Nancy C. Goodwin
Skip Abstract Section
Abstract
Instead of limiting functionality, usability complements functionality. It affects how and with what effectiveness a system is used, and even whether or not it is used at all.
- 1 Barnard, P.J., Hammond, N.V., Morton, J., and Long, J.B. Consistency and compatibility in human-computer dialogue. Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 15, 1 (July 1981). 87-134.Google Scholar
Cross Ref
- 2 Bennett, J.L. Incorporating usability into system design: The opportunity for interactive computer graphics. In Proceedings of the Infernational Conference on Cybernetics and Society (Tokyo-Kyoto. Japan, Nov. 3-7). Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, New York, 1978. pp. 1119-1124.Google Scholar
- 3 Brooks, F.P. Jr. The computer scientist as "toolsmith"-Studies in interactive graphics. In Information Processing 1977, B. Gilcrist, Ed. Elsevier North-Holland, New York, 1977, pp. 625-634.Google Scholar
- 4 Conrath, D.W. Considerations for the design of office communication-information systems. In Proceedings, Office Automation Conference (San Francisco, Calif. Apr. 5-7). American Federation of Information Processing Societies, San Francisco, Calif., 1982, pp. 825-835.Google Scholar
- 5 Carroll, J.M., and Rosson, M.B. Usability specifications as a tool in iterative development. RC 10437 (#44642) 4/3/84, IBM, Yorktown Heights, N.Y., 1984.Google Scholar
- 6 Coulouris, G.F. Designing interactive systems for the office of the future. Behav. Inf Technot. I, 1 (Jan.-Mar. 1982), 37-42.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 7 Davis, R. User error or computer error? Observations on a statistics package. Int. I. Man-Mach. Stud. 19, 4 (Oct. 1983). 359-376.Google Scholar
- 8 Eason, K.D. Towards the experimental study of usability. Ink J. Man-Mach. Stud. 3, 2 (Apr.-June 1984) 133-143.Google Scholar
- 9 Foley, J.D., and Van Dam, A. Fundamentals ofInteractive Computer Graphics. Addison-Wesley, Reading, Mass., 1982. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 10 Fried, L. Nine principles for ergonomic software. Dafamafion 28. 11 (Nov. 1982), 163-166.Google Scholar
- 11 Galitz, W.O. Handbook of Screen Format Design. Q.E.D. Information Sciences, Wellesley, Mass., 1981.Google Scholar
- 12 Goodwin, N.C. Effect of interface design on usability of message handling systems. In Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 26th Annual Meeting (Seattle, Wash., Oct. 25-29). Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, Calif., 1982. pp. 69-73.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 13 Keister, R.S., and Gallaway, G.R. Making software user friendly: An assessment of data entry performance. In Proceedings of the Human Fucfors Society (Norfolk, Va., Oct. 10-14). Human Factors Society, Santa Monica, Calif., 1983, pp. 1031-1034.Google Scholar
- 14 Long, J., Hammond, N., Barnard, P., and Morton, J. Introducing the interactive computer at work: The users' views. Behav. In/, Technot. 2, 1 (Jan.-Mar. 1983) 39-106.Google Scholar
- 15 Maguire. M. An evaluation of published recommendations on the design of man-computer dialogues. Int. 1. Man-Mach. Stud. 16, 3 (Mar. 1982) 237-261.Google Scholar
- 16 Martin, J. Design of Man-Compufer Dialogues. Prentice-Hall, Englewood Cliffs, N.J., 1973. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 17 Meadow, C.T. User adaptation in interactive information retrieval. J. Am. Sot. If. Sci. 34,4 (July 1983) 289-291.Google Scholar
- 18 Meads, J.A. Friendly or frivolous? Dafamnfion 31, 4 (1985), 96-100. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 19 Morland, D.V. Human factors guidelines for terminal interface design. Commun. ACM 26, 7 (July 1983) 484-494. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 20 Mosier, J.N., and Smith, S.L. Application of guidelines for designing user interface software. Behav. If. Technot. 5, 1 (Jan.-Mar. 1986) 39-46.Google Scholar
- 21 Moynihan, J.A. What users want. Dnfamafion 284 (Apr. 1982), 116-118.Google Scholar
- 22 Nickerson, R. Why interactive computer systems are sometimes not used by the people who might benefit from them. Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 25, 4 (Nov. 19!1), 469-483.Google Scholar
- 23 Paxton, A.L., and Turner, E.J. The application of human factors to the need of the novice user. Int. J. Man-Mach. Stud. 20, 2 (Feb. 1984) 137-156. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 24 Shneiderman, B. How to design with the user in mind. Dntamation 28,4 (Apr. 1982) 125-126.Google Scholar
- 25 Shneiderman, B. The future of interactive systems and the emergence of direct manipulation. Behav. Inf Technot. I, 3 (July-Sept. 1982), 237-256.Google Scholar
- 26 Smith, S.L., and Mosier, J.N. Design guidelines for user-system interface software. ESD-TR-84-190, MITRE Corp., Bedford, Mass., 1984.Google Scholar
- 27 Waltber, G.H. and O'Neil, H.F, Jr. On-line user-computer interface-The effects of interface flexibility, terminal type, and experience on performance. In AFIPS Conference Proceedings, vol. 43. (Chicago, Ill., May 6-10) AFIPS Press, Reston, Va., 1974, pp. 379-384.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Functionality and usability
Recommendations
Measuring the Superfluous Functionality in Software Components
CBSE '15: Proceedings of the 18th International ACM SIGSOFT Symposium on Component-Based Software EngineeringOne of the drawbacks of a pragmatic, white box approach to the reuse of software is that reusable components often have more built-in functionality than is needed for a particular (re)usage scenario. This functionality either has to be invasively ...
Extracting Code Fragment that Implements Functionality
APSEC '99: Proceedings of the Sixth Asia Pacific Software Engineering ConferenceA program interacts with its environment through accepting and delivering information from and to its environment respectively. As such, the functionality in a program is achieved through its input/output statements. Based on this hypothesis, this paper ...
Comments