|
ABSTRACT
Twenty-two designers were interviewed about their design of interactive systems. They were asked to select a recent project having a significant user interface component, and were probed about the general design process involved, how the design of the user interface fit into that process, and their personal strategies for exploring ideas. Analysis of their responses pointed to two models of the design process. The relationship of these models to the type of user testing done and the strategies used for generating ideas is discussed, especially with respect to the implications for developing tools to support design.
REFERENCES
Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references.
| |
1
|
Bennett, J.L. Managing to meet usability requirements: Establishing and meeting software development goals. In Visual Display Terminals, J. Bennett, D. Case, J. Sandelin and M. Smith, Eds., Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, NJ, 1984, pp: 161-184.
|
| |
2
|
Boies, S.J., Gould, J.D., Levy, S., Richards, J.T., and Schoonard, J. The 1984 Olympic Message System -- A case study in system design. Commun. ACM, in press.
|
| |
3
|
Budde, R. and Zullighoven, H. Internal Report, Gesellschaft fur Mathematik und Datenverarbeitung, GMD - F2G2, D 5205 St.Augustin, 1986.
|
 |
4
|
|
| |
5
|
Carroll, J.M. and Rosson, M.B. Usability specifications as a tool in iterative development. In Advances in Human-Computer Interaction, Vol 1, H. R. Hartson, Ed., Ablex, Norwood, NJ, 1985, pp. 1-28.
|
| |
6
|
Carroll, J.M., Thomas, J.C. and Malhotra, A. A clinical-experimental analysis of design problem solving. British Journal of Psychology 71, (1979), 143-153.
|
| |
7
|
|
| |
8
|
|
 |
9
|
M. Good , T. M. Spine , J. Whiteside , P. George, User-derived impact analysis as a tool for usability engineering, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems, p.241-246, April 13-17, 1986, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
|
 |
10
|
|
 |
11
|
|
 |
12
|
N. Hammond , A. Jørgensen , A. MacLean , P. Barnard , J. Long, Design practice and interface usability: Evidence from interviews with designers, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems, p.40-44, December 12-15, 1983, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
[doi> 10.1145/800045.801577]
|
| |
13
|
|
| |
14
|
Maass, S., Rosson, M.B. and Kellogg, W.A. Userfriendliness, system consistency and other hard-todefine principles: Interviews with designers. To appear in Proceedings of Software-Ergonomie "87, (Berlin, Germany), Teubner, 1987.
|
 |
15
|
|
 |
16
|
|
| |
17
|
Posner, M.I. Cognition: An introduction. Scott, Foresman and Company, Glenview, Ill., 1973.
|
| |
18
|
Shneiderman, B. A model programming environment. In Advances in Human-Computer Interaction Vol 1, H. R. Hartson, Ed., Ablex, Norwood, NJ, 1985, pp. 105-132.
|
| |
19
|
Tanner, P.P. and Buxton, W. Some issues in future user interface management systems. In User Interface Management Systems, G. E. Pfaff, Ed., Springer-Verlag, Berlin, 1985, pp. 67-80.
|
CITED BY 11
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. D. Chase , Robert S. Schulman , H. Rex Hartson , Deborah Hix, Development and evaluation of a taxonomical model of behavioral representation techniques, Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: celebrating interdependence, p.159-165, April 24-28, 1994, Boston, Massachusetts, United States
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|