Advertisement

Task Descriptions Using Academic Oriented Modelling Languages: A Survey of Actual Practices across the SIGCHI Community

  • Stanislas Couix
  • Jean-Marie Burkhardt
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 6948)

Abstract

There is an extensive literature on task modelling related to the design of computer systems. Task analysis and task modelling have been widely recognized as central components in human-centred approaches. The aim of this paper is to report on some results of a worldwide survey about actual practices of task descriptions languages (TDL) in SIGCHI community. Results suggest that academic TDL are not well known and not used by participants. They prefer using “home-made” TDL. This may be explained by the fact that formal TDL are not adapted to tasks analysts needs and that task modelling is an expert activity, mainly used by skilled analysts. Indeed, this study shows that task models are not only used in a productive way, i.e. to derive useful inputs to the design of man-machine systems. Thus, it seems that formal TDL failed to take this into account.

Keywords

Task Analysis Task Modelling Test Case Generation Task Description Expert Activity 
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.

References

  1. 1.
    Maguire, M.: Methods to support human-centred design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies 55, 587–634 (2001)zbMATHCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Diaper, D., Stanton, N.: The Handbook of Task Analysis for Human-Computer Interaction. Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (2004)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    Annett, J., Duncan, K.D.: Task analysis and training design. Occupational Psychology 41, 211–227 (1967)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    Patrick, J.: Training: research and Practice. Academic Press, London (1992)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cox, R.: Representation construction, externalised cognition and individual differences. Learning and Instruction 9(4), 343–363 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shepherd, A.: An approach to information requirements specification for process control tasks. Ergonomics 36, 1425–1439 (1993)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Couix, S.: Usages et construction des modèles de tâches dans la pratique de l’ergonomie: une étude exploratoire. Master’s thesis, Université Paris Descartes (2007)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ormerod, T.C., Richardson, J., Shepherd, A.: Enhancing the usability of a task analysis method: a notation and environment for requirements specification. Ergonomics 41(11), 1642–1663 (1998)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Ozkan, N., Paris, C., Balbo, S.: Understanding a task model: an experiment. In: Johnson, H., Nigay, L., Roast, C. (eds.) Proceedings of HCI on People and Computers XIII. Springer, Heidelberg (1998)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    Patrick, J., Gregov, A., Halliday, P.: Analysing and training task analysis. Instructional science 28, 51–57 (2000)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Ait-Ameur, Y., Baron, M.: Formal and experimental validation approaches in hci systems design based on a shared event b model. International Journal on Software Tools for Technology Transfer 8, 547–563 (2006)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Basnyat, S.: Erreur humaine, modèles de tâches et description formelle pour la conception et l’évaluation de systèmes critiques et tolérants aux erreurs. In: Actes de la seconde rencontre des jeunes chercheurs en interaction homme-machine (2004)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    Oedewald, P., Reiman, T.: Core task modelling in cultural assessment: a case study in nuclear power plant maintenance. Cognition, Technology & Work 5(4), 283–293 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Killich, S., Luczak, H., Schlick, C., Weissenbach, M., Wiedenmaier, S., Ziegler, J.: Task modelling for cooperative work. Behaviour & Information Technology 18(5), 325–338 (1999)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Barbosa, A., Paiva, A.C.R., Creissac Campos, J.: Test case generation from mutated task models. Presented at the ACM SIGCHI Symposium on Engineering Interactive Computing Systems, Pisa, Italy (June 13-16, 2011) (to appear)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    Scapin, D.L., Bastien, J.M.C.: Analyse des tâches et aide ergonomique à la conception: l’approche MAD*. In: Kolski, C. (ed.) Analyse et conception de l’IHM. Interaction homme-machine pour les SI, Hermès, Paris, vol. 1, pp. 85–116 (2001)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    Van der Veer, G., Lenting, B., Bergevoet, B.: GTA: Groupware task analysis - modeling complexity. Acta Psychologica 91, 297–322 (1996)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Paternò, F.: ConcurTaskTrees: an engineered notation for task models. In: Diaper, D., Stanton, N. (eds.) The Handbook of Task Analysis for Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 483–501. Laurence Erlbaum Associates, Mahwah (2004)Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    Barthet, M.F., Tarby, J.C.: The DIANE+ method. In: Vanderdonckt, J. (ed.) Computer-aided design of user interfaces, pp. 95–120. Presses Universitaires de Namur, Namur (1996)Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    Card, S.K., Moran, T.P., Newell, A.: The psychology of human-computer interaction. Erlbaum, Mahwah (1983)Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    Tijus, C.A., Poitrenaud, S., Richard, J.F.: Propriétés, objets, procédures: Les réseaux sémantiques d’action appliqués à la représentation des dispositifs techniques. Le Travail Humain 59(3), 209–229 (1996)Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    Johnson, P., Johnson, H., Waddington, R., Shouls, A.: Task-related knowledge structures: Analysis, modelling and application. In: People and Computers: From Research to Implementations, pp. 35–62. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge (1988)Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    Payne, S., Green, T.: Task-action grammars: a model of the mental representation of task languages. Human Computer Interaction 2(2) (1986)Google Scholar
  24. 24.
    Siochi, A.C., Hartson, H.R.: Task-oriented representation of asynchronous user interfaces. In: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems: Wings for the Mind, pp. 183–188 (1989)Google Scholar
  25. 25.
    Card, S.K., Moran, T.P., Newell, A.: The keystroke-level model for user performance time with interactive systems. Communications of the ACM 23(7), 396–410 (1980)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Camilleri, G., Soubie, J.L., Zalaket, J.: TMMT: Tool supporting knowledge modelling. In: Palade, V., Howlett, R.J., Jain, L. (eds.) KES 2003. LNCS, vol. 2773, pp. 45–52. Springer, Heidelberg (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Cramér, H.: Mathematical Methods of Statistics. Princeton University Press, Princeton (1999)zbMATHGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Bernard, J.M.: Analysis of local dependencies in contingency tables using the imprecise dirichlet model. In: Bernard, J.M., Seidenfeld, T., Zaffalon, M. (eds.) Proceedings of the 3rd International Symposium on Imprecise Probabilities and their Applications. Carleton Scientific (2003)Google Scholar
  29. 29.
    Sebillotte, S.: Décrire des tâches selon les objectifs des opérateurs. de l’interview à la formalisation. Le Travail humain 54(3), 193–223 (1991)Google Scholar
  30. 30.
    Larkin, J.H., Simon, H.A.: Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words. Cognitive Science 11(1), 65–99 (1987)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Zhang, J.: Representations in distributed cognitive tasks. Cognitive Science 18, 87–122 (1994)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Zhang, J.: The nature of external representations in problem solving. Cognitive Science 21(2), 179–217 (1997)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Chi, M.T.H., De Leeuw, N., Chiu, M.H., Lavancher, C.: Eliciting self-explanations improves understanding. Cognitive Science 18, 437–477 (1994)Google Scholar
  34. 34.
    Reisberg, D.: The detachment gain: the advantage of thinking out loud. In: Landau, B., Sabini, J., Jonides, J., Newport, E.L. (eds.) Perception, Cognition & Language, pp. 139–156. MIT Press, Cambridge (2000)Google Scholar
  35. 35.
    Montabert, C.: McCrickard: Reuse-centric requirements analysis with task models, scenarios and critical parameters. Journal of Systemics, Cybernetics and Informatics 5(1), 72–78 (2007)Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Sutcliffe, A.: Symbiosis and synergy? Scenarios, task analysis and reuse of HCI knowledge. Interacting with Computers 15, 245–263 (2003)CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Jeantet, A.: Les objets intermédiaires dans la conception. Éléments pour une sociologie des processus de conception. Sociologie du travail 40(3), 291–316 (1998)Google Scholar
  38. 38.
    Booch, G., Rumbaugh, J., Jacobson, I.: The Unified Modeling Language User Guide. Addison-Wesley Object Technology Series. Addison-Wesley, Reading (1998)Google Scholar
  39. 39.
    Carroll, J.M.: Making use: scenario-based design of human-computer interactions. Massachusetts Institute of Technology (2000)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© IFIP International Federation for Information Processing 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Stanislas Couix
    • 1
    • 2
  • Jean-Marie Burkhardt
    • 3
  1. 1.EDF R&D – Management des Risques IndustrielsClamartFrance
  2. 2.CNAM – Centre de Recherche sur le Travail et le DéveloppementParisFrance
  3. 3.Laboratoire Adaptations Travail IndividusUniversité Paris DescartesBoulogne BillancourtFrance

Personalised recommendations