User Modeling and User-Adapted Interaction

, Volume 3, Issue 1, pp 27–64

Using structural descriptions of interfaces to automate the modelling of user cognition

  • Jon May
  • Philip J. Barnard
  • Ann Blandford


One approach to user modelling (Barnard et al., 1988) involves building approximate descriptions of the cognitive activity underlying task performance in human-computer interactions. This approach does not aim to simulate exactly what is going on in the user's head, but to capture the salient features of their cognitive processing. The technique requires several sets of production rules. One set maps from a real-world description of an interface design to an internal theoretical description. Other rules elaborate the theoretical description, while further rules map from the theoretical description to properties of user behaviour. This paper is concerned primarily with the first type of rule, for mapping from interface descriptions to theoretical description of cognitive activity. Here we show how structural descriptions of interface designs can be used to model user tasks, visual interface objects and screen layouts. Included in our treatment are some indications of how properties of cognitive activity and their behavioural consequences can be inferred from such structural descriptions. An expert system implementation of the modelling technique has been developed, and its structure is described, together with some examples of its use in the evaluation of HCI design scenarios.

Key words

Cognition usability interface HCI design task structure icons screen layout expert systems 


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. Arend, U., K-P. Muthig and J. Wandmacher: 1987, ‘Evidence for Global Feature Superiority in Menu Selection by Icons’.Behaviour and Information Technology 6, 411–426.Google Scholar
  2. Barnard, P. J.: 1987, ‘Cognitive Resources and the Learning of Computer Dialogues’. In: J. M. Carroll (ed):Interfacing Thought: Cognitive Aspects of Human Computer Interaction. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press, pp. 112–158.Google Scholar
  3. Barnard, P. J., J. Grudin and A. MacLean: 1989, ‘Developing a Science Base for the Naming of Computer Commands’. In: J.B. Long and A. Whitefield (eds.):Cognitive Ergonomics and Human Computer Interaction. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press, pp. 95–133.Google Scholar
  4. Barnard, P. J., A, MacLean and N. V. Hammond: 1984, ‘User Representations of Ordered Sequences of Command Operations’. In: B. Shackel (ed):Proceedings of Interact '84: First IFIP Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, Volume 1. London: IEE, pp. 434–438.Google Scholar
  5. Barnard, P. J. and J. Teasdale: 1991, ‘Interacting Cognitive Subsystems: A Systemic Approach to Cognitive Affective Interaction and Change’.Cognition and Emotion 5(1), 1–39.Google Scholar
  6. Barnard, P. J., M. W. Wilson and A. MacLean: 1986, ‘The Elicitation of System Knowledge by Picture Probes’. In:Proceedings of CHI'86: Human Factors in Computer Systems. New York: ACM, pp. 235–240.Google Scholar
  7. Barnard, P. J., M. Wilson and A. MacLean: 1987, ‘Approximate Modelling of Cognitive Activity: Towards an Expert System Design Aid’. In: J. M. Carroll and P. P. Tanner (eds.):Proc CHI+GI '87-Human Factors in Computing Systems and Graphics Interface. New York: ACM, pp. 21–26.Google Scholar
  8. Barnard, P. J., M. Wilson and A. MacLean: 1988, ‘Approximate Modelling of Cognitive Activity with an Expert System: A Theory based Strategy for Developing an Interactive Design Tool.’The Computer Journal 31, 445–456.Google Scholar
  9. Card, S. K., T. P. Moran and A. Newell: 1983, ‘The Psychology of Human Computer Interaction.’ Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.Google Scholar
  10. Eason, K. and S. Harker: 1991, ‘Human Factors Contributions to the Design Process’. In: B. Shackel and S. Richardson (eds.):Human Factors for Informatics Usability. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press, pp. 77–96.Google Scholar
  11. Gardiner, M. M. and B. Christie: 1987, ‘Introduction.’ In: M. M. Gardiner and B. Christie (eds.):Applying Cognitive Psychology to User Interface Design. Chichester: Wiley & Sons, pp. 4–12.Google Scholar
  12. Green, A. J. K. and P. J. Barnard: 1990, ‘Icon Interfacing: The Role of Icon Distinctiveness and Fixed or Variable Screen Location.’ In: D. Diaper, D. Gilmore, G. Cockton and B. Shackel (eds.):Proceedings of Interact '90. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers B.V., pp. 457–462.Google Scholar
  13. Long, J.: 1989, ‘Cognitive Ergonomics and Human-Computer Interaction.’ In: J. B. Long and A. Whitefield (eds.):Cognitive Ergonomics and Human Computer Interaction. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press, pp. 4–34.Google Scholar
  14. Myers, K. J. and N. V. Hammond: 1991, ‘Consolidated Report of Workshop on Scenario Matrix Analysis’. Esprit 3066 ‘Amodeus’ Deliverable D9, Dept. of Psychology, Univ. of York, UK.Google Scholar
  15. Norman, D.: 1986, ‘Cognitive Engineering.’ In: D. A. Norman and J. W. Draper (eds.):User Centered System Design. Erlbaum, Hillsdale NJ, pp. 31–62.Google Scholar
  16. Simon, T.: 1988, ‘Analysing the Scope of Cognitive Models in Human-Computer Interaction.’ In: D. M. Jones and R. Winder (eds.):People and Computers IV. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Univ. Press, pp. 79–93.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Kluwer Academic Publishers 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • Jon May
    • 1
  • Philip J. Barnard
    • 1
  • Ann Blandford
    • 1
  1. 1.Applied Psychology UnitMedical Research CouncilCambridgeUK

Personalised recommendations