Characterizing Search Behavior in Productivity Software

Complex software applications expose hundreds of commands to users through intricate menu hierarchies. One of the most popular productivity software suites, Microsoft Office, has recently developed functionality that allows users to issue free-form text queries to a search system to quickly find commands they want to execute, retrieve help documentation or access web results in a unified interface. In this paper, we analyze millions of search sessions originating from within Microsoft Office applications, collected over one month of activity, in an effort to characterize search behavior in productivity software. Our research brings together previous efforts in analyzing command usage in large-scale applications and efforts in understanding search behavior in environments other than the web. Our findings show that users engage primarily in command search, and that re-accessing commands through search is a frequent behavior. Our work represents the first large-scale analysis of search over command spaces and is an important first step in understanding how search systems integrated with productivity software can be successfully developed

Comparison of edit history clustering techniques for spatial hypertext

History mechanisms available in hypertext systems allow access to past user interactions with the system. This helps users evaluate past work and learn from past activity. It also allows systems identify usage patterns and potentially predict behaviors with the system. Thus, recording history is useful to both the system and the user. Various tools and techniques have been developed to group and annotate history in Visual Knowledge Builder (VKB). But the problem with these tools is that the operations are performed manually. For a large VKB history growing over a long period of time, performing grouping operations using such tools is difficult and time consuming. This thesis examines various methods to analyze VKB history in order to automatically group/cluster all the user events in this history. In this thesis, three different approaches are compared. The first approach is a pattern matching approach identifying repeated patterns of edit events in the history. The second approach is a rule-based approach that uses simple rules, such as group all consecutive events on a single object. The third approach uses hierarchical agglomerative clustering (HAC) where edits are grouped based on a function of edit time and edit location. The contributions of this thesis work are: (a) developing tools to automatically cluster large VKB history using these approaches, (b) analyzing performance of each approach in order to determine their relative strengths and weaknesses, and (c) answering the question, how well do the automatic clustering approaches perform by comparing the results obtained from this automatic tool with that obtained from the manual grouping performed by actual users on a same set of VKB history. Results obtained from this thesis work show that the rule-based approach performs the best in that it best matches human-defined groups and generates the fewest number of groups. The hierarchic agglomerative clustering approach is in between the other two approaches with regards to identifying human-defined groups. The pattern-matching approach generates many potential groups but only a few matches with those generated by actual VKB users

Task-Centric User Interfaces

Software applications for design and creation typically contain hundreds or thousands of commands, which collectively give users enormous expressive power. Unfortunately, rich feature sets also take a toll on usability. Current interfaces to feature-rich software address this dilemma by adopting menus, toolbars, and other hierarchical schemes to organize functionality—approaches that enable efficient navigation to specific commands and features, but do little to reveal how to perform unfamiliar tasks. We present an alternative task-centric user interface design that explicitly supports users in performing unfamiliar tasks. A task-centric interface is able to quickly adapt itself to the user’s intended goal, presenting relevant functionality and required procedures in task-specific customized interfaces. To achieve this, task-centric interfaces (1) represent tasks as first-class objects in the interface; (2) allow the user to declare their intended goal (or infer it from the user’s actions); (3) restructure the interface to provide step-by-step scaffolding for the current goal; and (4) provide additional knowledge and guidance within the application’s interface. Our inspiration for task-centric interfaces comes from a study we conducted, which revealed that a valid use case for feature-rich software is to perform short, targeted tasks that use a small fraction of the application’s full functionality. Task-centric interfaces provide explicit support for this use. We developed and tested our task-centric interface approach by creating AdaptableGIMP, a modified version of the GIMP image editor, and Workflows, an iteration on AdaptableGIMP’s design based on insights from a semi-structured interview study and a think-aloud study. Based on a two-session study of Workflows, we show that task-centric interfaces can successfully support a guided-and-constrained problem solving strategy for performing unfamiliar tasks, which enables faster task completion and reduced cognitive load as compared to current practices. We also provide evidence that task-centric interfaces can enable a higher-level form of application learning, in which the user associates tasks with relevant keywords, as opposed to low-level commands and procedures. This keyword learning has potential benefits for memorability, because the keywords themselves are descriptive of the task being learned, and scalability, because a few keywords can map to an arbitrarily complex set of commands and procedures. Finally, our findings suggest a range of different ways that the idea of task-centric interfaces could be further developed

First impressions of operating system styles affect usability

The patterns of behaviour that people develop to work successfully with complex information technology are likely themselves to be complex. The beginning of interface style followed this train of thought in developing the Command Line Interface, complex to develop and complex in its use. However, in recent years’ information system interface design has become increasingly dominated by the use of Graphical User Interfaces, with the majority of systems relying on a Microsoft Windows based structure. This study attempts to find out how the two different interface styles, would affect how novice users use them when given a word processing task. The study was conducted using two interfaces based on a graphical style, and two command line type operating systems. The study examined how quickly the participants performed the task on the different interface styles, and used questionnaires to gather the quantitative findings. Preference versus performance was studied and the findings are consistent with what other researchers have found. The results indicate that better usability may not mean better performance.UnpublishedACM SIGCHI (2004) ACM’s Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction Retrieved on July 29 2004 from http://www.acm.org/sigchi/. Afinogenov, G. (2003). “GUI vs. CLI: A Qualitative Comparison”. Retrieved September 15 2004 from http://www.osnews.com/story. php?news_id=44 1 8 Andre, A.D., and Wickens, C.D. (1990). “When Users Want Whats Not Best for Them.” In Ergonomics in Design, (October), pp. 10-14. Anderson, J. R. (1982). “Acquisition of cognitive skill.” In Psychological Review, Vol. 89, pp. 369406. Approved LPI Glossary (2000). Retrieved August 25 2004 from http://www.piensa.com/lpi/p-glossary.html Aprile, L. (2004). TeachingC1O. Retrieved April 29 2004 from http://zope.interaction-ivrea.it/inflatedegolTeachingC10.htm Bereiter, C., and Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: an inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago, IL: Open Court. Buckleitner, W., and Estabrook, N. (1994). “Computer Interfaces: Inquiry and Implications.” Michigan State University. Buehler, R., Griffin, D., and Ross, M. (1994). “Exploring the ‘planning fallacy’: Why people underestimate their task completion times.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 67, pp. 366-381. Card, S.K., Moran, T. and Newell, A. (1983). The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Cushman, W. H. and Crist, B. (1987). “Illumination”. In G. Salevendy (Ed.) Handbook of Human Factors. Pp. 670-695. New York: Wiley. Davies, S.P. (1989). “The Nature and Development of Programming Plans”. In International Journal of Man-Machine Studies Vol 32. pp461-481 Davis, S.P. and Bostrom, J. (1993). An Analysis and Evaluation of Computer-Related Training Techniques. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press DeVinney, T. (1997). Aliens Guide to Human Psychology. Retrieved 1 September 2004 from http://www.tdev.dircon.co.uk/glossary.htm Dunsmore, H.E. (1982). “Using Formal Grammars to Predict the Most Useful Characteristics of Interactive Systems.” In Office Automation Conference Digest, pp. 53-56.Sans Francisco. Durham, A.,G. and Emurian, H.,H. (1990) “Learning and Retention with a Menu and Command Line Interface.” In Computers in Human Behaviour. Vol. 14, Iss. 4. pp. 597-620. Eberts, R.E. (1994). User Interface Design. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Eberts, R.E., and Bittianda, K.P., (1993). “Preferred mental models for direct manipulation and command-based interfaces”. In International Journal of Man Machine Studies, Vol. 38, Iss. 5. pp.769-786. English, W. K., Engelbart, D. C., and Berman, M. L. (1967). “Display-selection techniques for text manipulation.” In IEEE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, Vol. 8, Iss. 1. pp. 515. Frese, M., Schulte-Gocking, H., and Altmann, A, (1987). Direct Manipulation Vs. Conventional Interaction. Frese, Schulte-Gocking and Altman (1987) Cited in Ziegler and Fahnrich (1988). Frohlich, D. M. (1997). “Direct manipulation and other lessons.” In M. Helander & T. K. Landauer & P. Prabhu (Eds.), Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction (2nd ed), pp. 463-488. New York: Elsevier. Galitz, W.O. (1993) User Interface Screen Design. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Glossary Online (2004). Retrieved August 25 2004 from www.eupen.com/glossary/glossarycable.html. Gong, Q., and Salvendy, G. (1995). “An approach to the design of a skill adaptive interface.” International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 7,Iss. 3. pp. 365-383. Grandjean, E. (1987). “Design of VDT Workstations”. In G. Salevendy (Ed.) Handbook of Human Factors. pp. 1359-1397. New York: Wiley. Greene, S. L., Gould, J. D., Boies, S. J., Rasamny, M., and Meluson, A. (1992). “Entry and selectionbased methods of human-computer interaction.” In Human Factors, Vol. 34, Iss.1 pp. 97-113. Hanson, S.J., Kraut, R.E., and Farber, J.M. (1994). “Interface Design and Multivariate Analysis of Unix Command Use”. In ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems Vol. 2. Iss. 1. pp. 42-57. Hauptmann, A. G., and Green, B. F. (1983). “A comparison of command, menu-selection, and natural language programs.” In Behaviour and Information Technology, Vol. 2, Iss. 2. pp. 163-178. Hinds, P (1998). “Who Should Design for Novice Users? A Study of Experts’ Limitations in Predicting Novices’ Experience”. In Integrated Solutions LaboratoryHPL98-136, pp. 2-14. Hutchins, E.L., Hollan, J.D., and Norman, D.A. (1986). “Direct manipulation interfaces.” In D.A. Norman and S.W. Draper (eds.) User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 87-124. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Jefferson, S. (2002). “Beyond the Keyboard and Mouse”. In Infoworld, Vol. 22. Iss. 44. p. 51. Jordan, P.W., (1992). “Claims for direct Manipulation interfaces investigated.” In Industrial Management and Data Systems. pp. 3-6. Joseph, B., Steinberg, E. R., and Jones, A. R. (1989). “User perceptions and expectations of an information retrieval system.” In Behaviour and Information Technology, Vol. 8, Iss. 2. pp. 77-88. Kacmar, CJ., (1989). “An experimental comparison of text and icon menu formats.” Working paper, Texas A&M University, Department of Computer Science. Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A., (1979). “Intuitive prediction: Biases and corrective procedures.” In Choices, values, and frames, pp. 414-430. Kernighan, B. (2002). The Unix Programming Environment. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Kissel, G.V. (2001). “The Effect of Computer Experience on Subjective and Objective Software Usability Measures”. In ACM CHI Proceedings 2001. Kolodner, J.L., (1983). “Towards an understanding of the role of experience in the evolution from novice to expert.” International Study of Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 19, Iss. 6. pp. 497-518. Kozma, R. B., and Russell, J. (1997). “Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena.” In Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 34, Iss. 9. pp. 949-968. Langer, E. J. and Imber, L. G. (1979). “When practice makes imperfect: Debilitating effects of over learning.” In Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 37, Iss. 11. pp.2014-2024. Lansdale, M. W. and Ormrod T.C.(1994) Understanding Interfaces: A Handbook of Human-Computer Dialogue. London: Academic Press. Larkin, J. and Simon, H. (1987) “Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words.” In Cognitive Science, Vol. 11, Iss.2. pp. 65-99. Leedy, P.D. and Orrnrod, J.E. (2001).Practical Research: Planning and Design. New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall Liu, Y. (1997). “Software-user interface design”. In G. Salvendy (Ed.). Handbook of human factors and ergonomics. pp. 1698-1724. New York: Wiley. Luhman, J. (1999). Creativity: Mac vs. Win. Retrieved 29 April 2004 from www.skypoint.com/members/jluhman/creative.htm. MacLean, A., Barnard, P.J., and Wilson, M.D. (1985). “Evaluating the human interface of a data entry system: User choice and performance measures yield different trade-off functions.” In People and Computers: Designing the Interface, Vol. 5 Iss. 7 pp. 45-61. Manes, S. (2000). “The curse of user-hostile design”. In PC World, Vol. 18. Iss. 11. p. 284. Margano, S. and Schneiderman, B., (1987). “A Study of File Manipulation by Novices Using Commands vs. Direct Manipulation.” In 26th Annual Technical Symposium, Washington D.C. Chapter of ACM, pp. 57-62. Meloche, J.,A. (2000) “Q Methodology as a Research Methodology for Human Computer Interaction” School of Information Studies, Charles Stuart University, Wagga Wagga. Australia. Retrieved 20 September 2004 from http://www.csu.edu.au/OZCHI99/short_papers/Meloche.doc Merchant, S.(2002). “Customizing the Human-Computer Interface to Compensate for Individual Cognitive Attitude: An Exploratory Study”, In Informing Science pp. 1043-1049. Morgan, K., Morris, R.L., and Gibbs, S. (1991) “When does a mouse become a rat? or…Comparing performance and preferences in direct manipulation and command line environments,” In The Computer Journal, Vol. 34, Iss.3. pp. 265-271. Mynatt, E.D., and Edwards, W.K (1995). “Metaphors for nonvisual computing. In A.D.N. Edwards (Ed.) Extra-ordinary human computer Interaction: Interfaces for users with disabilities. pp. 201-220. New York: Cambridge University Press. Nickerson, R. S., Baddeley, A, and Freeman, B. (1987). “Are people’s estimates of what other people know influenced by what they themselves know?” In Acta Psychologica , Vol. 64, pp. 245259. Nielsen, J. (1987). “A user interface case study of the Macintosh.” In Salvendy, G. (Ed.), Cognitive Engineering in the Design of Human-Computer Interaction and Expert Systems. pp. 241-248. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers. Nielsen, J. and Levy, J. (1994) “Measuring Usability: Preference vs. Performance.” In Communications of the ACM Vol. 3, Iss. 4. pp. 66-75. Nielsen, J., and Mack, R.L.(1994). Usability Inspection Methods, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Niven, B.(2004). Interview. [Interview with Brian Niven, 10 September, 2004]. Norman, D.A., (1986) “Cognitive engineering.” In D.A Norman and S.W. Draper (eds.) User Centered Systems Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction. pp. 31-61. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. O’Reilley Online Catalogue (1999). Retrieved August 25 2004 from http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/debian/chapter/book/glossary.html Paap, KA, and Roske-Hofstrand, R. J. (1988). “Design of menus.” In M. Helander (Ed.). In Handbook of human-computer interaction. pp. 205-235. New York: Elsevier. Paige, J. M. and Simon, H. A (1966). “Cognition processes in solving algebra word problems”. In B. Kleinmuntz (Ed.), Problem Solving, pp. 119-151. New York: Wiley. Perry, T. S., and Voelcker, J. (1989). “Of mice and menus: designing the user-friendly interface.” In IEEE Spectrum, Vol. 26, Iss.9. pp. 46-51. Rauterberg, M. (1996). “How to Measure and to Quantify Usability Attributes of Man-Machine Interfaces.” In K Tanie (Ed. ) Proceedings 5th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Communication. pp. 262-267. Rauterberg, M. (1998). “Introduction into Human Computer Interaction” pp. 3-30. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Raymond, E.S. (2003). “Tradeoffs between CLI and Visual Interfaces: Chapter 11”. In Art of Unix Programming. pp. 45-51. London: John Wiley & Sons. Robertson, G.G., Card, S.K and MacKinlay, J.D. (1993). “Information Visulization using 3D animation.” In Communications of the ACM, Vol. 36, Iss.2. pp. 81-83. Rohr, G., & Keppel, E. (1984). “Iconic interfaces: where to use and how to construct?” In Human factors in Organizational Design and Management: Proceedings of First Symposium, pp. 269-275. North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers. Rosson, M. B. (1983). “Patterns of experience in text editing.” In Proceedings of the CHI-83 conference on human factors in computing. pp. 171-175. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Santhanam, R., and Wiedenbeck, S. (1993). “Neither novice nor expert: The discretionary user of software.” In International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 38, Iss. 2. pp. 201-229. Schar, S. G. (1996). “The influence of the user interface on solving well and ill-defined problems.” In International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 44, Iss. 1. pp. 1-18. Sekinger, S., (1997) Command Line Vs GUI OS Interfaces. Working Paper. University of British Columbia. Schneiderman, B. (1982a) “The Future of Interactive Systems and the Emergence of Direct Manipulation.” In Behaviour and Information Technology Vol I. pp237-256. Shneiderman, B. (1982b). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human-computer interaction.(2nd ed) Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. Shneiderman, B. (1983). “Direct manipulation: A step beyond programming languages.” In IEEE Computer, Vol. 16,Iss. 8. pp. 57-69. Shneiderman, B. (1998). Designing the user interface. MA: Addison Wesley. Smith, D. (1998). “Faster is Better- A Business Case for Subsecond Response Time”. In Computerworld Vol 15. p130 Soloway, E., Adelson, B., and Ehrlich, K. (1998). “Knowledge and processes in the comprehension of computer programs”. In M. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. Farr (Eds.), The Nature of Expertise, pp. 129-152. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Svendsen, G.B., (1991). “The influence of interface style on problem solving.” In International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 35, Iss. 3. pp. 379-397. Te’eni, D. (1990). “Direct Manipulation as a source of cognitive feedback: human-computer experiment with a judgement task.” In International Journal of Man Machine Studies, Vol. 33, Iss. 4. pp. 453-466. Technical Forecasts Limited (2004) Retrieved August 252004 from http://www.tfl.biz/docs/glossary.html Tognazzini, B. (1992) TOG on Interface, New York-Adison-Wesley. Umanath, N.S., and Scamell, R.W. (1988). “An experimental investigation of the impact of data display format on recall performance.” In Communications of the ACM, Vol. 31. pp. 562-570. Unwin, A., and Hofmann. H. (2001). “GUI and Command Line- Conflict or Synergy?” In Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, Vol. 5, Iss.2, pp. 113-122. W3Schools (2004) OS Platform Statistics retrieved 1 October 2004 from http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp Whiteside, J., Jones, S., Levy, P.S, and Wixon, D. (1985). “User Performance with Command, Menu and Iconic Interfaces”. In ACM CHI’85 Proceedings. Iss. April. pp. 185-191. Wright, P. (1983). “Manual Dexterity: A user oriented approach to creating computer documentation.” Human Factors in Computing Systems SIGCHI Bulletin, pp. 11-17. Zanino, M.C., Prasad, J., Agarwal, R. (2001). Graphical user interfaces and ease of use: some myths examined. Proceedings of the 1994 computer personnel research conference on Reinventing IS : managing information technology in changing organizations: managing information technology in changing Alexandria, Virginia, United States.pp. 142 - 15

First impressions of operating system styles affect usability

The patterns of behaviour that people develop to work successfully with complex information technology are likely themselves to be complex. The beginning of interface style followed this train of thought in developing the Command Line Interface, complex to develop and complex in its use. However, in recent years’ information system interface design has become increasingly dominated by the use of Graphical User Interfaces, with the majority of systems relying on a Microsoft Windows based structure. This study attempts to find out how the two different interface styles, would affect how novice users use them when given a word processing task. The study was conducted using two interfaces based on a graphical style, and two command line type operating systems. The study examined how quickly the participants performed the task on the different interface styles, and used questionnaires to gather the quantitative findings. Preference versus performance was studied and the findings are consistent with what other researchers have found. The results indicate that better usability may not mean better performance.UnpublishedACM SIGCHI (2004) ACM’s Special Interest Group on Computer-Human Interaction Retrieved on July 29 2004 from http://www.acm.org/sigchi/. Afinogenov, G. (2003). “GUI vs. CLI: A Qualitative Comparison”. Retrieved September 15 2004 from http://www.osnews.com/story. php?news_id=44 1 8 Andre, A.D., and Wickens, C.D. (1990). “When Users Want Whats Not Best for Them.” In Ergonomics in Design, (October), pp. 10-14. Anderson, J. R. (1982). “Acquisition of cognitive skill.” In Psychological Review, Vol. 89, pp. 369406. Approved LPI Glossary (2000). Retrieved August 25 2004 from http://www.piensa.com/lpi/p-glossary.html Aprile, L. (2004). TeachingC1O. Retrieved April 29 2004 from http://zope.interaction-ivrea.it/inflatedegolTeachingC10.htm Bereiter, C., and Scardamalia, M. (1993). Surpassing ourselves: an inquiry into the nature and implications of expertise. Chicago, IL: Open Court. Buckleitner, W., and Estabrook, N. (1994). “Computer Interfaces: Inquiry and Implications.” Michigan State University. Buehler, R., Griffin, D., and Ross, M. (1994). “Exploring the ‘planning fallacy’: Why people underestimate their task completion times.” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 67, pp. 366-381. Card, S.K., Moran, T. and Newell, A. (1983). The Psychology of Human-Computer Interaction. Hillsdale, New Jersey: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Cushman, W. H. and Crist, B. (1987). “Illumination”. In G. Salevendy (Ed.) Handbook of Human Factors. Pp. 670-695. New York: Wiley. Davies, S.P. (1989). “The Nature and Development of Programming Plans”. In International Journal of Man-Machine Studies Vol 32. pp461-481 Davis, S.P. and Bostrom, J. (1993). An Analysis and Evaluation of Computer-Related Training Techniques. Proceedings of the ACM Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems. ACM Press DeVinney, T. (1997). Aliens Guide to Human Psychology. Retrieved 1 September 2004 from http://www.tdev.dircon.co.uk/glossary.htm Dunsmore, H.E. (1982). “Using Formal Grammars to Predict the Most Useful Characteristics of Interactive Systems.” In Office Automation Conference Digest, pp. 53-56.Sans Francisco. Durham, A.,G. and Emurian, H.,H. (1990) “Learning and Retention with a Menu and Command Line Interface.” In Computers in Human Behaviour. Vol. 14, Iss. 4. pp. 597-620. Eberts, R.E. (1994). User Interface Design. New Jersey: Prentice Hall. Eberts, R.E., and Bittianda, K.P., (1993). “Preferred mental models for direct manipulation and command-based interfaces”. In International Journal of Man Machine Studies, Vol. 38, Iss. 5. pp.769-786. English, W. K., Engelbart, D. C., and Berman, M. L. (1967). “Display-selection techniques for text manipulation.” In IEEE Transactions on Human Factors in Electronics, Vol. 8, Iss. 1. pp. 515. Frese, M., Schulte-Gocking, H., and Altmann, A, (1987). Direct Manipulation Vs. Conventional Interaction. Frese, Schulte-Gocking and Altman (1987) Cited in Ziegler and Fahnrich (1988). Frohlich, D. M. (1997). “Direct manipulation and other lessons.” In M. Helander & T. K. Landauer & P. Prabhu (Eds.), Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction (2nd ed), pp. 463-488. New York: Elsevier. Galitz, W.O. (1993) User Interface Screen Design. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Glossary Online (2004). Retrieved August 25 2004 from www.eupen.com/glossary/glossarycable.html. Gong, Q., and Salvendy, G. (1995). “An approach to the design of a skill adaptive interface.” International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, Vol. 7,Iss. 3. pp. 365-383. Grandjean, E. (1987). “Design of VDT Workstations”. In G. Salevendy (Ed.) Handbook of Human Factors. pp. 1359-1397. New York: Wiley. Greene, S. L., Gould, J. D., Boies, S. J., Rasamny, M., and Meluson, A. (1992). “Entry and selectionbased methods of human-computer interaction.” In Human Factors, Vol. 34, Iss.1 pp. 97-113. Hanson, S.J., Kraut, R.E., and Farber, J.M. (1994). “Interface Design and Multivariate Analysis of Unix Command Use”. In ACM Transactions on Office Information Systems Vol. 2. Iss. 1. pp. 42-57. Hauptmann, A. G., and Green, B. F. (1983). “A comparison of command, menu-selection, and natural language programs.” In Behaviour and Information Technology, Vol. 2, Iss. 2. pp. 163-178. Hinds, P (1998). “Who Should Design for Novice Users? A Study of Experts’ Limitations in Predicting Novices’ Experience”. In Integrated Solutions LaboratoryHPL98-136, pp. 2-14. Hutchins, E.L., Hollan, J.D., and Norman, D.A. (1986). “Direct manipulation interfaces.” In D.A. Norman and S.W. Draper (eds.) User Centered System Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction, pp. 87-124. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Jefferson, S. (2002). “Beyond the Keyboard and Mouse”. In Infoworld, Vol. 22. Iss. 44. p. 51. Jordan, P.W., (1992). “Claims for direct Manipulation interfaces investigated.” In Industrial Management and Data Systems. pp. 3-6. Joseph, B., Steinberg, E. R., and Jones, A. R. (1989). “User perceptions and expectations of an information retrieval system.” In Behaviour and Information Technology, Vol. 8, Iss. 2. pp. 77-88. Kacmar, CJ., (1989). “An experimental comparison of text and icon menu formats.” Working paper, Texas A&M University, Department of Computer Science. Kahneman, D., and Tversky, A., (1979). “Intuitive prediction: Biases and corrective procedures.” In Choices, values, and frames, pp. 414-430. Kernighan, B. (2002). The Unix Programming Environment. New Jersey: Prentice Hall Kissel, G.V. (2001). “The Effect of Computer Experience on Subjective and Objective Software Usability Measures”. In ACM CHI Proceedings 2001. Kolodner, J.L., (1983). “Towards an understanding of the role of experience in the evolution from novice to expert.” International Study of Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 19, Iss. 6. pp. 497-518. Kozma, R. B., and Russell, J. (1997). “Multimedia and understanding: Expert and novice responses to different representations of chemical phenomena.” In Journal of Research in Science Teaching, Vol. 34, Iss. 9. pp. 949-968. Langer, E. J. and Imber, L. G. (1979). “When practice makes imperfect: Debilitating effects of over learning.” In Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 37, Iss. 11. pp.2014-2024. Lansdale, M. W. and Ormrod T.C.(1994) Understanding Interfaces: A Handbook of Human-Computer Dialogue. London: Academic Press. Larkin, J. and Simon, H. (1987) “Why a diagram is (sometimes) worth ten thousand words.” In Cognitive Science, Vol. 11, Iss.2. pp. 65-99. Leedy, P.D. and Orrnrod, J.E. (2001).Practical Research: Planning and Design. New Jersey: Merrill Prentice Hall Liu, Y. (1997). “Software-user interface design”. In G. Salvendy (Ed.). Handbook of human factors and ergonomics. pp. 1698-1724. New York: Wiley. Luhman, J. (1999). Creativity: Mac vs. Win. Retrieved 29 April 2004 from www.skypoint.com/members/jluhman/creative.htm. MacLean, A., Barnard, P.J., and Wilson, M.D. (1985). “Evaluating the human interface of a data entry system: User choice and performance measures yield different trade-off functions.” In People and Computers: Designing the Interface, Vol. 5 Iss. 7 pp. 45-61. Manes, S. (2000). “The curse of user-hostile design”. In PC World, Vol. 18. Iss. 11. p. 284. Margano, S. and Schneiderman, B., (1987). “A Study of File Manipulation by Novices Using Commands vs. Direct Manipulation.” In 26th Annual Technical Symposium, Washington D.C. Chapter of ACM, pp. 57-62. Meloche, J.,A. (2000) “Q Methodology as a Research Methodology for Human Computer Interaction” School of Information Studies, Charles Stuart University, Wagga Wagga. Australia. Retrieved 20 September 2004 from http://www.csu.edu.au/OZCHI99/short_papers/Meloche.doc Merchant, S.(2002). “Customizing the Human-Computer Interface to Compensate for Individual Cognitive Attitude: An Exploratory Study”, In Informing Science pp. 1043-1049. Morgan, K., Morris, R.L., and Gibbs, S. (1991) “When does a mouse become a rat? or…Comparing performance and preferences in direct manipulation and command line environments,” In The Computer Journal, Vol. 34, Iss.3. pp. 265-271. Mynatt, E.D., and Edwards, W.K (1995). “Metaphors for nonvisual computing. In A.D.N. Edwards (Ed.) Extra-ordinary human computer Interaction: Interfaces for users with disabilities. pp. 201-220. New York: Cambridge University Press. Nickerson, R. S., Baddeley, A, and Freeman, B. (1987). “Are people’s estimates of what other people know influenced by what they themselves know?” In Acta Psychologica , Vol. 64, pp. 245259. Nielsen, J. (1987). “A user interface case study of the Macintosh.” In Salvendy, G. (Ed.), Cognitive Engineering in the Design of Human-Computer Interaction and Expert Systems. pp. 241-248. Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers. Nielsen, J. and Levy, J. (1994) “Measuring Usability: Preference vs. Performance.” In Communications of the ACM Vol. 3, Iss. 4. pp. 66-75. Nielsen, J., and Mack, R.L.(1994). Usability Inspection Methods, John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY. Niven, B.(2004). Interview. [Interview with Brian Niven, 10 September, 2004]. Norman, D.A., (1986) “Cognitive engineering.” In D.A Norman and S.W. Draper (eds.) User Centered Systems Design: New Perspectives on Human-Computer Interaction. pp. 31-61. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. O’Reilley Online Catalogue (1999). Retrieved August 25 2004 from http://www.oreilly.com/catalog/debian/chapter/book/glossary.html Paap, KA, and Roske-Hofstrand, R. J. (1988). “Design of menus.” In M. Helander (Ed.). In Handbook of human-computer interaction. pp. 205-235. New York: Elsevier. Paige, J. M. and Simon, H. A (1966). “Cognition processes in solving algebra word problems”. In B. Kleinmuntz (Ed.), Problem Solving, pp. 119-151. New York: Wiley. Perry, T. S., and Voelcker, J. (1989). “Of mice and menus: designing the user-friendly interface.” In IEEE Spectrum, Vol. 26, Iss.9. pp. 46-51. Rauterberg, M. (1996). “How to Measure and to Quantify Usability Attributes of Man-Machine Interfaces.” In K Tanie (Ed. ) Proceedings 5th IEEE International Workshop on Robot and Human Communication. pp. 262-267. Rauterberg, M. (1998). “Introduction into Human Computer Interaction” pp. 3-30. Swiss Federal Institute of Technology. Raymond, E.S. (2003). “Tradeoffs between CLI and Visual Interfaces: Chapter 11”. In Art of Unix Programming. pp. 45-51. London: John Wiley & Sons. Robertson, G.G., Card, S.K and MacKinlay, J.D. (1993). “Information Visulization using 3D animation.” In Communications of the ACM, Vol. 36, Iss.2. pp. 81-83. Rohr, G., & Keppel, E. (1984). “Iconic interfaces: where to use and how to construct?” In Human factors in Organizational Design and Management: Proceedings of First Symposium, pp. 269-275. North-Holland: Elsevier Science Publishers. Rosson, M. B. (1983). “Patterns of experience in text editing.” In Proceedings of the CHI-83 conference on human factors in computing. pp. 171-175. New York: Association for Computing Machinery. Santhanam, R., and Wiedenbeck, S. (1993). “Neither novice nor expert: The discretionary user of software.” In International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 38, Iss. 2. pp. 201-229. Schar, S. G. (1996). “The influence of the user interface on solving well and ill-defined problems.” In International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 44, Iss. 1. pp. 1-18. Sekinger, S., (1997) Command Line Vs GUI OS Interfaces. Working Paper. University of British Columbia. Schneiderman, B. (1982a) “The Future of Interactive Systems and the Emergence of Direct Manipulation.” In Behaviour and Information Technology Vol I. pp237-256. Shneiderman, B. (1982b). Designing the user interface: Strategies for effective human-computer interaction.(2nd ed) Addison-Wesley Publishing Co. Shneiderman, B. (1983). “Direct manipulation: A step beyond programming languages.” In IEEE Computer, Vol. 16,Iss. 8. pp. 57-69. Shneiderman, B. (1998). Designing the user interface. MA: Addison Wesley. Smith, D. (1998). “Faster is Better- A Business Case for Subsecond Response Time”. In Computerworld Vol 15. p130 Soloway, E., Adelson, B., and Ehrlich, K. (1998). “Knowledge and processes in the comprehension of computer programs”. In M. Chi, R. Glaser, & M. Farr (Eds.), The Nature of Expertise, pp. 129-152. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Svendsen, G.B., (1991). “The influence of interface style on problem solving.” In International Journal of Man-Machine Studies, Vol. 35, Iss. 3. pp. 379-397. Te’eni, D. (1990). “Direct Manipulation as a source of cognitive feedback: human-computer experiment with a judgement task.” In International Journal of Man Machine Studies, Vol. 33, Iss. 4. pp. 453-466. Technical Forecasts Limited (2004) Retrieved August 252004 from http://www.tfl.biz/docs/glossary.html Tognazzini, B. (1992) TOG on Interface, New York-Adison-Wesley. Umanath, N.S., and Scamell, R.W. (1988). “An experimental investigation of the impact of data display format on recall performance.” In Communications of the ACM, Vol. 31. pp. 562-570. Unwin, A., and Hofmann. H. (2001). “GUI and Command Line- Conflict or Synergy?” In Journal of Computational and Graphical Statistics, Vol. 5, Iss.2, pp. 113-122. W3Schools (2004) OS Platform Statistics retrieved 1 October 2004 from http://www.w3schools.com/browsers/browsers_stats.asp Whiteside, J., Jones, S., Levy, P.S, and Wixon, D. (1985). “User Performance with Command, Menu and Iconic Interfaces”. In ACM CHI’85 Proceedings. Iss. April. pp. 185-191. Wright, P. (1983). “Manual Dexterity: A user oriented approach to creating computer documentation.” Human Factors in Computing Systems SIGCHI Bulletin, pp. 11-17. Zanino, M.C., Prasad, J., Agarwal, R. (2001). Graphical user interfaces and ease of use: some myths examined. Proceedings of the 1994 computer personnel research conference on Reinventing IS : managing information technology in changing organizations: managing information technology in changing Alexandria, Virginia, United States.pp. 142 - 15