Copyright (c) 2009 All rights reserved. http://works.bepress.com/david_novick Recent documents in David G. Novick en-us Sun, 31 May 2009 05:09:55 PDT 3600 http://works.bepress.com/david_novick/16 http://works.bepress.com/david_novick/16 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:26:20 PDT Based on 40 interviews and 11 on-site workplace observations of people using computer applications at work, we confirm that use of printed and on-line help is very low and find that providing greater detail of categories solution methods can present a more realistic picture of users' behaviors. Observed study participants encountered a usability problem on average about once every 75 minutes and typically spent about a minute looking for a solution. Participants consumed much more time when they were unaware of a direct way of doing something and instead used less effective methods. Comparison of results from different data-collection methods suggests that interviews, and probably surveys, provide less reliable views of users' problem-solving behaviors than do participatory evaluation and direct observation. David G. Novick http://works.bepress.com/david_novick/15 http://works.bepress.com/david_novick/15 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:24:17 PDT Usability inspection methods, such as heuristic evaluation, the cognitive walkthrough, formal usability inspections, and the pluralistic usability walkthrough, were introduced fifteen years ago. Since then, these methods, analyses of their comparative effectiveness, and their use have evolved in different ways. In this paper, we track the fortunes of the methods and analyses, looking at which led to use and to further research, and which led to relative methodological dead ends. Heuristic evaluation and the cognitive walkthrough appear to be the most actively used and researched techniques. The pluralistic walkthrough remains a recognized technique, although not the subject of significant further study. Formal usability inspections appear to have been incorporated into other techniques or largely abandoned in practice. We conclude with lessons for practitioners and suggestions for future research. Tasha Hollingsed http://works.bepress.com/david_novick/14 http://works.bepress.com/david_novick/14 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:21:23 PDT Few users of computer applications seek help from the documentation. This paper reports the results of an empirical study of why this is so and examines how, in real work, users solve their usability problems. Based on in-depth interviews with 25 subjects representing a varied cross-section of users, we find that users do avoid using both paper and online help systems. Few users have paper manuals for the most heavily used applications, but none complained about their lack. Online help is more likely to be consulted than paper manuals, but users are equally likely to report that they solve their problem by asking a colleague or experimenting on their own. Users cite difficulties in navigating the help systems, particularly difficulties in finding useful search terms, and disappointment in the level of explanation found. David G. Novick http://works.bepress.com/david_novick/13 http://works.bepress.com/david_novick/13 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:19:02 PDT While earlier work provided a partial view of users' preferences about manuals, for most users in most work contexts the important question remains open: What do users want in documentation? This paper presents the results of a study in which a diverse cross-section of 25 users was interviewed in depth about their needs and preferences with respect to software help systems, whether printed or on-line, that they use at work. The study's participants indicated that they preferred documentation, whether online or printed, that is easy to navigate, provides explanations at an appropriate level of technical detail, enables finding as well as solving problems through examples and scenarios, and is complete and correct. These preferences give rise to difficult issues, including a possibly inherent tension between coverage and precision, and variation among users with respect to desired level of technical complexity of explanation. David G. Novick http://works.bepress.com/david_novick/12 http://works.bepress.com/david_novick/12 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:16:47 PDT content in documentation, it is possible to produce both text and graphics from a single common source. One approach to co-generation of text and graphics uses a single logical specification; a second approach starts with CAD-based representation and produces a corresponding textual account. This paper explores these two different approaches, reports the results of using prototypes embodying the approaches to represent simple figures, and discusses issues that were identified through use of the prototypes. While it appears feasible to co-generate text and graphics automatically, the process raises deep issues of design of communications, including the intent of the producer of the documentation. David G. Novick http://works.bepress.com/david_novick/11 http://works.bepress.com/david_novick/11 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:14:53 PDT Testing of usability could perhaps be more accurately described as testing of learnability. We know more about the problems of novice users than we know of the problems of experienced users. To understand how these problems differ, and to understand how usability problems change as users change from novice to experienced, we conducted a longitudinal study of usability among middle-school teachers creating Web sites. The study looked at the use both the use of documentation and the underlying software, tracking the causes and extent of user frustration over eight weeks. We validated a categorization scheme for frustration episodes. We found that over the eight weeks the level of frustration dropped, the distribution of causes of frustration changed, and the users' responses to frustration episodes changed. These results suggest that the sorts of errors that are most prominently featured in conventional usability testing are likely of little consequence over longer periods of time. Valerie Mendoza http://works.bepress.com/david_novick/10 http://works.bepress.com/david_novick/10 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:12:14 PDT As a priority-setting exercise, we compared interactions between users and a simple spoken dialog system to interactions between users and a human operator. We observed usability events, places in which system behavior differed from human behavior, and for each we noted the impact, root causes, and prospects for improvement. We suggest some priority issues for research, involving not only such core areas as speech recognition and synthesis and language understanding and generation, but also less-studied topics such as adaptive or flexible timeouts, turn-taking and speaking rate. Nigel Ward http://works.bepress.com/david_novick/9 http://works.bepress.com/david_novick/9 Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:07:55 PDT This paper presents a model for simulating cultural differences in the conversational behavior of virtual agents. The model provides parameters for differences in proxemics, gaze and overlap in turn taking.We present a review of literature on these factors and show results of a study where native speakers of Nrth American English, Mexican Spanish and Arabic were asked to rate the realism of the simulations generated based on different cultural parameters with respect to their culture. Dusan Jan http://works.bepress.com/david_novick/8 http://works.bepress.com/david_novick/8 Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:50:19 PDT This paper reports ongoing research in extending direct-manipulation interfaces by incorporating, via the direct-manipulation modality itself, interaction techniques that add kinds of language features associated with spoken conversation. The paper proposes means of implementing ways for a user of a direct-manipulation system to define new kinds of relations among objects in the interface. David G. Novick http://works.bepress.com/david_novick/7 http://works.bepress.com/david_novick/7 Wed, 10 Oct 2007 15:50:18 PDT In this paper, we introduce an analysis of the requirements and design choices for hands-free documentation. Hands-busy tasks such as cooking or car repair may require substantial interruption of the task: moving the pan off the burner and wiping hands, or crawling out from underneath the car. We review the need for hands-free documentation and explore the role of task in the use of documentation. Our central analysis examines the roles and characteristics of input and output modalities of hands-free documentation. In particular, we review the use of speech as an input modality, and then visual means and speech as possible output modalities. Finally, we discuss the implications of our analysis for the design of hands-free documentation and suggest future work. The design implications include issues of navigating through the documentation, determining the user's task and taskstep, establishing mutual understanding of the state of the task, and determining when to start conveying information to the user. Karen Ward