Improving quality through user-centered design

Pancake, Cherri M.

doi:10.1007/978-1-5041-2940-4_4

Cited by 5 publications

(9 citation statements)

References 10 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…But the user's firsthand knowledge of the software is limited to what he or she actually observes, regardless of whether it is a full-blown graphical interface, a command language, or a library calling interface. The interface shapes the user's perception of what the tool can do and how it should be applied, effectively putting an upper bound on tool usability (Pancake, 1996). Experiments in cognitive science have shown that when faced with a new learning situation, such as trying out a new software tool, humans proceed to construct a mental model that integrates new observations with past experiences that are perceived to be similar or relevant (Kieras and Bovair, 1984;Gentner and Stevens, 1983).…”

Section: Is Not Resulting In Usable Toolsmentioning

confidence: 98%

“…The first two were anticipated, based on the experiences reported in the literature and previous efforts to help industry groups apply usability techniques (see Pancake, 1996, for examples). The third type of benefit was largely serendipitous, but proved to have substantial positive impact on the research projects.…”

Section: The Benefits Of User Involvement In Tool Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Can Users Play an Effective Role in Parallel Tools Research?

Pancake

1997

The International Journal of Supercomputer Applications and Hig

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Commercial experiences have shown that involving users in the software design cycle is a cost-effective way of improving both the quality and the acceptability of tool products. This paper addresses the issue of whether users also should be involved in the research activities that lay the foundation for parallel tool design. Integrating users changes the basic nature of the software process in several ways, as illustrated with examples from recent Parallel Tools Consortium projects. Tool designers must invest additional time to prepare example scenarios or prototypes for user discussions, identify alternatives that can serve as points of departure for user-derived metaphors or models, and analyze user responses. By identifying user suggestions consistently throughout the design process, however, the development time for research prototypes is actually shortened.A growing recognition that products and services should be customer driven has affected development and production processes in many areas of the economy. In computing, the area of human computer interfaces (HCI) is most affected. As increasing attention has been paid to the needs and preferences of software users, it has become obvious to HCI specialists that users can and should play an active role in the software design process. Recent publications have described the experiences of businesses that integrated users into the design cycle and found it to be a cost-effective way of improving both the quality and the acceptability of software products (Bias and Mayhew, In this paper, I address the issue of whether users should be involved not in software production per se but in the research activities that lay the foundation for software tool design. Specifically, I consider the trade-offs if users were to participate more actively in parallel tools research. The first section establishes why parallel tools would appear to be a fruitful area for more direct interactions between researchers and their potential users. This is followed by discussions of the procedures necessary to incorporate users in research projects and the potential benefits to be derived, based on past experiences with recent software tool projects. The costs are then assessed in terms of researcher effort and the effects on time-toresults. A series of recommendations, derived from experiences in acquiring and applying user feedback, indicates how the costs might be kept to a minimum while still allowing the tool researcher to reap the benefits of user involvement. Motivation: Parallel Tools Research

show abstract

Section: Is Not Resulting In Usable Toolsmentioning

confidence: 98%

Section: The Benefits Of User Involvement In Tool Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Can Users Play an Effective Role in Parallel Tools Research?

Pancake

1997

The International Journal of Supercomputer Applications and Hig

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The highly structured environment makes it easier for inexperienced users to quickly tailor an existing query interface -or compose a new one -without direct exposure to SQL or any textual specification mechanism.Like HSQL, QueryDesigner makes assumptions about the types of interfaces that scientists need. In fact, it mimics the styles that we observed scientists creating with other specification tools, including HSQL [27]. To personalize an existing interface, the user clicks on the area of the screen to be changed.…”

Section: Split Personalities For Database Middlewarementioning

confidence: 94%

“…Simply creating an elegant, powerful scientific database doesn't mean that it will be used. Even scientists and engineers -traditionally the group that was most tolerant of software idiosyncracies -now expect their software to show evidence of usability [27,26]. Yet the needs of students clearly differ from those of professional scientists, just as the needs of a microbiologist clearly differ from those of a forester.…”

Section: Why "Split Personalities" Are Neededmentioning

confidence: 99%