CASSM and cognitive walkthrough: usability issues with ticket vending machines

Connell, Iain; Blandford, Ann; Green, Thomas R. G.

doi:10.1080/01449290410001773463

Cited by 28 publications

(24 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such emphasis on anchor points in the stream of thought is related to Shneiderman's Object-Actions Interface model [see Shneiderman and Plaisant 2005, p. 95 ff] and to the goal of identifying objects central in the users' tasks in object-oriented modeling. Similarly, the tight correspondence between concepts in the user's understanding of the application domain and the concepts pertained in the user interface is the main target of another evaluation technique called Concept-based Analysis for Surface and Structural Misfits, CASSM [Connell et al 2004].…”

Section: Future Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metaphors of human thinking for usability inspection and design

Frøkjær

Hornbæk

2008

ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Usability inspection techniques are widely used, but few focus on users' thinking and many are appropriate only for particular devices and use contexts. We present a new technique (MOT) that guides inspection by metaphors of human thinking. The metaphors concern habit, the stream of thought, awareness and associations, the relation between utterances and thought, and knowing. The main novelty of MOT is its psychological basis combined with its use of metaphors to stimulate inspection. The first of three experiments shows that usability problems uncovered with MOT are more serious and more complex to repair than problems found with heuristic evaluation. Problems found with MOT are also judged more likely to persist for expert users. The second experiment shows that MOT finds more problems than cognitive walkthrough, and has a wider coverage of a reference collection of usability problems. Participants prefer using MOT over cognitive walkthrough; an important reason being the wider scope of MOT. The third experiment compares MOT, cognitive walkthrough, and think aloud testing, in the context of nontraditional user interfaces. Participants prefer using think aloud testing, but identify few problems with that technique that are not found also with MOT or cognitive walkthrough. MOT identifies more problems than the other techniques. Across experiments and measures of usability problems' utility in systems design, MOT performs better than existing inspection techniques and is comparable to think aloud testing.

show abstract

Section: Future Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Metaphors of human thinking for usability inspection and design

Frøkjær

Hornbæk

2008

ACM Trans. Comput.-Hum. Interact.

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Elsewhere, we have compared the findings of CASSM analyses with those of procedurally based approaches such as Cognitive Walkthrough [6]. We have not conducted such a comparative analysis in the work with Tallis because, as should be evident from Figures 1 and 2, the procedures for working with the two interfaces are completely different.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Connell et al [6] have contrasted CASSM with Cognitive Walkthrough, whose focus on goal support at each stage of a task has some similarities with Norman's [15] theory of action (which depicts system-user misfits in terms of the gulfs of execution and evaluation). CASSM can be viewed as focusing more on the conceptual gulfs that Norman [15] discusses between the designer and the user.…”

Section: Cassm and Misfit Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Earlier papers [1,6] show how we characterise this distinction in terms of a taxonomy of User, Interface and System properties, where the various concepts (entities and attributes) which result from the CASSM analysis are depicted as Present or Absent from the System models, and Present, Absent or Difficult to apprehend for the User or via the Interface. (See [4] for tutorial and worked examples).…”

Section: Cassm and Misfit Analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Knowledge Representation Environments: An Investigation of the CASSMs between Creators, Composers and Consumers

Blandford

Green

Connell

et al. 2008

Engineering Interactive Systems

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. Many systems form 'chains' whereby developers use one system (or 'tool') to create another system, for use by other people. For example, a web development tool is created by one development team then used by others to compose web pages for use by yet other people. Little work within HumanComputer Interaction (HCI) has considered how usability considerations propagate through such chains. In this paper, we discuss three-link chains involving people that we term Creators (commonly referred to as designers), Composers (users of the tool who compose artefacts for other users) and Consumers (end users of artefacts). We focus on usability considerations and how Creators can develop systems that are both usable themselves and also support Composers in producing further systems that Consumers can work with easily. We show how CASSM, an analytic evaluation method that focuses attention on conceptual structures for interactive systems, supports reasoning about the propagation of concepts through Creator-Composer-Consumer chains. We use as our example a knowledge representation system called Tallis, which includes specific implementations of these different perspectives. Tallis is promoting a development culture within which individuals are empowered to take on different roles in order to strengthen the 'chain of comprehension' between different user types.

show abstract

“…Although there are many studies concerning the usability of walk-up-and-use systems (e.g. Bratteberg & Kristoffersen 2008;Camilli et al 2011;Connell, Blandford & Green 2004;Lee 2003) we still have to deal with hard to use ticket and vending machines in everyday life. Coffee is one of the most-consumed beverages in the world (Villanueva et al 2006) -and so is the case for the campus of the University of Regensburg, Germany (http://www.ur.de).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%