Demonstration venue · read-only. Every page can be browsed; the buttons that would change it are switched off. Create an account to run TaxoReview on your own data. A simulation from public publication records: the people listed were not invited and did not agree to review.
? Tutorial for this page

David C. Crow

dblp:36/1112 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
1ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 1999
—ORCID · none

Domains — the database's venue-derived domains; a paper can count in several

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 1

Expertise — from the expertise taxonomy: the topics of the expert's papers under the CCF categories. A weight counts papers with recency: 1 for a paper about the topic, 0.3 when the topic is its context, halved every five years.

Databases, data mining, and information retrieval
1 paper
Information retrieval · 100%
Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
1 paper
Usability and user experience research · 100%

Topics — the 3 heaviest of 3, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Information retrieval
search engines
0.011999
The Tangled Web we Wove: A Taskonomy of WWW Use · CHI 1999
Information retrieval › search engines
web browsing
0.011999
The Tangled Web we Wove: A Taskonomy of WWW Use · CHI 1999
Usability and user experience research
task analysis
0.011999
The Tangled Web we Wove: A Taskonomy of WWW Use · CHI 1999

Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics

verbal protocol analysis · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1999 The Tangled Web we Wove: A Taskonomy of WWW Use
abstract
A prerequisite to the effective design of user interfaces is an understanding of the tasks for which that interface will actually be used. Surprisingly little task analysis has appeared for one of the most discussed and fastest-growing computer applications, browsing the World-Wide Web (WWW). Based on naturally-collected verbal protocol data, we present a taxonomy of tasks undertaken on the WWW. The data reveal that several previous claims about browsing behavior are questionable, and suggests that that widget-centered approaches to interface design and evaluation may be incomplete with respect to good user interfaces for the Web.
Michael D. Byrne, Bonnie E. John, Neil S. Wehrle, David C. Crow
CHI4