Formally Justifying User-Centred Design Rules: A Case Study on Post-completion Errors

  • Paul Curzon
  • Ann Blandford
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 2999)

Abstract

Interactive systems combine a human operator with a computer. Either may be a source of error. The verification processes used must ensure both the correctness of the computer component, and also minimize the risk of human error. Human-centred design aims to do this by designing systems in a way that make allowance for human frailty. One approach to such design is to adhere to design rules. Design rules, however, are often ad hoc. We examine how a formal cognitive model, encapsulating results from the cognitive sciences, can be used to justify such design rules in a way that integrates their use with existing formal hardware verification techniques. We consider here the verification of a design rule intended to prevent a commonly occurring class of human error know as the post-completion error.

Keywords

Cognitive architecture user error design rules formal verification 

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Back, R., Mikhajlova, A., von Wright, J.: Modeling component environments and interactive programs using iterative choice. Technical Report 200, Turku Centre for Computer Science (September 1998)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Blandford, A.E., Young, R.M.: The role of communication goals in interaction. In: Adjunct Proceedings of HCI 1998, pp. 14–15 (1998)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Blandford, A.E., Barnard, P.J., Harrison, M.D.: Using interaction framework to guide the design of interactive systems. International Journal of Human Computer Studies 43, 101–130 (1995)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Blandford, A.E., Butterworth, R., Curzon, P.: PUMA footprints: linking theory and craftskill in usability evaluation. In: Proc. of Interact, pp. 577–584 (2001)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Bumbulis, P., Alencar, P.S.C., Cowen, D.D., Lucena, C.J.P.: Validating properties of component-based graphical user interfaces. In: Bodart, F., van der Donckt, J. (eds.) Proc. Design, Specification and Verification of Interactive Systems 1996, pp. 347–365. Springer, Heidelberg (1996)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    Butterworth, R., Blandford, A.E., Duke, D.: Using formal models to explore display based usability issues. Journal of Visual Languages and Computing 10, 455–479 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Butterworth, R., Blandford, A.E., Duke, D.: Demonstrating the cognitive plausibility of interactive systems. Formal Aspects of Computing 12, 237–259 (2000)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Byrne, M., Bovair, S.: A working memory model of a common procedural error. Cognitive Science 21(1), 31–61 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Campos, J.C., Harrison, M.D.: Formally verifying interactive systems: a review. In: Harrison, M.D., Torres, J.C. (eds.) Design, Specification and Verification of Interactive Systems 1997, pp. 109–124. Springer, Wien (1997)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Curzon, P., Blandford, A.E.: Using a verification system to reason about postcompletion errors. Presented at Design, Specification and Verification of Interactive Systems (2000), Available from http://www.cs.mdx.ac.uk/puma/asWP31
  11. 11.
    Curzon, P., Blandford, A.E.: Detecting multiple classes of user errors. In: Nigay, L., Little, M.R. (eds.) EHCI 2001. LNCS, vol. 2254, pp. 57–71. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Curzon, P., Blandford, A.E.: From a formal user model to design rules. In: Forbrig, P., Limbourg, Q., Urban, B., Vanderdonckt, J. (eds.) DSV-IS 2002. LNCS, vol. 2545, pp. 19–33. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Duke, D.J., Barnard, P.J., Duce, D.A., May, J.: Syndetic modelling. Human-Computer Interaction 13(4), 337–394 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Fields, R.E.: Analysis of erroneous actions in the design of critical systems. Technical Report YCST 20001/09, University of York, Department of Computer Science, D.Phil Thesis (2001)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Gordon, M.J.C., Melham, T.F. (eds.): Introduction to HOL: a theorem proving environment for higher order logic. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1993)MATHGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Gray, W., Young, R.M., Kirschenbaum, S.: Introduction to this special issue on cognitive architectures and human-computer interaction. Human-Computer Interaction 12, 301–309 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Gray, W.D.: The nature and processing of errors in interactive behavior. Cognitive Science 24(2), 205–248 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hollnagel, E.: Cognitive Reliability and Error Analysis Method. Elsevier, Amsterdam (1998)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Kieras, D.E., Wood, S.D., Meyer, D.E.: Predictive engineering models based on the EPIC architecture for a multimodal high-performance human-computer interaction task. ACM Trans. Computer-Human Interaction 4(3), 230–275 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Leadbetter, D., Lindsay, P., Hussey, A., Neal, A., Humphreys, M.: Towards model based prediction of human error rates in interactive systems. In: Australian Comp. Sci. Communications: Australasian User Interface Conf., vol. 23(5), pp. 42–49 (2001)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Moher, T.G., Dirda, V.: Revising mental models to accommodate expectation failures in human-computer dialogues. In: Design, Specification and Verification of Interactive Systems 1995, pp. 76–92. Springer, Wien (1995)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Paterno’, F., Mezzanotte, M.: Formal analysis of user and system interactions in the CERD case study. In: Proceedings of EHCI 1995: IFIP Working Conference on Engineering for Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 213–226. Chapman and Hall Publisher, Boca Raton (1995)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ritter, F.E., Young, R.M.: Embodied models as simulated users: introduction to this special issue on using cognitive models to improve interface design. Int. J. Human-Computer Studies 55, 1–14 (2001)MATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Roast, C.R.: Modelling unwarranted commitment in information artifacts. In: Chatty, S., Dewan, P. (eds.) Engineering for Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 77–90. Kluwer Academic Press, Dordrecht (1998)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Rushby, J.: Using model checking to help discover mode confusions and other automation suprises. In: 3rd Workshop on Human Error, Safety and System Development, HESSD 1999 (1999)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Xiong, H., Curzon, P., Tahar, S., Blandford, A.: Formally linking MDG and HOL based on a verified MDG system. In: Butler, M., Petre, L., Sere, K. (eds.) IFM 2002. LNCS, vol. 2335, pp. 205–224. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2004

Authors and Affiliations

  • Paul Curzon
    • 1
  • Ann Blandford
    • 2
  1. 1.Interaction Design CentreMiddlesex UniversityLondon
  2. 2.University College London Interaction CentreLondon

Personalised recommendations