understanding the user's task

The practitioner's guide to user experience design

Read these to prepare for class discussion

  1. Chapter 2, Creativity Loves Constraints,
    pages 44-63
    in Miller, L. (2015). The practitioner's guide to user experience design.
    New York; Boston: Grand Central Publishing.
    2. Universal Principles of Design
  2. Universal principles of design
    Hierarchy of needs, 124
  3. a relevant article from the Nielsen Norman Group
    Incompetent Research Skills Curb Users' Problem Solving
  4. Uden, L., Valderas, P., & Pastor, O. (2008). An activity-theory-based model to analyse Web application requirements. Information Research, 13(2), paper 340.
    Read only the following sections:
    ⇒ Activity theory background
    ⇒ Activities, actions and operations
    ⇒ Applying activity theory to the analysis of Web application requirements
    ⇒ Benefits of activity theory for Web requirements

[top]

Optional readings which may come up in class discussions

Johnson, J., & Henderson, A. (January 01, 2002). Design: Conceptual Models: Begin By Designing What to Design. Interactions, 9, 1, 25-33
[PDF]

ON METAPHORS

Hudson, W. (2000). Metaphor: a double-edged sword. interactions, 7(3): 11-15.
[PDF]

ON COGNITIVE TASK ANALYSIS

Vicente, K. J. (1999). Cognitive Work Analysis: Toward Safe, Productive, and Healthy Computer-Based Work. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
[QA76.9.H85 V515 1999] or as [e-book]
⇒ Chapter 4, Descriptive approaches to work analysis: "What workers really do", p87-108

Wei, J., & Salvendy, G. (2004). The cognitive task analysis methods for job and task design:
Behaviour & Information Technology, 23(4), 273-299.
[PDF]

ON ACTIVITY THEORY

Wilson, T.D. (2006). A re-examination of information seeking behaviour in the context of activity theory. Information Research, 11(4), paper 260.

Constantine, L.L. (2006). Activity modeling: Toward a pragmatic integration of activity theory with usage-centered design.
Chap. 3, pp. 27-53 in
Seffah, A., Vanderdonckt, J., & Desmarais, M. C. (2009). Human-centered software engineering: Software engineering models, patterns and architectures for HCI. London: Springer.
[e-book]

Kaptelinin, V. (1996). Activity theory: implications for human-computer interaction. In Nardi, B. A. (ed.), Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 103-116.
[QA76.9.H85 C68 1996]

Kuutti, K. (1996). Activity theory as a potential framework for human-computer interaction research.
In Nardi, B. A. (ed.), Context and Consciousness: Activity Theory and Human-Computer Interaction. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 17-44.
[QA76.9.H85 C68 1996]

ON GOMS

John, B. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1996). Using GOMS for user interface design and evaluation: which technique? ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 3(4), 287-319.
[PDF]

John, B. E., & Kieras, D. E. (1996). The GOMS family of user interface analysis techniques: comparison and contrast. ACM Transactions on Computer-Human Interaction, 3(4), 320-351.
[PDF]

Useful, but not available online

Bertelsen, O. W., & Bødker, S. (2003). Activity theory.
In Carroll, J. M. (ed.), HCI Models, Theories, and Frameworks: Toward a Multidisciplinary Science. Amsterdam: Morgan Kaufmann, 291-324.
[QA76.9 .H85 C367 2003]

Bødker, S. (1991). Through the Interface: A Human Activity Approach to User Interface Design. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
[QA76.9.H85 B63 1991]
⇒ Chapter 2, Human activity and human-computer interaction, p18-56.

John, B. E. (2003). Information processing and skilled behavior.
In Carroll, J. M. (ed.), HCI Models, Theories, and Frameworks: Toward a Multidisciplinary Science. Amsterdam: Morgan Kaufmann, 55-101.
[QA76.9 .H85 C367 2003]

MacKenzie, I. S. (2003). Motor behavior models for human-computer interaction.
In Carroll, J. M. (ed.), HCI Models, Theories, and Frameworks: Toward a Multidisciplinary Science. Amsterdam: Morgan Kaufmann, 27-54.
[QA76.9 .H85 C367 2003]

[top]