Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

The Logic of User Interface Design

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Designing for Life

Abstract

Technical artefacts exist so that people can use them to make something happen. Their capacity to do so depends on the functions and functionalities of the technology, which requires users. Technologies thus have to give users the ability to control them, and the designer’s role is to create the actions and work processes for which the artefacts are intended. This basic HTI pursuit is called user interface design. It applies technical interaction concepts to solve design problems. This chapter presents the overall principles and goals for the user interface design of any technical artefact.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
eBook
USD 16.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    To be exact, scissors are analogous machines that can have an infinite number of possible input and output states. However, they only reach a finite number of possible states before they are destroyed.

  2. 2.

    We do not discuss here the differences between task and work analysis, though the difference is essential in the context of work processes. This section focuses on technical interaction, not on the way work groups are organized.

References

  • Alexander, C. (1977). A pattern language: Towns, buildings, construction. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Annett, J. (2000). Theoretical and pragmatic influences on task analysis methods. In J. Schraagen, S. Chipman, & V. Shalin (Eds), Cognitive Task Analysis (pp. 25–40). Malwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Annett, J. (2004). Hierarchical task analysis. In D. Diaper & N. Stanton (Eds.), Handbook of cognitive task design (pp. 63–82). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Annett, J., & Duncan, K. D. (1967). Task analysis and training design. Report resumes. Hull: Hull University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Barach, P., & Small, S. D. (2000). Reporting and preventing medical mishaps: Lessons from non-medical near miss reporting systems. British Medical Journal, 320, 759–763.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  • Blumenthal, D. (2010). Launching HITECH. New England Journal of Medicine, 362, 382–385.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Bouma, H., Fozard, J. L., & van Bronswijk, J. E. M. H. (2009). Gerontechnology as a field of endeavour. Gerontechnology, 8, 68–75.

    Google Scholar 

  • Boyle, E., Van Rosmalen, P., & Manea, M. (2013). Cognitive task analysis. Retrieved April 23, 2015, from http://dspace.learningnetworks.org/bitstream/1820/4848/1/CHERMUG-Deliverable%2014-CognitiveTaskAnalysis-WP2.pdf

  • Brentano, F. (1874/1955). Psychologie vom empirischen Standpunkt. Hamburg: Felix Meiner.

    Google Scholar 

  • Card, S., Moran, T., & Newell, A. (1983). The psychology of human-computer interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chandrasekaran, B. (1990). Design problem-solving—A task-analysis. Ai Magazine, 11, 59–71.

    Google Scholar 

  • Charness, N. (2009). Ergonomics and aging: The role of interactions. In I. Graafmans, V. Taipale, & N. Charness (Eds.), Gerontechnology: Sustainable investment in future (pp. 62–73). Amsterdam: IOS Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Collison, S., Budd, A., & Moll, C. (2009). CSS mastery: Advanced web standards solution. Berkeley, CA: Friends of ED.

    Google Scholar 

  • Cooper, A., Reimann, R., & Cronin, D. (2007). About Face 3: The essentials of interaction design. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Crandall, B., Klein, G., & Hoffman, R. R. (2006). Working minds: A practitioner’s guide to cognitive task analysis. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Czaja, S. J., & Nair, S. N. (2006). Human factors engineering and systems design. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (pp. 32–49). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Datye, S. (2012). Life-based design for technical solutions in social and voluntary work. In Jyväskylä studies in computing (Vol. 164). Jyväskylä: University of Jyväskkylä Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Saussure, F. (1916/2011). Course in General Linguistics. New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Souza, C. S. (1993). The semiotic engineering of user interface languages. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 39, 753–773.

    Google Scholar 

  • de Souza, C. S. (2005). The semiotic engineering of human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dennett, D. (1991). Consciousness explained. Boston, MA: Little Brown.

    Google Scholar 

  • Diaper, D. (2004). Understanding task analysis for human-computer interaction. In D. Diaper & N. Stanton (Eds.), The handbook of task analysis for human-computer interaction (pp. 5–47). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dieter, G. E., & Schmidt, L. C. (2009). Engineering design. Boston, MA: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dym, C. L., & Brown, D. C. (2012). Engineering design: Representation and reasoning. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Eco, U. (1976). A theory of semiotics. Bloomington, IN: Indiana University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Eder, W., & Hosnedl, S. (2008). Design engineering. A manual for enhanced creativity. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gaver, W. W. (1991). Technology affordances. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 79–84).

    Google Scholar 

  • Gero, J. S. (1990). Design prototypes: A knowledge representation schema for design. AI Magazine, 11, 26–36.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gero, J. S., & Kannengiesser, U. (2004). The situated function–behaviour–structure framework. Design Studies, 25, 373–391.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gero, J. S., & Kannengiesser, U. (2014). The function-behaviour-structure ontology of design. In A. Chakrabarti & L. Blessing (Eds.), An anthology of theories and models of design (pp. 263–283). London: Springer.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Gibson, J. J. (1979). The ecological approach to visual perception. Boston, MA: Houghton Mifflin.

    Google Scholar 

  • Go, K., & Carroll, J. M. (2004). The blind men and the elephant: Views of scenario-based system design. Interactions, 11, 44–53.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goel, A. K., Rugaber, S., & Vattam, S. (2009). Structure, behavior, and function of complex systems: The structure, behavior, and function modeling language. Artificial Intelligence for Engineering Design, Analysis and Manufacturing, 23, 23–35.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Goodwin, K. (2011). Designing for the digital age: How to create human-centered products and services. Indianapolis, IN: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Greenstein, J., & Arnaut, L. (1988). Input devices. In M. Helander (Ed.), Handbook of human-computer interaction (pp. 495–519). Amsterdam: North-Holland.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Griggs, L. (1995). The windows interface guidelines for software design. Redmond, WA: Microsoft Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Helfenstein, S., & Saariluoma, P. (2006). Mental contents in transfer. Psychological Research, 70, 293–303.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Henry, P. (1998). User-centred information design for improved software usability. Boston, MA: Artech.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hirtz, J., Stone, R. B., McAdams, D. A., Szykman, S., & Wood, K. L. (2002). A functional basis for engineering design: Reconciling and evolving previous efforts. Research in Engineering Design, 13, 65–82.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hollnagel, E. (2006). Task analysis: Why, what, and how. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (pp. 371–383). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Chapter  Google Scholar 

  • Husserl, E. (1901–1902). Logische unterschungen (Vols. I–II). Halle: Niemeyer.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hysong, S. J., Sawhney, M. K., Wilson, L., Sittig, D. F., Esquivel, A., & Singh, S., et al. (2011). Understanding the management of electronic test result notifications in the outpatient setting. BMC medical Informatics and Decision Making, 11. Retrieved February 28, 2015, from http://www.biomedcentral.com/1472-6947/11/22

  • International Organization for Standardization. (1998a). ISO 9241-11: Ergonomic Requirements for Office Work with Visual Display Terminals (VDTs): Part 11: Guidance on Usability.

    Google Scholar 

  • International Organization for Standardization. (1998b). ISO-14915: Ergonomic Requirements for Office Work with Visual Display Terminals (VDTs): Part 11: Guidance on Usability.

    Google Scholar 

  • Karwowski, W. (2006). The discipline of ergonomics and human factors. In G. Salvendy (Ed.), Handbook of human factors and ergonomics (pp. 3–31). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kieras, D. E., & Meyer, D. E. (1997). An overview of the EPIC architecture for cognition and performance with application to human-computer interaction. Human-Computer Interaction, 12, 391–438.

    Google Scholar 

  • Kjeldskov, J., & Paay, J. (2012). A longitudinal review of Mobile HCI research methods. In Proceedings of the 14th International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction with Mobile Devices and Services (pp. 69–78). ACM. Retrieved February 28, 2015, from http://people.cs.aau.dk/~jesper/pdf/conferences/Kjeldskov-C65.pdf

  • Leikas, J. (2009). Life-based design—A holistic approach to designing human-technology interaction. Helsinki: Edita Prima Oy.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lin, J., Newman, M. W., Hong, J. I., & Landay, J. A. (2000). DENIM: Finding a tighter fit between tools and practice for web site design. In Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems (pp. 510–517).

    Google Scholar 

  • Lotman, Y. (2005). Semiosphere. Sign-Systems Studies, 1, 205–229.

    Google Scholar 

  • Markopoulos, P., & Bekker, M. (2003). Interaction design and children. Interacting with Computers, 15, 141–149.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • McKay, E. (1999). Exploring the effect of graphical metaphors on the performance of learning computer programming concepts in adult learners: A pilot study. Educational Psychology, 19, 471–487.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Memon, A. M., Soffa, M. L., & Pollack, M. E. (2001). Coverage criteria for GUI testing. ACM SIGSOFT Software Engineering Notes, 26(5), 256–267.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Minsky, M. L. (1967). Computation: Finite and infinite machines. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Moran, T. P. (1981). Guest editor’s introduction: An applied psychology of the user. ACM Computing Surveys, 13, 1–11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, D. L. (1996). Focus groups as qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Myers, B., Hudson, S. E., & Pausch, R. (2000). Past, present, and future of user interface software tools. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction (TOCHI), 7, 3–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Newell, A., & Simon, H. A. (1972). Human problem solving. Engelwood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

    Google Scholar 

  • Newman, M. W., & Landay, J. A. (2000). Sitemaps, storyboards, and specifications: A sketch of web site design practice. In Proceedings of the 3rd Conference on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods, and Techniques (pp. 263–274).

    Google Scholar 

  • Nickerson, R., & Landauer, T. (1997). Human-computer interaction: Background and issues. In M. Helander, T. Landauer, & P. Prabhu (Eds.), Handbook of human-computer interaction (pp. 3–31). Amsterdam: Elsevier.

    Google Scholar 

  • Nielsen, J. (1993). Usability engineering. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ogden, C., & Richards, I. (1923). The meaning of meaning. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pahl, G., Beitz, W., Feldhusen, J., & Grote, K. H. (2007). Engineering design: A systematic approach. Berlin: Springer.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Peirce, C. S. (1931–1958). In C. Hartshorne, P. Weiss, & A. Burks (Eds.), Collected papers of Charles Sanders Peirce (Vols. 1–8). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rasmussen, J., Mark Pejtersen, A., & Goodstein, L. P. (1994). Cognitive systems engineering. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rauterberg, M. (1996). How to measure the ergonomic quality of user interfaces in a task independent way. In A. Mital, H. Krueger, S. Kumar, M. Menozzi, & J. E. Fernandez (Eds.), Advances in occupational ergonomics and safety I (pp. 154–157). Cincinnati, OH: International Society for Occupational Ergonomics and Safety.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosson, B., & Carroll, J. (2002). Usability engineering: Scenario-based development of human-computer interaction. San Francisco, CA: Morgan Kaufmann.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rousi, R. (2012). From cute to semiotics.

    Google Scholar 

  • Saariluoma, P., & Rousi, R. (2015). Symbolic interactions: Towards a cognitive scientific theory of meaning in human technology. Journal of Advances in Humanities, 3, 310–323.

    Google Scholar 

  • Salvendy (2006), is editor of G. Salvendy (Ed.), In Handbook of Human Factors and Ergonomics. Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sanders, M. S., & McCormick, E. J. (1993). Human factors in engineering and design (7th ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Searle, J. (1992). The rediscovery of mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Shneiderman, B. (1983). Direct manipulation: A step beyond programming languages. IEEE Computer, 16, 57–69.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Shneiderman, B., & Maes, P. (1997). Direct manipulation vs. interface agents. Interactions, 4, 42–61.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Singley, M. K., & Anderson, J. R. (1987). A keystroke analysis of learning and transfer in text editing. Human-Computer Interaction, 3, 223–274.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Smith, B. (2003). The logic of biological classification and the foundations of biomedical ontology. In Invited Papers from the 10th International Conference in Logic Methodology and Philosophy of Science (pp. 19–25). Oviedo, Spain.

    Google Scholar 

  • Stanton, N. A. (2006). Hierarchical task analysis: Developments, applications, and extensions. Applied Ergonomics, 37, 55–79.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, F. (1911). Shop management. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Taylor, C. (1964). The explanation of behaviour. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • Turing, A. M. (1936–1937). On computable numbers, with an application to the entscheidungsproblem. Proceedings of the London Mathematical Society, 42, 230–265.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ulich, E., Rauterberg, M., Moll, T., Greutmann, T., & Strohm, O. (1991). Task orientation and user-oriented dialog design. International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 3, 117–144.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ulrich, K. T., & Eppinger, S. D. (2011). Product design and development. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vicente, K. J. (1999). Cognitive work analysis: Toward safe, productive, and healthy computer-based work. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

    Google Scholar 

  • von Wright, G. H. (1971). Explanation and understanding. London: Routledge and Kegan Paul.

    Google Scholar 

  • w3Schools. (1999–2016). Retrieved February 12, 2011, from http://www.w3schools.com/css/

  • Weiser, M. (1993). Some computer science issues in ubiquitous computing. Communications of the ACM, 36, 75–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wittgenstein, L. (1953). Philosophical investigations. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.

    Google Scholar 

  • Woods, D. D., & Roth, E. M. (1988). Cognitive engineering: Human problem solving with tools. Human Factors: The Journal of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society, 30, 415–430.

    Google Scholar 

  • Yuan, X., Cohen, M. B., & Memon, A. M. (2011). GUI interaction testing: Incorporating event context. IEEE Transactions on Software Engineering, 37, 559–574.

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Cognitive Science, University of Jyväskylä, Jyväskylä, Finland

    Pertti Saariluoma

  2. Faculty of Psychology, University of Granada, Granada, Spain

    José J. Cañas

  3. VTT Technical Research Centre of Finland Ltd, Tampere, Finland

    Jaana Leikas

Authors
  1. Pertti Saariluoma
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. José J. Cañas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Jaana Leikas
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Copyright information

© 2016 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Cite this chapter

Saariluoma, P., Cañas, J.J., Leikas, J. (2016). The Logic of User Interface Design. In: Designing for Life. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1057/978-1-137-53047-9_3

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation