Advertisement

Interaction Walkthrough: Evaluation of Safety Critical Interactive Systems

  • Harold Thimbleby
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 4323)

Abstract

Usability evaluation methods are a battery of techniques for assessing the usability of interactive systems or of proposed interactive systems. This paper describes a new evaluation method, particularly appropriate for evaluating safety critical and high quality user interfaces. The method can also be used for informing HCI research. The method is applied when a specification is available of an interactive system, or when a system (or prototype) is working.

Keywords

Model Check Interactive System Reverse Engineering Target System Cooperative Evaluation 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    Berstel, J., et al.: A scalable formal method for design and automatic checking of user interfaces. ACM Transactions on Software Engineerng and Methodology 14(2), 123–167 (2005)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    Chen, W-H.: Test Sequence Generation from the Protocol Data Portion Based on the Selecting Chinese Postman Problem. Information Processing Letters 65(5), 261–268 (1998)CrossRefMathSciNetGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Glaser, B.G., Strauss, A.L.: The Discovery of Grounded Theory: Strategies for Qualitative Research, Chicago (1967)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Graseby Medical Ltd.: Graseby 3400 Syringe Pump: Instruction Manual (2002)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Gray, W.D., Salzman, M.C.: Damaged merchandise? A review of experiments that compare usability evaluation methods. Human-Computer Interaction 13(3), 203–261 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gray, W.D., Salzman, M.C.: Repairing damaged merchandise: A rejoinder. Human-Computer Interaction 13(3), 325–335 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Holmquist, L.E.: Prototyping: Generating ideas or cargo cult designs? ACM Interactions 12(2), 48–54 (2005)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ivory, M.Y., Hearst, M.A.: The state of the art in automating usability evaluation of user interfaces. ACM Computing Surveys 33(4), 470–516 (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Loer, K., Harrison, M.: Formal interactive systems analysis and usability inspection methods: Two incompatible worlds? In: Palanque, P., Paternó, F. (eds.) DSV-IS 2000. LNCS, vol. 1946, pp. 169–190. Springer, Heidelberg (2001)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Loer, K., Harrison, M.: Towards usable and relevant model checking techniques for the analysis of dependable interactive systems. In: Emmerich, W., Wile, D. (eds.) Proceedings of the 17th IEEE International Conference on Automated Systems Engineering: ASE 2002, pp. 223–226. IEEE Computer Society Press, Los Alamitos (2002)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Molich, R., et al.: Comparative usability evaluation. Behaviour & Information Technology 23(1), 65–74 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Nielsen, J.: Usability engineering. Academic Press, London (1993)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Nielsen, J., Landauer, T.K.: A mathematical model of the finding of usability problems. In: ACM SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, pp. 206–213. ACM Press, New York (1993)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    Palanque, P., Paternò, F. (eds.): Formal Methods in Human Computer Interaction. Springer, London (1997)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Petroski, H.: To Engineer is Human: The Role of Failure in Successful Design. Vintage Books, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Rowley, D.E., Rhoades, D.G.: The Cognitive Jogthrough: A Fast-Paced User Interface Evaluation Procedure. In: ACM CHI’92 Proceedings, pp. 389–395. ACM Press, New York (1992)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thimbleby, H., Witten, I.H.: User Modelling as Machine Identification: New Design Methods for HCI. In: Hix, D., Hartson, H.R. (eds.) Advances in Human Computer Interaction, IV, pp. 58–86. Ablex Publishing, Greenwich (1993)Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    Thimbleby, H., Addison, M.A.: Intelligent Adaptive Assistance and Its Automatic Generation. Interacting with Computers 8(1), 51–68 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Thimbleby, H.: Specification-led Design for Interface Simulation, Collecting Use-data, Interactive Help, Writing Manuals, Analysis, Comparing Alternative Designs, etc. Personal Technologies 4(2), 241–254 (1999)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Thimbleby, H.: Analysis and Simulation of User Interfaces. In: McDonald, S., Waern, Y., Cockton, G. (eds.) Human Computer Interaction 2000, BCS Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, XIV, pp. 221–237 (2000)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Thimbleby, H., et al.: User Interface Design as Systems Design. In: Faulkner, X., Finlay, J., Détienne, F. (eds.) Proceedings People and Computers, XVI, pp. 281–301. Springer, Heidelberg (2002)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Thimbleby, H.: The Directed Chinese Postman Problem. Software — Practice & Experience 33(11), 1081–1096 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Thimbleby, H.: Computer Algebra in User Interface Design Analysis. In: Dearden, A., Watts, L. (eds.) Proceedings BCS HCI Conference, 2, pp. 121–124. Research Press International (2004)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Thimbleby, H.: User Interface Design with Matrix Algebra. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction 11(2), 181–236 (2004)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Wharton, C., et al.: The Cognitive Walkthrough Method: A Practictioner’s Guide. In: Nielsen, J., Mack, R.L. (eds.) Usability Inspection Methods, John Wiley and Sons, Chichester (1994)Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Wixon, D.R.: Evaluating usability methods: why the current literature fails the practitioner. Interactions 10(4), 28–34 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Venkatesh, V., et al.: User acceptance of information technology: Toward a unified view. MIS Quarterly 27(3), 425–478 (2003)Google Scholar
  28. 28.
    Wright, P.C., Monk, A.F.: The use of think-aloud evaluation methods in design. ACM SIGCHI Bulletin 23(1), 55–57 (1991)CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Berlin Heidelberg 2007

Authors and Affiliations

  • Harold Thimbleby
    • 1
  1. 1.Department of Computer Science, Swansea University, Wales 

Personalised recommendations