Abstract
Over 100 million people use productivity suites such as Microsoft Office to accomplish a huge variety of tasks. Most of those tasks are ‘problem solving’ tasks that require users to generate novel solutions in novel situations. It is the problem solving nature of work that makes designing productivity software difficult. It is difficult for the designer to anticipate and understand the user’s task. As a consequence, productivity suites present difficulties for users and those difficulties are often discussed in the HCI community. Despite the difficulties involved in designing productivity software, suites are ‘pretty well’ designed and users are successful using them. Productivity software is only ‘pretty well’ designed because current user research practice is good at locally optimising individual features in products. When users are not successful it is because current user research practices are not very good at understanding the kinds of problem solving tasks that constitute work. Practitioners do not currently have good methods for taking field observations and turning those observations into design. It is only by developing these methods that we can improve the design of productivity software. Understanding how to turn observations into designs is very important to improving the design of productivity software and it is very difficult. Solving this problem will require cooperation between HCI researchers and HCI practitioners.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Allen, L. A. (1999), Baseline Usability Study of Office 2000, Unpublished Technical Report. Microsoft Corporation.
Beyer, H. & Holtzblatt, K. (1998), Contextual Design: Defining Customer-centered Systems, Morgan-Kaufmann.
Blum, B. I. (1996), Beyond Programming: To a New Era of Design, Oxford University Press.
Brown, J. S. & Duguid, P. (2000), The Social Life of Information, The Harvard Business School Press.
Carroll, J. M. (ed.) (1995), Scenario-Based Design: Envisioning Work and Technology in System Development, John Wiley&Sons.
Fischer, G. (to appear), “Articulating the Task at Hand and Making Information Relevant to It”, Human-Computer Interaction. Special Issue on Context-Aware Computing. http://www.cs.colorado.edu/gerhard/papers/hci2001.pdf.
Fischer, G. & Reeves, B. (1995), Beyond Intelligent Interfaces: Exploring, Analyzing and Creating Success Models of Cooperative Problem Solving, in W. A. S. B. R M Bæcker, J Grudin & S. Greenberg (eds.), Human-Computer Interaction: Toward the Year 2000, Morgan-Kaufmann, pp. 823–31.
Hutchins, E. (1995), Cognition in the Wild, MIT Press.
Konrad, R. (n.d.), “Scientists, Engineers Rail at PC Industry”, ZD Net News, 14 March 2001, http://www.zdnet.com/zdnn/stories/news/0,4586,2696127,00.html.
Landauer, T. K. (1988), Research Methods in Human-Computer Interaction, in M. Helander (ed.), Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, North-Holland, pp.905–928.
Newman, W. M. (1997), Better or Just Different? On the Benefits of Designing Interactive Systems in Terms of Critical Parameters, in G. C. van der Veer, A. Henderson & S. Coles (eds.), Proceedings of the Symposium on Designing Interactive Systems: Processes, Practices, Methods and Techniques (DIS’97), ACM Press, pp.239–45.
Nielsen, J. (1993), Usability Engineering, Academic Press.
Nielsen, J. & Landauer, T. K. (1993), A Mathematical Model of the Finding of Usability Problems, in S. Ashlund, K. Mullet, A. Henderson, E. Hollnagel & T. White (eds.), Proceedings of INTERCHI’93, ACM Press/IOS Press, pp.206–13.
Norman, D. A. (1998), The Invisable Computer, MIT Press.
Schneider, S. (2000), Mobile Tool Taxonomy: An Ethnographic Study, Unpublished Technical Report. Microsoft Corporation.
Suchman, L. A. (1987), Plans and Situated Actions—The Problem of Human-Machine Communication, Cambridge University Press.
Virzi, R. A. (1992), “Refining the Test Phase of Usability Evaluation: How Many Subjects is Enough”, Human Factors 34(4), 457–68.
Whiteside, J., Bennett, J. & Holtzblatt, K. (1988), Usability Engineering: Our Experience and Evolution, in M. Helander (ed.), Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, North-Holland, pp.791–817.
Wright, P. C. & Monk, A. F. (1991), “A Cost-effective Evaluation Method for Use by Designers”, International Journal of Man-Machine Studies 35(6), 891–912.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Editor information
Editors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
Copyright information
© 2001 Springer-Verlag London
About this paper
Cite this paper
Dye, K. (2001). As Easy to Use as a Banking Machine. In: Blandford, A., Vanderdonckt, J., Gray, P. (eds) People and Computers XV—Interaction without Frontiers. Springer, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0353-0_1
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4471-0353-0_1
Publisher Name: Springer, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-85233-515-1
Online ISBN: 978-1-4471-0353-0
eBook Packages: Springer Book Archive