Advertisement

Supporting Error-Driven Design

  • Chris Johnson
  • Phil Gray
Conference paper
Part of the Eurographics book series (EUROGRAPH)

Abstract

This paper argues that two limitations restrict the utility of interface specification languages. Firstly, they provide no means of capturing the cognitive conditions that lead to operator ‘error’. This makes it difficult to distinguish between the normal behaviour of an expert and the mistakes that often lead to problems for novices. The second weakness is that interface notations cannot easily be used to represent and reason about asynchronous failures. This prevents designers from identifying solutions to failures that could occur at many different points during interaction. These are significant limitations because they reflect a pre-occupation with normative behaviour. Unless we have some means of analysing system failure and operator error then we will continue to have interfaces that are designed to support perfect users in perfect environments.

Keywords

Temporal Logic Epistemic Logic Interface Specification Exception Handling Mail System 
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.

Preview

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.

References

  1. 1.
    P. Barnard. Interacting cognitive subsystems: A psycholinguistic approach to short-term memory. In A. Ellis, editor, Progress in the Psychology of Language, volume 2, pages 197–258. Lawrence Erlbaum, London, 1995.Google Scholar
  2. 2.
    J. Barwise and J. Perry. Situations And Attitudes. Bradford Books, Cambridge, United States of America, 1983.Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    R. Bastide and P. Palanque. Petri net objects for the design, validation and prototyping of user-driven interfaces. In D. Diaper, D. Gilmore, G. Cockton, and B. Shackel, editors, Human-Computer Interaction—INTERACT’90, pages 625–631. Elsevier Science Publications, North Holland, Netherlands, 1990.Google Scholar
  4. 4.
    J.M. Carroll. The Nurnberg Funnel: Designing Minimalist Instruction For Practical Computer Skill. MIT Press, Boston, United States of America, 1992.Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    D. Diaper and P. Johnson. Task analysis for knowledge description. In J. Long and A. Whitefield, editors, Cognitive Ergonomics For Human Computer Interaction, pages 191–224. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1989.Google Scholar
  6. 6.
    P. Gray, D. England, and S. McGowan. XUAN: Enhancing UAN to capture temporal relationships among actions. In G. Cockton, S. Draper, and G. Weir, editors, People And Computers IX, pages 301–312. Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom, 1984.Google Scholar
  7. 7.
    P.D. Gray and C.W. Johnson. A critical analysis of interface specification notations. In The Design, Specification and Verification of Interactive Systems, pages 113–133. Springer Verlag, Berlin, Germany, 1995.Google Scholar
  8. 8.
    J. Halpern. Reasoning about knowledge: A survey. In Handbook Of Logic And Artificial Inteligence: Volume 4 — Epistemic And Temporal Reasoning, pages 1–34. Clarendon Press, Oxford, United Kingdom, 1995.Google Scholar
  9. 9.
    T. Hewett. Importance of failure analysis for human-computer interface design. Interacting With Computers, 1(3):3–8, 1991.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    J. Hintikka. Knowledge And Belief. Cornell University Press, Ithica, United States of America, 1962.Google Scholar
  11. 11.
    D. Hix and H.R. Hartson. Developing User Interfaces. John Wiley and Sons, London, 1993.MATHGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    D. John and D. Kieras. The goms family of analysis techniques: Tools for design and evaluation. Technical Report CMU-CS-94-181, School of Computer Science, Carnegie Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, USA, 1994.Google Scholar
  13. 13.
    C.W. Johnson. A Formal Approach To The Integration Of Human Factors And Systems Engineering. PhD thesis, Department Of Computer Science, University of York, York, United Kingdom, 1992.Google Scholar
  14. 14.
    C.W. Johnson. A probabilistic logic for the development of safety-critical interactive systems. International Journal Of Man-Machine Studies, 39(2):333–351, 1993.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    C.W. Johnson. Using Z to support the design of interactive, safety-critical systems. IEE Software Engineering Journal, 10(2):49–60, 1995.Google Scholar
  16. 16.
    C.W. Johnson. Literate specification: Using design rationale to support formal methods in the development of human-machine interfaces. Human Computer Interaction Journal, 1996. Acceped and to appear early in 1996.Google Scholar
  17. 17.
    S. Mitchell. The automatic filtering of electronic mail messages. Technical report, Dept of Computing Science, University of Glasgow, Scotland, 1996. Final year dissertation.Google Scholar
  18. 18.
    D.A. Norman. The ‘problem’ with automation: Inappropriate feedback and interaction not ‘over-automation’. In D.E. Broadbent, J. Reason, and A. Baddeley, editors, Human Factors In Hazardous Situations, pages 137–145. Clarendon Press, Oxford, United Kingdom, 1990.Google Scholar
  19. 19.
    P. O’Donnell and S. Draper. How machine delays change user strategies. In C. Johnson, editor, The Challenge Of Time. Glasgow Interactive Systems Group, Glasgow, United Kingdom, 1995. G-95.1.Google Scholar
  20. 20.
    H. Petroski. To Engineer Is Human: The Role Of Failure In Successful Design. St. Martin’s Press, New York, United States of America, 1986.Google Scholar
  21. 21.
    B. Sharratt. Memory-cognition-action tables: A pragmatic approach to analytical modelling. In Interact T90, pages 625–631. Elsevier Science, North Holland, 1990.Google Scholar
  22. 22.
    D. Taylor. The role of human action in man-machine system errors. In J. Rasmussen, K. Duncan, and J. Leplat, editors, New Technology and Human Error., pages 287–292. John Wiley and Sons, London, United Kingdom, 1987.Google Scholar
  23. 23.
    G.H. von Wright. An Essay In Modal Logic. Elsevier, North Holland, Netherlands:, 1951.MATHGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    T. Winograd and F. Flores. Understanding Computers And Cognition. Addison-Wesley, Reading, United States of America, 1987.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag/Wien 1996

Authors and Affiliations

  • Chris Johnson
    • 1
  • Phil Gray
    • 1
  1. 1.Glasgow Interactive Systems Group (GIST), Department of Computing ScienceUniversity of GlasgowGlasgowUK

Personalised recommendations