), 56–ff.
Sy, D., and Miller, L. (2008). Optimizing Agile User-Centred Design. Florence, Italy, 3897ñ3900.
Vanalli, S., and Cziulik, C. (2003). Seven Steps to the Voice of the Customer. International Conference on Engineering Design (ICED) 2003, Stockholm.
Virzi, R. A., Sokolov, J. L., and Karis, D. (1996). Usability Problem Identification Using Both Low- and High-Fidelity Prototypes. CHI '96: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, New York, NY, USA, 236–243.
Voida, A., and Mynatt, E. D. (2005). Conveying user values between families and designers. Portland, OR, USA, 2013–2016. Available online at http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/1056808.1057080
Wenger, E. (1999). Communities of Practice: Learning, Meaning, and Identity (Learning in Doing: Social, Cognitive & Computational Perspectives S.). Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
Wenger, E., McDermott, R. A., and Snyder, W. (2002). Cultivating Communities of Practice: A Guide to Managing Knowledge. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business School Press.
Wenger, E. C., and Snyder, W. M. (2000). Communities of practice: The organizational frontier. Harvard Business Review, 78(1), 139–145.
Winograd, T. (1996). Bringing Design to Software. New York, NY: ACM Press.
Wolf, T. V., Rode, J. A., Sussman, J., and Kellogg, W. A. (2006). Dispelling "Design" as the Black Art of CHI. CHI '06: Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on human factors in computing systems, New York, NY, USA, 521–530.
Züllighoven, H. (2004). Object-Oriented Construction Handbook. Heidelberg: Dpunkt Verlag.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2009 Springer-Verlag London Limited
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Obendorf, H. (2009). Designing the Minimal. In: Minimalism. Human-Computer Interaction Series. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-371-6_7
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-84882-371-6_7
Published:
Publisher Name: Springer, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-84882-370-9
Online ISBN: 978-1-84882-371-6
eBook Packages: Computer ScienceComputer Science (R0)