Why Performance Always Comes Last in Interactive System Design, and What To Do About It
Interactive systems pay their way, ultimately, by enabling people to perform their work better and with less effort. A lot of design ingenuity goes into addressing the “better” requirement, often with the goal of radically changing work practice. Meanwhile, little attention is paid to the “less effort” side — to improving work performance. The main underlying reason is designers’ lack of means to measure whether the performance of work has been improved. This chapter will explain how this has come about, why product usability testing is not the answer, and how the identification of application-specific critical parameters could be crucial, enabling designers to deliver real performance improvements to the user.
KeywordsInteractive System Improve Work Performance Interactive System Design Critical Performance Parameter Measure Performance Improvement
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
- Kieras DE (1997) A guide to GOMS model usability evaluation using NGOMSL, in Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, 2nd edn (eds. MG Helander and TK Landauer), Amsterdam, Elsevier.Google Scholar
- Landauer TK (1995) The Trouble with Computers. Cambridge, MA, MIT Press.Google Scholar
- Newman WM (1994) A preliminary analysis of the products of HCI research, based on pro forma abstracts, in Proceedings of CHI ‘84 Human Factors in Computing Systems, 24–28 April, Boston, MA, ACM/SIGCHI, New York, pp. 278–284.Google Scholar
- Newman WM (1997) Better or just different? On the benefits of designing interactive systems in terms of critical parameters, in Proc. DIS ‘87, Designing Interactive Systems, Amsterdam, 18–20 August, pp. 239–245.Google Scholar
- Newman WM (1998) On simulation, measurement and piecewise usability evaluation, Human Computer Interaction, 13(3), 316–323.Google Scholar
- Preece, J, Rogers, Y, Sharp, H, Benyon, D, Holland, S and Carey, T (1994) Human Computer Interaction, Wokingham, Addison-Wesley.Google Scholar