An ease of use evaluation of an integrated document processing system

Good, Michael

doi:10.1145/800049.801771

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 8 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This gives a standard for interpreting the results of any new evaluation, a critical factor missing from many specific evaluations (e.g., [7]). One of our goals in proposing a standarized evaluation is to initialize a database of information about the population of existing editors, Tbe methodology we present here evaluates computer text editors from the viewpoint of the performance of their users-from novices learning the editor for the first time to dedicated experts who have mastered the editor.…”

Section: Research Contributfonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The evaluation of text editors: methodology and empirical results.

1983

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper presents a methodology for evaluating text editors on several dimensions: the time it takes experts to perform basic editing tasks, the time experts spend making and correcting errors, the rate at which novices learn to perform basic editing tasks, and the functionality of editors over more complex tasks. Time, errors, and learning are measured experimentally; functionality is measured analytically; time is also calculated analytically. The methodology has thus far been used to evaluate nine diverse text editors, producing an initial database of performance results. The database is used to tell us not only about the editors but also about the users—the magnitude of individual differences and the factors affecting novice learning.

show abstract

Section: Research Contributfonsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The evaluation of text editors: methodology and empirical results.

1983

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…This function has been provided in many systems such as Macintosh [4], Etude [2] and ICE[ 121. 1 . reuse are suitable for different applications and interactive sessions?…”

Section: Criteria For a General User Recovery Facilitymentioning

confidence: 99%

A new conceptual model for interactive user recovery and command reuse facilities

Yang

1988

Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems - CHI '88

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This paper generalises approaches to modelling an undo facility for interactive systems into a comprehensive user recovery and command reuse facility. It separates different undoing actions into distinct undoing functions and incorporates redoing capability in a more general command reuse capacity. Four adequacy criteria for such a facility are proposed and a general model is developed to meet these requirements. Partial, patterned and repetitive undoing and redoing actions are allowed on simple, complex and meta commands. The model subsumes the functionality of prior models.

show abstract

“…For example, Good describes an evaluation of the ease of use of a document-processing system by considering its ease of learning, its ease of use once learned, the anxiety it creates, and user attitudes. 9 We can classify factors contributing to the effort required to learn a human-computer interface into properties associated with the individual user and properties independent of the user. Three such factors are (1) similarity of the learned interface to other known interfaces;…”

Section: Usability Of An Interfacementioning

confidence: 99%

Assessing the Usability of Human-Computer Interfaces

Lindquist

1985

IEEE Softw.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

An ease of use evaluation of an integrated document processing system

Cited by 6 publications

References 8 publications

The evaluation of text editors: methodology and empirical results.

The evaluation of text editors: methodology and empirical results.

A new conceptual model for interactive user recovery and command reuse facilities

Assessing the Usability of Human-Computer Interfaces

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About