CS 5724

Week-by-Week

25 August: Course overview, organization
(No reading assignment)

Course Project: Describe an interesting and concrete problem in human-computer interaction, embodied in a nontrivial episode of user behavior (that is, of at least a few minutes duration), that illustrates at least two major principles from theories and frameworks we have discussed. Make a "comparative" analysis of the behavior: identify the key design tradeoffs, evaluate upsides and downsides, describe a possible design solution or discuss why it would be difficult to address the observed problems. Emphasize how different principles, frameworks, and theories were differently useful in the project. The project will be graded based on the quality of the problem you select and the quality of your analysis. Please meet with the Instructor to discuss project possibilities.

The project has three due dates: Submit a group proposal on October 6, indicating the three students who will work together and the initial ideas that are being considered (no more than 2 pages please). Submit an update on November 3, summarizing progress, and indicating any changes in direction (no more than two pages). Project report is due on December 1, submitted as a set of Web-pages, and presented in class on December 1, 3 or 8. You can browse past projects from this course on the Resource page.

27 August: Lecture: Brief history of HCI
* J. Carroll (1997) Human-computer interaction: Psychology as a science of design. International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 46, 501-522 (included in the coursepack available in the Bookstore).

1 September: Lecture: The theory-practice gap
* J. Carroll (1991) The Kittle House Manifesto. In J.M. Carroll (Ed.), Designing Interaction: Psychology at the human-computer interface. New York: Cambidge University Press (this out-of-print book is available in the Bookstore as a coursepack).
* Z. Pylyshyn (1991) Some remarks on the theory-practice gap. In Designing Interaction.

3 September: Lecture: A look at the "science base" of HCI
* N. Stillings et al. (1989)Cognitive Science: An Introduction, MIT Press; Chapter 3 only, pp.65-123 (this reading is on reserve in Newman; it is notin the coursepack).

8 September: Lecture: GOMS
*B.E. John & D.E. Kieras (1996). Using GOMS for user interface design and evaluation: Which technique? ACM Transactions on Computer Human Interaction, 3(4), 287-319.
* S. Card, T. Moran & A. Newell (1980) The keystroke-level model for user performance time with interactive systems. Communications of the ACM, 23(7), 396-410

10 September: Student presentations: Extensions and applications of GOMS
* R. Gong & J. Elkerton (1990). Designing minimal documentation using a GOMS model: A usability evaluation of an engineering approach. Proceedings of CHI'90, pp. 99-106
* W.D. Gray, B.E. John & M. Atwood (1992). The precis of project Ernestine, or, An overview of a validation of GOMS. Proceedings of CHI'92 Conference, pp. 307-312
*J. Lohse (1991). A cognitive model for the perception and understanding of graphs. Proceedings of CHI'91, pp. 137-144.

15 September: Lecture: Theory-based design
* J. Carroll, W. Kellogg & M.B. Rosson (1991) The task-artifact cycle. In Designing Interaction
* J. Carroll (1997). Scenario-based design. In M. Helander & T.K. Landauer (Eds.) Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, Second Edition. Amsterdam: North Holland, pp. 383-406 (on reserve in Newman; not in the coursepack).

17 September: Lecture: Task-action mapping models
* S. Payne & T. Green (1986) Task-action grammars: A model of the mental representation of task languages. Human-Computer Interaction, 2, 93-133

Assignment 1 (due on 24 September): Select 2 typical scenarios of user interaction for Microsoft Word (or some other commercial off-the-shelf application). Present both a keystroke-level GOMS analysis and task-action grammar analysis for actions in the scenarios (you do not have to make a comprehensive analysis; do something on the scale of the examples we have seen in class and in the readings).
Make a claims (tradeoff) analysis for each scenario. Identify possible upside and downside consequences for keystroke-levels actions and task-action mappings in the scenarios.
Discuss how GOMS, TAG, and claims analysis complement or duplicate one another. What are strengths and weaknesses of the analyses? How might each help you plan a usability evaluation, or guide the redesign of the application?
Do not hand in more than 1500 words.

22 September: Student presentations: Task-action mapping models
* Moran, T.P. (1983). Getting into the system: External-Internal task mapping analysis. Proceedings of CHI'83 Conference, pp. 45-49
* Carroll, J.M. (1982). Learning, using, and designing filenames and command paradigms. Behaviour and Information Technology, 1, 327-346.
* A. Howes, R. Young (1991) Predicting the learnability of task-action mappings. Proceedings of CHI'91, pp. 113-118.

24 September: In-class discussion of first assignment

Assignment 1 is due today. Two students will present their homework

Assignment 2 (due 1 October): Critique the student paper you were assigned as specifically as possible, focusing on the technical points that were made.
Do not hand in more than 250words.

29 September: Lecture: Critiques of theory-based approaches
* Carroll, J.M. & Campbell, R.L. (1986). Softening up hard science: Reply to Newell and Card. Human-Computer Interaction, 2, 227-249
* T. Landauer (1991) Let's get real. In Designing Interaction

Initial group project proposal is due today.

1 October: Student presentations: How to "save" theory
* P. Barnard (1991) Bridging between basic theories and the artifacts of HCI. In Designing Interaction.
* C. Lewis (1991) Inner and outer theory in HCI. In Designing Interaction.

Assignment 2 (peer evaluation of Assignment 1) due today.

6 October: Student presentations: Domain-specificity
*Grudin, J. (1989). The case against user interface consistency. Communications of the ACM, 32(10), 1164-1173
* R. Brooks (1991) Comparative task analysis. In Designing Interaction.

Group proposals are due today

8 October: Lecture: Design-based theory
* J.M. Carroll, M.K. Singley, M.B. Rosson (1992). Integrating theory development with design evaluation. Behaviour and Information Technology, 11, 247-255.
* A. MacLean, R. Young, T. Moran (1989). Design rationale: The argument behind the artifact. Proceedings of CHI'89, pp. 247-252.

Assignment 3 (due 15 October): In less than 750 words (about 1.5 pages), summarize and contrast the views of Shneiderman and Hutchins (et al.) on direct manipulation.

13 October: Lecture: The active user
* Carroll, J.M. & Rosson, M.B. (1987). Paradox of the active user. In J.M. Carroll (Ed.), Interfacing thought: Cognitive aspects of human-computer interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, pp. 80-111

15 October: Student presentations: Direct manipulation
* Shneiderman, B. (1983). Direct manipulation: A step beyond programming languages. IEEE Computer, August, 57-69
* Hutchins, E.L., Hollan, J.D., & Norman, D.A. (1985). Direct manipulation interfaces. Human-Computer Interaction, 1, 311-338

Assignment 3 is due today

20 October: Lecture: Ecological approaches
* S. Payne (1991) Interface problems and interface resources. In Designing Interaction.
* D. Norman (1991) Cognitive artifacts. In Designing Interaction.

22 October: Lecture: Metaphor models
* Neale, D. & Carroll, J.M. (1997). In M. Helander (Ed.), Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers, 67-85
* K.H. Madsen (1994). A guide to metaphorical design. Communications of the ACM, 37(12), 57-62.

27 October: Student presentations: Examples of active user, ecological approaches, metaphors
* J. Reiman (1996). A field study of exploratory learning strategies. ACM Transactions on Computer Human Interaction, 3(3), 189-218.
* E.M. Wilcox, J.W. Atwood, M.M. Burnett, J.J. Cadiz, C.R. Cook. (1997) Does continuous visual feedback aid debugging in direct manipulation programming systems? Proceedings of CHI'97 Conference, pp. 258-265.
* M. Franzke (1994). Turning research into practice: Characteristics of display-based interaction. Proceedings of CHI'95 Conference, pp. 421-428.

29 October: Student presentations: Examples of active user, ecological approaches, metaphors
* M.B. Rosson & J.M. Carroll (1996). The reuse of uses in Smalltalk programming. ACM Transactions on Computer Human Interaction, 3(3), 219-253.
* H.J. Moll-Carrillo, G. Salomon, M. Marsh, J.F. Suri, P. Spreenberg (1995). Articulating a metaphor through user-centered design. Proceedings of CHI'94, pp. 566-572.
* J. Lundell, S. Anderson (1995). Designing a front panel for Unix: The evolution of a metaphor. Proceedings of CHI'95, pp.573-579.

Just for fun: B. Shneiderman, P. Maes (1997). Direct manipluation versus interface agents. ACM Interactions, IV.6, 42-61.

Assignment 4 (due 5 November): Select 2 typical scenarios of user interaction for some Web-based information system. Make a claims analysis for each scenario, identifying a range of possible upside and downside consequences using these five frameworks: GOMS, TAG, metaphor, active user, and distributed cognition. Compare and contrast metaphor/active user/distributed cognition, taken as a group, with GOMS/TAG, taken as a group.
Do not hand in more than 1500 words.

3 November: Lecture: Activity theory
* L. Bannon & S. Bodker (1991). Encountering artifacts in use. In Designing Interaction.
* S. Greif (1991). The role of German work psychology in the design of artifacts. In Designing Interaction.

Group project progress report is due today

5 November: Discussion
Assignment 4 is due today; two students will present their homeworks.

Assignment 5 (due 12 November): Critique the paper you were assigned as specifically as possible, focusing on the technical points that were made (250 words; 1/2 page maximum!).

10 November:Lecture: Ethnography
* J.Hughes, V. King, T. Rodden, H. Andersen (1994). Moving out from the control room: Ethnography in system design. Proceedings of CSCW'94, pp. 429-439.
* A. Kidd (1994). The marks are on the knowledge worker. Proceedings of CHI'94 Conference, pp. 186-191.
* L. Suchman (1995). Making work visible. ACM Communications, 38(9), 56-65.

12 November: Student presentations: Examples of activity theory and ethnography
* A. Sellen & R. Harper (1997). Paper as an analytical resource for the design of new technologies. Proceedings of CHI'97 Conference, pp. 319-326.
* Pycock, J. & Bowers, J. (1996). Getting others to get it right. Proceedings of CSCW'96 Conference, pp. 219-228 (on reserve in Newman).
* B. Katzenberg & P. Piela (1993). Work language analysis and the naming problem. ACM Communications, 36(4), 86-92.

Assignment 5 (peer evaluation of Assignment 4) due today.

17 November: Student presentations: Examples of activity theory and ethnography
* S. Whittaker, D. Frohlich, O. Daly-Jones (1994). Informal workplace communication: What is it like and how might we support it? Proceedings of CHI'94, pp. 131-137.
* S. Whittaker, J. Swanson, J. Kucan, C. Sidner (1997). Telenotes: Managing lightweight interactions in the desktop. ACM Transactions on Computer Human Interaction, 4(2), 137-168.

Just for fun: S. Blythin, M. Rouncefield, J.A. Hughes (1997). Ethnography in the commercial world. ACM Interactions, IV.3, 38-47.
S. Lewis, M. Mateas, S. Palmiter, G. Lynch (1996). Ethnographic data for product development: A collaborative process. ACM Interactions, III.6, 52-69.

19 November: Lecture: Toward a theory-based development methodology
* Reading TBA

1 December: Project presentations

Group project Web pages are due today.

3 December: Project presentations (continue)

8 December: Project presentations (continue)

Group peer evaluations of project Web pages due today (500 words; 1 page maximum).

10 December: Final Exam, 9-11, <WHERE >
In the timetable the exam for this course is listed as 10-12 on Thursday, December 17. I suggest that we reschedule the exam as indicated for December 10 (the reading day). Please let us know ASAP if this is not possible for you.

In-class exam, short-answers