2018
DOI: 10.1201/9780203736166
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

3
242
1
31

Year Published

2018
2018
2018
2018

Publication Types

Select...
5
4

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 1,211 publications
(277 citation statements)
references
References 0 publications
3
242
1
31
Order By: Relevance
“…As the SEIPS 2.0 and patient work frameworks are macroergonomic (Hendrick & Kleiner, 2002) in nature, their use encouraged the design team to “think systems” and “think big(ger)” (Holden, Rivera, & Carayon, 2015), which in this case means consideration of patients’ long-term goals, overall workload, and integration of self-care recommendations into daily life. These considerations may not have arisen with the use of narrower HFE or HCI frameworks such as GOMS (Card, Newell, & Moran, 1983), which focus on cognitive architecture but not the user’s environment.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…As the SEIPS 2.0 and patient work frameworks are macroergonomic (Hendrick & Kleiner, 2002) in nature, their use encouraged the design team to “think systems” and “think big(ger)” (Holden, Rivera, & Carayon, 2015), which in this case means consideration of patients’ long-term goals, overall workload, and integration of self-care recommendations into daily life. These considerations may not have arisen with the use of narrower HFE or HCI frameworks such as GOMS (Card, Newell, & Moran, 1983), which focus on cognitive architecture but not the user’s environment.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The framework describes an iterative process wherein practitioners (i) seek to understand the users, their tasks, goals, different aspects of the surrounding environment, and broader contexts, (ii) design abstract representations or more traditional artifacts such as wireframes or user interface prototypes, and (iii) evaluate the designs against initial understandings of users and goals (Figure 1c). We refer interested readers to a variety of supporting literature, as the framework reiterates a ubiquitous and fairly standard approach in design science and practice (Scapin, 1990; Bagor et al, 2008; Beyer & Hotzblatt, 1998; Buxton, 2007; Card et al, 1983; Carayon, 2012; Gennari & Reddy, 2000; Greenberg et al, 2011; John et al, 1996; Johnson et al, 2005; Karsh et al, 2006; Lindgaard et al, 2006; Lim et al, 2008; Nielsen, 1993; Norman, 1986; Preece et al., 2002; Polson et al, 1992; Pruitt & Adlin, 2006; Snyder, 2003).…”
Section: Hfe Conceptual Frameworkmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…To the dismay of Keller (1958) and the behaviorists, two founding contributions of modern cognitive theory were the importance of hierarchies (Simon, 1962) and the establishment of the power law of practice (Anderson, 1982(Anderson, , 1987Fitts & Posner, 1967;Newell & Rosenbloom, 1981). Together these can explain the initial performance increases with practice and its later declining returns (Card, Moran, & Newell, 1983;Newell & Rosenbloom, 1981).…”
Section: Practice: the Power Of Chunking And Hierarchiesmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The process to model a problem space and arrive at a solution is usually dependent on the characteristics of the problem space involved in an analysis. Construction of a process strategy, at a minimum, would involve a set of symbols representing tasks, a mechanism for signifying the relationships between symbols, and a set of operators or rules for manipulating these symbols (Card et al., ; Gill, ). A generic process framework, such as Cross‐Industry Process for Data Mining or CRISP‐DM, would give a high‐level guideline for an analytics project; but frequently operational requirements would necessitate customization.…”
Section: Problem Space Mappingmentioning
confidence: 99%