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

Susan E. Davies

dblp:01/1367 · DBLP profile ↗
← Back
3ranked-venue papers
0as first author
0since 2021 · last 1992
—ORCID · none

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

Human-computer interaction and ubiquitous computing · 3

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.

Human-computer interaction and pervasive computing
3 papers
Usability and user experience research · 61% User interface design and tools · 22% Interaction techniques and input · 17%

Topics — the 4 heaviest of 6, each with the papers that count most for it

TopicWeightPapersLastEvidence papers
Usability and user experience research › usability evaluation
automated usability evaluation
0.011991
An automated cognitive walkthrough · CHI 1991
Usability and user experience research › usability inspection
cognitive walkthrough
0.011991
An automated cognitive walkthrough · CHI 1991
Interaction techniques and input › selection techniques
menu system
0.011988
Transfer between menu systems · CHI 1988
Interaction techniques and input › selection techniques › command selection
menu interaction
0.011988
Transfer between menu systems · CHI 1988

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

quantitative prediction · 0.0production system model · 0.0
YearPublicationVenuePosition
1992 A visit to a very small database: lessons from managing the review of papers submitted for CHI'91
abstract
Many of the principles that guide user-interface design for commercial systems do not scale down to simple applications developed on personal computers. These “very small systems” are typicaly designed within a high-level application such as a database or a spreadsheet. The entire development process may take no more than a few days. In this restricted context, iterative design and usability testing are unaffordable luxuries, while detailed task analysis and early focus on users fail because the task and users will not coalesce until the system is in place. We describe our experiences with developing and using a very small sytem. We present suggestions for successful design in similar situations.
John Rieman, Susan E. Davies
CHI2
1991 An automated cognitive walkthrough
abstract
No abstract available.
John Rieman, Susan E. Davies, D. Charles Hair, Mary Esemplare, Peter G. Polson, Clayton H. Lewis
CHI2
1988 Transfer between menu systems
abstract
This paper investigates whether changes in the user/computer dialogue structure will affect the performance of users who are familiar with an earlier version of the product. Quantitative predictions using the Kieras and Polson (1985) production system model were derived to test whether changing the lexical attributes and structure of a popular menu-driven word-processor would permit transfer of existing knowledge of the word-processor to a new version. The results show that changes to the dialogue structure of the menu-system are not detrimental, while changes to the lexical attributes of the menus will hinder user performance.
Peter W. Foltz, Susan E. Davies, Peter G. Polson, David E. Kieras
CHI2