Abstract not found

Virtual environments (VEs) are a relatively new type of human-computer interface in which users perceive and act in a three-dimensional world. The designers of such systems cannot rely solely on design guidelines for traditional two-dimensional interfaces, so usability evaluation is crucial for VEs. This paper presents an overview of VE usability evaluation, to organize and critically analyze diverse work from this field. First, we discuss some of the issues that differentiate VE usability evaluation from evaluation of traditional user interfaces such as GUIs. We also present a review of some VE evaluation methods currently in use, and discuss a simple classification space for VE usability evaluation methods. This classification space provides a structured means for comparing evaluation methods according to three key characteristics: involvement of representative users, context of evaluation, and types of results produced. Finally, to illustrate these concepts, we compare two existing evaluation approaches: testbed evaluation [Bowman, Johnson, & Hodges, 1999], and sequential evaluation [Gabbard, Hix, & Swan, 1999]. 1 Introduction and

The current variety of alternative approaches to usability evaluation methods (UEMs) designed to assess and improve usability in software systems is offset by a general lack of understanding of the capabilities and limitations of each. Practitioners need to know which methods are more effective and in what ways and for what purposes. However, UEMs cannot be evaluated and compared reliably because of the lack of standard criteria for comparison. In this article, we present a practical discussion of factors, comparison criteria, and UEM performance measures useful in studies comparing UEMs. In demonstrating the importance of developing appropriate UEM evaluation criteria, we offer operational definitions and possible measures of UEM performance. We highlight specific challenges that researchers and practitioners face in comparing UEMs and provide a point of departure for further discussion and refinement of the principles and techniques used to approach UEM evaluation and comparison. 1.

this paper, I review the history of HCI as steps toward a science of design. My touchstone is Simon's (1969) provocative book he Sciences of the Artificial. The book pre-dates HCI, and many of its specific characterizations and claims about design are no longer authoritative (see Ehn, 1988). Nevertheless, two of Simon's themes echo through the history of HCI, and still provide guidance for charting its continuing development

This is the second of a two-part article that discusses the history of the field of instructional design and technology in the United States. The first part, which focused on the history of instructional media, appeared in the previous issue of this journal (volume 49, number 1). This part of the article focuses on the history of instructional design. Starting with a description of the efforts to develop training programs during World War II, and continuing on through the publication of some of the first instructional design models in the 1960s and 1970s, major events in the development of the instructional design process are described. Factors that have affected the field of instructional design over the last two decades, including increasing interest in cognitive psychology, microcomputers, performance technology, and constructivism, are also described.

Abstract: In this paper, we recruit the construct of psychological design rationale as a framework for integrating theory development with design evaluation in HCI. We propose that, in some cases, part of an artifact’s psychological design rationale can be regarded as inherited from second-order artifacts (prescriptive design models, architectures and genres, tools and environments, interface styles). We show how evaluation data pertaining to an artifact can be used to test and develop the second-order artifacts from which it inherits. 1.

This report included the framework usability design guideline that was violated, the potential usability problem therefore resulting, and one or more specific recommendations for fixing the usability problem. Most of our recommendations were incorporated before we moved on to the current state of Crumbs development, which is the formative evaluation phase (Swartz et al., 1999)

Designers need guidance in tracing knowledge to support the iterative development of interactive software interfaces. Claims show promise in capturing design knowledge with concise descriptions of an artifact’s psychological effects on users, but adoptions and modifications made during design processes result in new claims. The manner in which new claims are created based on previous claims establishes unique knowledge relationships not well captured by existing research. This paper proposes six claim relationship types presented with general concepts and examples, allowing a more robust claims analysis process to emerge. The definition of relationships acknowledges claim evolution methods inherent in design, facilitating knowledge reuse and providing structure to advance the science of design. 1.

Abstract not found

this article, we describe a framework for managing training evaluation in such contexts. We illustrate by example the feasibility of taking a broad approach toward training evaluation