Demo Data from EDBT 2026 / reviewers in the wild / expert
Sarah D. Breedin
dblp:48/3086
· DBLP profile ↗
2ranked-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 · 2
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
2 papers |
User interface design and tools · 70% Design research and methods · 30% |
Topics — the 1 heaviest of 2, each with the papers that count most for it
| Topic | Weight | Papers | Last | Evidence papers |
|---|---|---|---|---|
Design research and methods
design process |
0.0 | 1 | 1990 | Designers' models of the human-computer interface · CHI 1990 |
Methods — techniques the papers use, named apart from their topics
pathfinder · 0.0hierarchical cluster analysis · 0.0
| Year | Publication | Venue | Position |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1992 | Network and Multidimensional Representations of the Declarative Knowledge of Human-Computer Interface Design Experts
Douglas J. Gillan, Sarah D. Breedin, Nancy J. Cooke |
Int. J. Man Mach. Stud. | 2 |
| 1990 | Designers' models of the human-computer interfaceabstractUnderstanding design models of the human-computer interface (HCI) may produce two types of benefits. First, interface development often requires input from two different types of experts: human factors specialists and software developers. Given the differences in their backgrounds and roles, human factors specialists and software developers may have different cognitive models of the HCI. Yet, they have to communicate about the interface as part of the design process. If they have different models, their interactions are likely to involve a certain amount of miscommunication. Second, the design process in general is likely to be guided by designers' cognitive models of the HCI, as well as by their knowledge of the user, tasks, and system. Designers do not start with a blank slate; rather they begin with a general model of the object they are designing. The author's approach to a design model of the HCI was to have three groups make judgments of categorical similarity about the components of an interface: human factors specialists with HCI design experience, software developers with HCI design experience, and a baseline group of computer users with no experience in HCI design. The components of the user interface included both display components such as windows, text, and graphics, and user interaction concepts, such as command language, editing, and help. The judgments of the three groups were analyzed using hierarchical cluster analysis and Pathfinder. These methods indicated, respectively, how the groups categorized the concepts, and network representations of the concepts for each group. The Pathfinder analysis provides greater information about local, pairwise relations among concepts, whereas the cluster analysis shows global, categorical relations to a greater extent. Douglas J. Gillan, Sarah D. Breedin |
CHI | 2 |