ACM Home Page
Please provide us with feedback. Feedback
Using a knowledge analysis to predict conceptual errors in text-editor usage
Full text PdfPdf (860 KB)
Source Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems archive
Proceedings of the SIGCHI conference on Human factors in computing systems: Empowering people table of contents
Seattle, Washington, United States
Pages: 91 - 98  
Year of Publication: 1990
ISBN:0-201-50932-6
Authors
Richard M. Young  MRC Applied Psychology Unit, 15 Chaucer Road, Cambridge CB2 2EF, U.K.
Joyce Whittington  MRC Applied Psychology Unit, 15 Chaucer Road, Cambridge CB2 2EF, U.K.
Sponsor
SIGCHI: ACM Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction
Publisher
ACM  New York, NY, USA
Bibliometrics
Downloads (6 Weeks): 3,   Downloads (12 Months): 15,   Citation Count: 3
Additional Information:

abstract   references   cited by   index terms   collaborative colleagues  

Tools and Actions: Request Permissions Request Permissions    Review this Article  
DOI Bookmark: Use this link to bookmark this Article: http://doi.acm.org/10.1145/97243.97260
What is a DOI?

ABSTRACT

The knowledge analysis of a device and a task, when written in an external Instruction Language and translated into rules for a programmable cognitive architecture, enables a designer to predict conceptual errors in device usage. This kind of prediction lies outside the scope of GOMS-based models. The cognitive architecture, which is referred to as a “Programmable User Model” (PUM), incorporates a limited problem-solving capability based upon means-ends analysis and multiple problem spaces. The example presented, concerning a simple text editor, illustrates the application of a PUM and demonstrates that a correct description of local knowledge does not necessarily lead to correct behaviour. This can serve to alert the designer to difficulties with the usability of a proposed interface.


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
2
 
3
Kieras, D. E. & Poison, P. G. (1985) An approach to the formal analysis of user complexity. International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, 22,365-394.
 
4
5
 
6
Moran, T. P. (1981) The Command Language Grammar: A representation for the user interface of interactive computer systems. International Journal of Man- Machine Studies, 15, 3-50.
7
 
8
 
9
 
10
Olson, J. R. & Nilsen, E. (1988) Analysis of the cognition involved in spreadsheet software interaction. Human Computer Interaction, 3,309-349.
 
11
Payne, S. J. (1987) Complex problem spaces: Modelling the knowledge needed to use interactive devices. In H.-J. Bullinger & B. Shackel (Eds.) Human-Computer Interaction---INTERACT'87. Elsevier.
 
12
Payne, S. J. (1989) A notation for reasoning about learning. In J. Long & A. Whitefield (Eds.) Cognitive Ergonomics and Human-Computer Interaction, 134- 165. Cambridge University Press.
 
13
Poison, P. G. (1988) The consequences of consistent and inconsistent interfaces. In R. Guindon fEd.) Cognitive Science and its Applications for Human Computer Interaction. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
14
 
15
Waldrop, M. M. (1988) Toward a unified theory of cognition. Science, 241, 27-29; Soar: A unified theory of cognition? Science, 241,296-298.
 
16
17


Collaborative Colleagues:
Richard M. Young: colleagues
Joyce Whittington: colleagues