Interface semantics and procedural knowledge: A study of novice understanding of MacDraw

  • M. V. Springett
  • A. S. Grant
  • A. G. Sutcliffe
Conference paper
Part of the Lecture Notes in Computer Science book series (LNCS, volume 753)


This paper presents an analysis of issues affecting the choice of usability evaluation strategies for highly interactive Direct Manipulation interfaces. It reports memory tests on novice users of MacDraw I which investigate the degree of reliance on the interface for cueing, and the sources of information, both within the interface and outside, that may be utilized. A study of the novice subjects' (verbalised) reasoning during experimental task-performance on MacDraw is then reported. Examples of subjects reasoning are used to illustrate the nature of Direct Manipulation evaluation. Issues affecting the selection and development of evaluation methods are then discussed.


Feature Representation Procedural Knowledge Direct Manipulation Novice User Referent Object 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.


  1. 1.
    J.M. Carroll, R.L. Mack, W.A. Kellogg: Interface Metaphors and User Interface Design. In: Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, M. Helander (ed.) Elsevier North Holland, (1988)Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J.M. Carroll: Artifact as theory-nexus: hermeneutics meets theory-based design, in: proc. CHI 89, Human Factors in Computer Systems, ACM press, pp 7–14,(1989)Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    K.A. Ericsson, H.A. Simon: Protocol Analysis, MIT press, (1984)Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J. Grudin: The Case Against User Interface Consistency, in: Communications of the ACM vol.32, no. 10, (1989)Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    E.L. Hutchins, J.D. Hollan, D.A. Norman: Direct Manipulation Interfaces, in: User Centred System Design New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction D. Norman & S. Draper ed Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, pp 31–62, (1986)Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    D.E. Kieras, P.A. Polson: An approach to the formal analysis of user complexity. in: International Journal of Man Machine Studies, Vol 22, pp 365–395, (1985)Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    B. Laurel (Ed.): The Art of Human Computer Interface Design, Addison Wesley, Reading MA., (1990)Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J.T. Mayes, S.W. Draper, A.M. MacGregor, K. Oatley: Information Flow in a User Interface: The Effect of Experience and Context on the Recall of MacWrite screens. in: People and Computers IV, D.M. Jones and R. Winder (eds.), Cambridge University Press, pp 275–289, (1988)Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    J. Nielsen: Traditional Dialogue Design Applied to Modern User Interfaces.Communications of the ACM, 33, pp 109–118, (1990)Google Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Nielsen: Finding Usability Problems Through Heuristic Evaluation. in: proc.CHI-92, P Bauersfeld et al (eds.). pp 373–380, (1992)Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D.A. Norman: Cognitive Engineering. in: User Centred System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction, D Norman & S Draper (eds.) Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, New Jersey, pp 31–62, (1986)Google Scholar
  12. 12.
    S.J. Payne: Interface Problems and Interface Resources. In: Designing Interaction, J.M. Carroll (ed.), Cambridge University Press, (1991)Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    P.G. Polson, C.H. Lewis: Theory based design for easily learned interfaces. In: Human-Computer Interaction 5, 191–220, (1990)Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    P. Reisner: What is inconsistency?. in: proc. Interact 90, Diaper et al (eds.), Elsevier North-Holland, pp 175–181, (1990)Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    M.V. Springett: The Utility of User Action Models For Direct Manipulation Design, in: proc. IFIP TC2/WG2.7 Working Conference, Engineering for Human-Computer Interaction, J Larson and C Unger (eds.), Elsevier North-Holland, pp 205–222, (1992)Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    A.G. Sutcliffe, M.V. Springett: From user's problems to design errors: Linking evaluation to improved design practice. in: Proc. People and Computers vii, A. Monk et al (eds.), Cambridge University Press, pp 117–131, (1992)Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    C. Wharton, J. Bradford R. Jeffries M. Franzke: Applying Cognitive Walkthroughs to More Complex Interfaces: Experiences, Issues, and Recommendations, in: proc. CHI 92, P.Bauersfield et al (eds.), pp 381–388, (1992)Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 1993

Authors and Affiliations

  • M. V. Springett
    • 1
  • A. S. Grant
    • 1
  • A. G. Sutcliffe
    • 1
  1. 1.Centre for H.C.I. Design Dept. of Business ComputingCity UniversityLondon

Personalised recommendations