WILL THE REAL SCENARIO PLEASE STAND UP?

ABSTRACT

At every phase of its development, human-computer interaction has had its devices for disabling critical thinking. In recent years, terms like "hypertext" and "groupware" have sometimes functioned that way. But such excesses have been countered by critical and debunking literature (e.g., Jones, 1987; Grudin, 1991). I would like to draw attention to another such device: the term "scenario". "Scenario" qualifies as a buzzword because it is extremely vague and has a myriad of uses. Indeed, it probably entered the HCI community from the US government bureaucracy, especially the military, where it remains a popular term for any detailed alternative possibility. Another established use is in business, in which a growth scenario describes the anticipated increase in demand for a product through the step-by-step fulfilment of a marketing plan.

REFERENCES

• 1: Robert L. Campbell, Developmental scenario analysis of Smalltalk programming, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: Empowering people, p.269-276, April 01-05, 1990, Seattle, Washington, United States [doi>10.1145/97243.97285]
• 2: Whiteside (Eds.), <i>Human Factors in Computing Systems: CHI'90 Conference Proceedings</i> (pp. 269--276). New York: ACM.
• 3: Carroll, J. M., &amp; Rosson, M. B. (1990). Human computer interaction scenarios as a design representation. <i>Proceedings of HICCS-23: Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences</i> (pp. 555--561). Los Alamitos, CA: IEEE Computer Society.
• 4: diSessa, A. A. (1985). A principled design for an integrated computational environment. <i>Human-Computer Interaction</i>, 1, 1--47.
• 5: Andrea A. DiSessa, Local sciences: viewing the design of human-computer systems as cognitive science, Designing interaction: psychology at the human-computer interface, Cambridge University Press, New York, NY, 1991
• 6: Dennis E. Egan , Joel R. Remde , Louis M. Gomez , Thomas K. Landauer , Jennifer Eberhardt , Carol C. Lochbaum, Formative design evaluation of superbook, ACM Transactions on Information Systems (TOIS), v.7 n.1, p.30-57, Jan. 1989 [doi>10.1145/64789.64790]
• 7: Jonathan Grudin, CSCW: the convergence of two development contexts, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: Reaching through technology, p.91-97, April 27-May 02, 1991, New Orleans, Louisiana, United States [doi>10.1145/108844.108858]
• 8: Jones, W. P. (1987). How do we distinguish the hyper from the hype in non-linear text? In H. J. Bullinger &amp; B. Shackel (Eds.), <i>Human-computer interaction: INTERACT '87</i> (pp. 1107--1113). Amsterdam: North-Holland.
• 9: Claire-Marie Karat , Robert Campbell , Tarra Fiegel, Comparison of empirical testing and walkthrough methods in user interface evaluation, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, p.397-404, May 03-07, 1992, Monterey, California, United States [doi>10.1145/142750.142873]
• 10: Richard M. Young , Phil Barnard, The use of scenarios in human-computer interaction research: turbocharging the tortoise of cumulative science, Proceedings of the SIGCHI/GI conference on Human factors in computing systems and graphics interface, p.291-296, April 05-09, 1987, Toronto, Ontario, Canada
• 11: R. M. Young , P. Barnard , T. Simon , J. Whittington, How would your favourite user model cope with these scenarios?, ACM SIGCHI Bulletin, v.20 n.4, p.51-55, April 1989 [doi>10.1145/67243.67249]