Modelling Unwarranted Commitment in Information Artefacts

  • Chris Roast
Chapter
Part of the IFIP —The International Federation for Information Processing book series (IFIPAICT, volume 22)

Abstract

This paper extends an analytic framework based upon that of Cognitive Dimensions which provides formal definitions for assessing the suitability of interactive systems for particular tasks. Elsewhere we have demonstrated that interface design can benefit from interpreting cognitive dimensions as formal tools for assessing interface characteristics relevant to effective use. Our interpretation of these dimensions has the benefit of introducing a level of precision to the otherwise informal notion of cognitive dimension. In general developing a more precise interpretation of the dimensions is a necessary prerequisite for their employment within software engineering.

In this paper an interpretation of the cognitive dimension termed ‘premature commitment’ is examined and its relation the dimensions of ‘viscosity’ considered. We demonstrate the appropriateness of the measures developed as a means of assessing implicit bias in interface behaviour and the general results that their formalisation enables. The effectiveness of the proposed formal characterisations is illustrated with a small case study.

Keywords

Cognitive Dimensions Evaluation Formal Modelling Premature Commitment 
Download to read the full chapter text

References

  1. Barnard, P. J. and Harrison, M. D. (1992). Towards a framework for modelling human computer interactions. In Gornostaev, J., editor, Proceedings International Conference on HCI, EWHCI’92, pages 189–196. Moscow: ICSTI.Google Scholar
  2. Blandford, A. and Green, T. (1997). OSM an ontology-based approach to usability engineering. In Representations in Interactive Sofnvare Development. Workshop at Queen Mary and Westfield College, Department of Computer Science.Google Scholar
  3. Dearden, A. M. and Harrison, M. D. (1997). Abstract models for hci. The International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, (46):151–177.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Dix, A. J. (1991). Formal Methods for Interactive Systems. Academic Press.Google Scholar
  5. Duke, D. J., Barnard, P. J., May, J., and Duce, D. A. (1995). Systematic development of the human interface. In Proceedings of APSEC’95: Second Asia-Pacific Software Engineering Conference. IEEE Computer Society Press.Google Scholar
  6. Gilmore, D. J. (1997). Cognitive dimensions as a tool for comparative evaluation. Technical report, Psychology Department, University of Nottingham.Google Scholar
  7. Green, T. and Petre, M. (1996). Usability analysis of visual programming environments: a ‘cognitive dimensions’ framework. The Journal of Visual Languages and Computing, 7 (2): 131–174.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Green, T. R. G. (1989). Cognitive dimensions of notations. In Sutcliffe, A. and Macaulay, editors, People and Computers V, pages 443–460. Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
  9. Harrison, M. D., Blandford, A. E., and Barnard, P. J. (1993). The software engineering of user freedom. Technical Report Amodeus 2 Document, University of York.Google Scholar
  10. Jackson, M. (1997). The meaning of requirements. Annals of Software Engineering, 3.Google Scholar
  11. Lavery, D., Cockton, G., and Atkinson, M. (1996). Cognitive dimensions: Usability evaluation materials. Technical report, Deparment of Computing Science, Uiversity of Glasgow.Google Scholar
  12. Markopoulos, P., Rowson, J., and Johnson, P. (1997). Composition and synthesis with a formal interactor model. Interacting vvith Computers, 9 (2): 197–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Modugno, F., Green, T. R. G., and Myers, B. A. (1994). Visual programming in a visual domain: A case study of cognitive dimensions. In Cockton, G., Draper, S. W., and Weir, G. R. S., editors, People and Computers IX, pages 91–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Morrey, I., Siddiqi, J., Buckberry, G., and Hibberd, R. (1996). A toolset to support the constr-cution and animation of formal specifications. Journal of Systems and Software.Google Scholar
  15. Nicola, R. D., Fantechi, A., Gnesi, S., and Ristori, G. (1991). An action based framework for verifying logical and behavioural properties of concurrent systems. In Proceedings of 3rd Workshop on Computer Aided Verification.Google Scholar
  16. Palanque, P. A. and Bastide, R. (1997). Synergistic modelling of tasks, users, and systems using formal specification techniques. Interacting with Computers, 9 (2): 129–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Paterno, F. (1997). Formal reasoning about dialgoue properties with automatic support. Interacting with Computers, 9 (2): 173–196.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Roast, C. R. (1997). Formally comparing and informing design notations. In Thimbleby, H., O’Conaill, B., and Thomas, P., editors, People and Computers XII, pages 315–336.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Roast, C. R. (1998). Designing for delay in interactive information retrieval. Interacting with Computers, 10: 87–104.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Roast, C. R. and Siddiqi, J. I. (1996). Relating knock-on viscosity to software modifiability. Proceedings of OZCHI 96, Hamilton, New Zealand, pages 222–227.Google Scholar
  21. Roast, C. R. and Siddiqi, J. I. (1997b). Usability requirements as specification constraints — an example of WYSIWYG. IEE Proceedings Software Engineering, 144 (2): 101–110.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Siddiqi, J. I. and Roast, C. R. (1997). Viscosity as a metaphor for measuring modifiability. IEE Proceedings — Software Engineering, 144 (4): 215–223.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Spivey, J. M. (1988). The Z Notation: A Reference Manual. Prentice Hall International.Google Scholar
  24. Yang, S., Burnett, M., DeKoven, E., and Zloof, M. (1995). Representation dfesign benchmarks: a design–time aid for VPL navigable static representations. Technical Report TR 95–60–3, Oregon State University.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 1999

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chris Roast
    • 1
  1. 1.School of Computing and Management SciencesSheffield Hallam UniversitySheffieldUK

Personalised recommendations