Abstract
Many positive claims have been made about the benefits of Design Rationale (DR). MacLean et al., (1991) argue that an explicit design rationale can be a useful tool in the design process in a variety of ways: from reasoning and reviewing to managing, documenting, and communicating. Design rationale is the notion that goes beyond merely accurate descriptions of artifacts, such as specifications, and articulates and represents the reasons and reasoning process behind the design and specification of artifacts (Moran & Carroll, 1996). QOC (Questions, Options, Criteria) is a straightforward notation for representing design rationale (MacLean et al., 1991). In this paper we present the results of a study investigating the usability and efficiency of DR/QOC as a design support tool, and provide an analysis of the designers’ reflections on the role of DR/QOC in the design process.
Chapter PDF
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Buckingham Shum S. Analyzing the Usability of a Design Rationale Notation, 1995. In T. P. Moran J. M. Carroll (Eds.), Design Rationale: Concepts, techniques, and use. Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996.
Carroll M J and Rosson B M. Deliberated Evolution: Stalking the View Matcher in Design Space, 1991, In T. P. Moran J. M. Carroll (Eds.), Design Rationale: Concepts, techniques, and use. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996.
DeMarco T. Structured Analysis and System Specification. New York: Yourdon Press, 1978. Jarczyk A, Loftier F, Shipman M. Design Rationale for Software Engineers: A survey. IEEE, 1992. Jorgensen A H and Aboulafia A. Perceptions of Design Rationale. Human-Computer Interaction, Interact, Eds. K Nordby et al, pp. 61–66, 1995.
Karsenty L. An Empirical Evaluation of Design Rationale Documents. In Proceedings of CHI-96, April 13–18th, Ed. M. J. Tauber, 1996.
Kunz W and Rittel H W J. Issues as elements of information systems (Working Paper No. 131 ). Berkeley: University of California, Berkeley, Center for Planning and Development Research, 1970.
Lee J and Lai K-Y. What’s in Design Rationale?, 1991. In T. P. Moran J. M. Carroll (Eds.), Design Rationale: Concepts, techniques, and use. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996.
MacLean A, Young R Moran T. Design Rationale: The Argument Behind The Artifact, CHI, 1989. MacLean A, Bellotti V, and Moran T. Questions, Options, and Criteria: Elements of design space analysis, 1991. In T P Moran J M Carroll (Eds.), Design Rationale: Concepts, techniques, and use. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996.
Moran T P and Carroll J M. Design Rationale: Concepts, techniques, and use. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, 1996.
Olson M G, Olson S J, Storrosten M, Carter M, Herbsleb J, and Rueter H. The Structure Of Activity During Design Meetings, 1995. In T. P. Moran J. M. Carroll (Eds.), Design Rationale: Concepts, techniques, and use. Lawrence Erlbaum, 1996.
Sutcliffe A. Requirements Rationales: Integrating Approaches to Requirement Analysis. Symposium on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods Techniques Conference Proceedings. Eds. G. M. Olson S. Schuon, 1995.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 1997 Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Sutcliffe, A., Ryan, M. (1997). Assessing the usability and efficiency of Design Rationale. In: Howard, S., Hammond, J., Lindgaard, G. (eds) Human-Computer Interaction INTERACT ’97. IFIP — The International Federation for Information Processing. Springer, Boston, MA. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35175-9_29
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-0-387-35175-9_29
Publisher Name: Springer, Boston, MA
Print ISBN: 978-1-4757-5437-7
Online ISBN: 978-0-387-35175-9
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive