Formalising an Understanding of User-System Misfits

  • Ann Blandford
  • Thomas R. G. Green
  • Iain Connell
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 3425)

Abstract

Many of the difficulties users experience when working with interactive systems arise from misfits between the user’s conceptualisation of the domain and device with which they are working and the conceptualisation implemented within those systems. We report an analytical technique called CASSM (Concept-based Analysis for Surface and Structural Misfits) in which such misfits can be formally represented to assist in understanding, describing and reasoning about them. CASSM draws on the framework of Cognitive Dimensions (CDs) in which many types of misfit were classified and presented descriptively, with illustrative examples. CASSM allows precise definitions of many of the CDs, expressed in terms of entities, attributes, actions and relationships. These definitions have been implemented in Cassata, a tool for automated analysis of misfits, which we introduce and describe in some detail.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Beyer, H., Holtzblatt, K.: Contextual Design. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blackwell, A.F., Green, T.R.G.: A Cognitive Dimensions questionnaire optimised for users. In: Blackwell, A.F., Bilotta, E. (eds.) Proceedings of the Twelfth Annual Meeting of the Psychology of Programming Interest Group, pp. 137–152 (2000)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blackwell, A., Green, T.R.G.: Notational systems – the Cognitive Dimensions of Notations framework. In: Carroll, J. (ed.) HCI Models, Theories and Frameworks, pp. 103–134. Morgan Kaufmann, San Francisco (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blackwell, A., Hewson, R., Green, T.R.G.: The design of notational systems for cognitive tasks. In: Hollnagel, E. (ed.) Handbook of Cognitive Task Design, pp. 525–545. Lawrence Erlbaum, Mahwah (2003)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Blandford, A.E., Green, T.R.G.: Group and individual time management tools: what you get is not what you need. Personal and Ubiquitous Computing 5(4), 213–230 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Blandford, A., Keith, S., Connell, I., Edwards, H.: Analytical usability evaluation for Digital Libraries: a case study. In: Proc. ACM/IEEE Joint Conference on Digital Libraries, pp. 27–36 (2004)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    Blandford, A.E., Wong, B.L.W., Connell, I.W., Green, T.R.G.: Multiple viewpoints on computer supported team work: a case study on ambulance dispatch. In: Faulkner, X., Finlay, J., Détienne, F. (eds.) Proc. HCI 2002 (People and Computers XVI), pp. 139–156. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Blandford, A.E., Young, R.M.: Specifying user knowledge for the design of interactive systems. Software Engineering Journal 11(6), 323–333 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
  10. 10.
    Connell, I., Green, T., Blandford, A.: Ontological Sketch Models: highlighting user-system misfits. In: O’Neill, E., Palanque, P., Johnson, P. (eds.) People and Computers XVII, Proc. HCI 2003, pp. 163–178. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    Green, T.R.G., Benyon, D.: The skull beneath the skin: entity-relationship models of information artifacts. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 44, 801–828 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Green, T.R.G.: Cognitive dimensions of notations. In: Sutcliffe, A., Macaulay, L. (eds.) People and Computers V., pp. 443–460. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1989)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Green, T.R.G.: The cognitive dimension of viscosity - a sticky problem for HCI. In: Diaper, D., Shackel, B. (eds.) INTERACT 1990. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1990)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Green, T.R.G., Blackwell, A.F.: Cognitive dimensions of information artefacts: a tutorial (1998), http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~afb21/CognitiveDimensions/CDtutorial.pdf
  15. 15.
    Green, T.R.G., Petre, M.: Usability analysis of visual programming environments: a ‘cognitive dimensions’ framework. J. Visual Languages and Computing 7, 131–174 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Moran, T.P.: Getting into a system: external-internal task mapping analysis. In: Janda, A. (ed.) Human Factors in Computing Systems, pp. 45–49 (1983)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Nielsen, J.: Heuristic evaluation. In: Nielsen, J., Mack, R. (eds.) Inspection Methods, pp. 25–62. John Wiley, New York (1994)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Payne, S.J., Squibb, H.R., Howes, A.: The nature of device models: the yoked state space hypothesis, and some experiments with text editors. Human-Computer Interaction 5, 415–444 (1990)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Roast, C., Khazaei, B., Siddiqi, J.: Formal comparison of program modification. In: IEEE Symposium on Visual Languages, pp. 165–171. IEEE Computer Society, Los Alamitos (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Wharton, C., Rieman, J., Lewis, C., Polson, P.: The cognitive walkthrough method: A practitioner’s guide. In: Nielsen, J., Mack, R. (eds.) Usability Inspection Methods, pp. 105–140. John Wiley, New York (1994)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2005

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ann Blandford
    • 1
  • Thomas R. G. Green
    • 2
  • Iain Connell
    • 1
  1. 1.UCL Interaction CentreUniversity College LondonLondonU.K.
  2. 2.University of LeedsU.K.

Personalised recommendations