In this paper, we seek to contribute to the Ubiquitous Computing agenda by focusing on one of its earliest, but most difficult, design ambitions - making technology "invisible in use". We draw on field studies of domestic life as this domain is becoming increasingly important for new technologies and challenges many of the assumptions we take for granted in the design of technologies for the workplace. We use some examples of domestic routines to identify a number of insights into what it means for features of activities to be "unremarkable". We conclude by using these insights to critique some of the current emphases in Ubiquitous Computing research, and suggest how we might better understand the HCI issues of what will be required to develop technologies that really are "invisible in use"

Process descriptions are used in workflow and related systems to describe the flow of work and organisational responsibility in business processes, and to aid in coordination. However, the division of a working process into a sequence of steps provides only a partial view of the work involved. In many cases, the performance of individual tasks in a larger process may depend on interpretations and understandings of how other aspects of the work were conducted.

Many efforts have been made to exploit the properties of graphical notations to support argument construction and communication. In the context of design rationale capture, we are interested in graphical argumentation structures as cognitive tools to support individual and collaborative design in real time. This context of use requires a detailed understanding of how a new representational structure integrates into the cognitive and discursive flow of design, that is, whether it provides supportive or intrusive structure. This article presents a use-oriented analysis of a graphical argumentation notation known as QOC (Questions, Options, and Criteria). Through a series of empirical studies, we show that it provides most support when elaborating poorly understood design spaces, but is a distraction when evaluating well-constrained design spaces. This is explained in terms of the cognitive compatibility between argumentative reasoning and the demands of different modes of designing. We then provide an account based on the collaborative affordances of QOC in group design meetings, and extend this to discuss the evolution of QOC argumentation from short term working memory to long term group memory.

In order to understand some problems associated with workflow, we set out an analysis of workflow systems, identifying a number of basic issues in the underlying technology.This points to the conflation of temporal and dependency information as the source of a number of these problems.We describe Freeflow, a prototype which addresses these problems using a variety of technical innovations, including a rich constraint-based process modelling formalism, and the use of declarative dependency relationships.Its focus is on mediation between process "and action, rather than the enactment of a process.We outline the system and its design principles, and illustrate the features of our approach with examples from ongoing work.

Article Multidisciplinary modelling in HCI design…in theory and in practice Share on Authors: Victoria Bellotti Apple Computer Inc., One Infinite Loop, MS: 301-4A, Cupertino, CA and Rank Xerox Research Centre (formerly EuroPARC), 61 Regent Street, Cambridge, CB2 1AB, UK Apple Computer Inc., One Infinite Loop, MS: 301-4A, Cupertino, CA and Rank Xerox Research Centre (formerly EuroPARC), 61 Regent Street, Cambridge, CB2 1AB, UKView Profile , Simon Buckingham Shum Human-Computer Interaction Group, Dept. Psychology, University of York, York, YO1 5DD, UK Human-Computer Interaction Group, Dept. Psychology, University of York, York, YO1 5DD, UKView Profile , Allan MacLean Rank Xerox Research Centre (formerly EuroPARC), 61 Regent Street, Cambridge, CB2 1AB, UK Rank Xerox Research Centre (formerly EuroPARC), 61 Regent Street, Cambridge, CB2 1AB, UKView Profile , Nick Hammond Human-Computer Interaction Group, Dept. Psychology, University of York, York, YO1 5DD, UK Human-Computer Interaction Group, Dept. Psychology, University of York, York, YO1 5DD, UKView Profile Authors Info & Claims CHI '95: Proceedings of the SIGCHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsMay 1995 Pages 146–153https://doi.org/10.1145/223904.223923Online:01 May 1995Publication History 23citation1,433DownloadsMetricsTotal Citations23Total Downloads1,433Last 12 Months23Last 6 weeks4 Get Citation AlertsNew Citation Alert added!This alert has been successfully added and will be sent to:You will be notified whenever a record that you have chosen has been cited.To manage your alert preferences, click on the button below.Manage my AlertsNew Citation Alert!Please log in to your account Save to BinderSave to BinderCreate a New BinderNameCancelCreateExport CitationPublisher SiteGet Access

At EuroPARC, we have been exploring ways to allow physically separated colleagues to work together effectively and naturally. In this paper, we briefly discuss several examples of our work in the context of three themes that have emerged: the need to support the full range of shared work; the desire to ensure privacy without giving up unobtrusive awareness; and the possibility of creating systems which blur the boundaries between people, technologies and the everyday world.

It is impossible to design systems which are appropriate for all users and all situations. We believe that a useful technique is to have end users tailor their systems to match their personal work practices. This requires not only systems which can be tailored, but a culture within which users feel in control of the system and in which tailoring is the norm. In a two-pronged research project we have worked closely with a group of users to develop a system to support tailoring and to help the users evolve a “tailoring culture”. This has resulted in a flexible system based around the use of distributed on-screen Buttons to support a range of tailoring techniques.

We assert that the product of user interface design should be not only the interface itself but also a rationale for why the interface is the way it is. We describe a representation for design based around a semi-formal notation which allows us explicitly to represent alternative design options and reasons for choosing among them. We illustrate the approach with examples from an analysis of scrolling mechanisms. We discuss the roles we expect such a representation to play in improving the coherence of designs and in communicating reasons for choices to others, whether designers, maintainers, collaborators or end users.

Human performance data are reported for two dialogue conventions involving menu interactions with integrated facilities. Users prepared material for overhead foils in a six session experiment. An initiation style of dialogue in a flexible menu hierarchy was compared with a strict hierarchy involving explicit termination of dialogue sequences. Although tasks could be performed in the same number of steps with either interface, initiation had greater time and transaction costs than termination. The results are discussed in relation to the trade-offs that need to be considered in designing for navigational flexibility and to requirements for modeling user behavior.

We offer an account of how users choose between alternative methods which take different times to accomplish the same task. Users offered a choice between two methods do not necessarily pick the faster. We argue that users reduce the complexity of the decision space by applying a 'simple compensation schema' acquired from everyday experience. Linear models of performance time enable us to predict how users will view the situation in terms of this schema, and how accurate assessment of the optimal choices within the schema-based assimilations can result in an apparent bias in favour of one method.

This paper outlines an approach to ‘user modelling’. In the approach, constructs from theoretical psychology are used to decompose the representational and processing resources of human cognition. This decomposition supports a form of ‘cognitive task analysis’ through which user performance can be related to the underlying functioning of their cognitive mechanism. Such functional relationships have been formalised and embodied in an expert system. This builds approximate models which describe cognitive activity associated with the execution of dialogue exchanges in human–computer interactions. Attributes of these ‘cognitive task models’ are used to derive likely properties of user performance. This paper describes two examples of working knowledge bases and discusses their properties.

Constructs from theoretical psychology can be used to decompose the representational and processing resources of cognition. The decomposition supports “cognitive task analysis” through which user performance can be related to the functioning of resources. Such functional relationships have been formalised and embodied in an expert system. This builds approximate models which describe cognitive activity associated with the execution of dialogue tasks. Attributes of these “cognitive task models” can be used to predict likely properties of user performance.

A technique is described in which a user's knowledge of a software package is elicited by means of a series of photographs depicting the system in a variety of states. The resultant verbal protocols were codified and scored in relation to the way in which the system actually worked. In the illustrative study described, the probes were administered twice after 5 and 10 hrs of system experience with an office product (VisiOn*). The number of true claims elicited increased with experience but the number of false claims remained stable. The potential value of the technique and its output are discussed.

Research into human-computer interaction (HCI) is mainly conducted by engineering psychologists, cognitive psychologists and computer scientists. The principal consumers of applied HCI research, on the other hand, are human factors practitioners and system designers and developers. The HCI researcher who believes his or her findings to be of practical relevance has therefore to consider the interface between researcher and practitioner as well as that between system and user: the products of HCI research must not only be relevant but also “user-friendly” to the practitioner. This problem is not merely one of communication between different professional communities, as the optimal route for the translation of research findings into terms that will be of practical use in the design process is itself a matter of considerable uncertainty and debate. Thus there are many instances in the research literature where apparently contradictory recommendations can all too easily be drawn from findings based on sound but, by its very nature, limited experimentation (e.g., compare the findings of Landauer et al., in press, Ledgard et al., 1980, and Scapin, 1981, on naming text-editing operations).

There is a rich and expanding folklore concerning the consequences of inappropriate naming of computer commands. The problems are particularly acute for occasional users of interactive systems who may be unfamiliar with the jargon of computing. While “naming” has long been of interest to philosophers, linguists and psychologists [2], there is little systematic research on the psychological processes involved in the understanding and acquisition of the vocabularies of interactive computer systems.