Personal Technologies

, Volume 1, Issue 2, pp 101–117 | Cite as

Design for a fax

  • Harold ThimblebyEmail author


We argue that button-controlled devices can be made better to improve their usability, and that there are routine ways to do so that can be effectively employed in the early stages of the design process.

By way of example, we examine the design of a 1993/4 domestic phone/fax/answerphone machine, and show that alternative designs have quantitative advantages over the original. We point to many strange — obscure, undocumented, non-functional — features, and raise questions about the process that led to the design, and what role either human factors or computer science played in it.


User Interface Computer Science Design Process Human Factor Human Computer Interaction 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    Norman D A.The Design of Everyday Things. Doubleday, New York, 1990.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Gibbs S J and Tsichritzis D C.Multimedia Programming. Addison-Wesley, 1994.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Thimbleby H W and Ladkin P B. A proper explanation when you need one, in M A R Kirby A J Dix and J E Finlay (Eds),BCS Conference HCI'95, People and Computers, X, 107–118, Cambridge University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Thimbleby H W. A Note on Menu Selection.Computer Bulletin, Series 2, No. 18, 20, 21 and 23, 1978.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Witten I H, Cleary J and Greenberg S. On frequency-based menu-splitting algorithms,International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 21(2), 135–148, 1984.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Nielsen J.Usability Engineering. Academic Press, 1993.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Thimbleby H W. “Formulating Usability,”ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, 26(2), 59–64, 1994.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Thimbleby H W and Addison M A. Hyperdoc: An Interactive System Development Tool, in M. A. R. Kirby, A. J. Dix and J. E. Finlay (Eds),BCS Conference HCI'95, People and Computers, X, 95–106, Cambridge University Press, 1995.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    Card S K Moran T and Newell A.The Psychology of Human — Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1983.Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Knuth D E. The Art of Computer Programming. 3 (Sorting and Searching), Addison-Wesley, 1973.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Alexander C. A city is not a tree.Design, 206, 46–55, 1965.Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    Thimbleby H W and Witten I H. User Modelling as Machine Identification: New Design Methods for HCI, inAdvances in Human Computer Interaction, IV, 58–86, D. Hix & H. R. Hartson, (Eds), Ablex, 1993.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    BT (undated),DF200 User guide (Apparently coded: UM DF200 23175349-2), British Telecommunications plc., London.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag London Ltd 1997

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Middlesex University LondonLondonUK

Personalised recommendations