Teresa L. Roberts
Abstract
This paper presents a methodology for evaluating text editors on several dimensions: the time it takes experts to perform basic editing tasks, the time experts spend making and correcting errors, the rate at which novices learn to perform basic editing tasks, and the functionality of editors over more complex tasks. Time, errors, and learning are measured experimentally; functionality is measured analytically; time is also calculated analytically. The methodology has thus far been used to evaluate nine diverse text editors, producing an initial database of performance results. The database is used to tell us not only about the editors but also about the users—the magnitude of individual differences and the factors affecting novice learning.
- 1 Bates, S. J. User behavior in an interactive computer system. IBM Systems Journal 13 (1974) 1-18.Google Scholar
- 2 Card, S. K., English, W. K,, and Burr, B. J. Evaluation of mouse, ratecontrolled isometric joystick, step keys, and text keys for text selection on a CRT. Ergonomics 21 (1978) 601-613.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 3 Card, S. K., Moran, T. P., and Newell, A. The Keystroke-Level Model for user performance time with interactive systems. Comm. ACM 23, 7 (July 1980) 396-410. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 4 Card, S. K., Moran, T. P., and Newell. A. The Psychology of Human- Computer Interaction. Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Hinsdale, NJ, 1983. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 5 Egan, D. E, Bowers, C., and Gomez, L. M. Learner characteristics that predict success in using a text-editor tutorial. Proc. Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems, Gaithersburg, MD, (March 1982), 337-340. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 6 Embley, D. W, and Nagy, G. Behavioral aspects of text editors. Computing Surveys 13, 1 (March 1981) 33-70. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 7 Good, M. An ease of use evaluation of an integrated document processing system. Proc. Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systerns, Gaithersburg, MD, (March 1982), 142-147. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 8 Meyrowitz, N., and van Dam, A. Interactive editing systems. Computing Surveys 14, 3 (Sept. 1982) 321-415. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 9 Moran, T. P. The Command Language Grammar: A representation for the user interface of interactive computer systems. Int. Journal of Man-Machine Studies 15, 1 (July 1981) 3-50.Google ScholarCross Ref
- 10 Riddle, E. A. Comparative Study of Various Text Editors and Formatting Systems. Report AD-A029 050, Air Force Data Services Center, The Pentagon, Washington, D.C., (Aug. 1976).Google Scholar
- 11 Roberts, T. L. Evaluation of Computer Text Editors. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, Stanford, Calif., (1980). Available as Report AAD 80-11699 from University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Mich. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 12 Roberts, T. L., and Moran, T. P. Evaluation of text editors. Proc. Conference on Human Factors in Computer Systems, Gaithersburg, MD, (March 1982), 136-141. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 13 Robertson, C. K., and Akscyn, R. Experimental evaluation of tools for teaching the ZOG frame editor. Computer Science Department, Carnegie-Mellon University, Pittsburgh, PA, (1982).Google Scholar
- 14 The Seybold Report on Office Systems (through 1981 called The Seybold Report on Word Processing). Media, PA.Google Scholar
- 15 The Seybold Report on Word Processing. 4, 4, (April 1981). Issue on Personal Computers: Word Processing Packages.Google Scholar
- 16 Smith, D. C., Irby, C., Kimball, R., Verplank, W., and Harslem, E. Designing the Star user interface. Byte 7, 4 (April 1982) 242-282.Google Scholar
- 17 Whiteside, J., Archer, N., Wixon, D., and Good, M. How do people really use text editors? Proe. S1GOA Conference on Office Information Systems, Philadelphia, (1982) 29-40. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 18 Augmentation Research Center. NLS-8 Command Summary. Stanford Research Institute, Menlo Park, Calif., (May 1975).Google Scholar
- 19 Augmentation Research Center. NLS-8 Glossary. Stanford Research Institute. Menlo Park, Calif., (July 1975).Google Scholar
- 20 Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc. TENEX Text Editor and Corrector (Manual DEC10-NGZEB-D). Cambridge, Mass., (1973). (Documents TECO.)Google Scholar
- 21 Garcia, K. Xerox Document System Reference Manual. Xerox Office Products Division, Palo Alto, Calif, (1980). (Documents BRAVOX.)Google Scholar
- 22 Lampson, B. Bravo manual. Alto User's Handbook. Xerox Palo Alto Research Center, Palo Alto, Calif., (1979).Google Scholar
- 23 Stallman, R. M. EMACS Manual for ITS Users. AI Lab Memo 554, MIT, Cambridge, Mass., (1980),Google Scholar
- 24 Stanford Center for Information Processing. Wylbur/370 The Stanford Timesharing System Reference Manual, 3rd ed. Stanford University, Stanford, Calif., (1975).Google Scholar
- 25 Tesler, L. The Smalltalk environment. Byte 6, 8, (Aug. 1981) 90-147. (There is no available GYPSY documentation. This paper describes the Smalltalk editor, which is based on many of the same design ideas as GYPSY.)Google Scholar
- 26 Wang Laboratories, Inc. Wang Word Processor Operator's Guide, 3rd release. Lowell, Mass., (1978).Google Scholar
- 27 Xerox Corporation. 8010 Star Information System Reference Guide. Dallas, Texas, (1981). (See also {16}.)Google Scholar
Index Terms
- The evaluation of text editors: methodology and empirical results.
Recommendations
Evaluation of text editors
CHI '82: Proceedings of the 1982 Conference on Human Factors in Computing SystemsThis paper presents a methodology for evaluating computer text editors from the viewpoint of their users—from novices learning the editor to dedicated experts who have mastered the editor. The dimensions which this methodology addresses are:
—Time to ...
Arrow2edit: A Technique for Editing Text on Smartphones
Human-Computer InteractionAbstractWe present Arrow2edit, a technique for efficient text editing on smartphones, based on the use of arrow soft buttons. Arrow2edit, after the user touches the text to place the cursor, displays keys with directional arrows that allow the user to ...
Reviews
Ross Jay Bettinger
This paper proposes a methodology, based on the Keystroke-Level Model, with which to evaluate text editors on interactive computeing systems. The authors claim that this methodology can also be applied to word processing. The authors believe that their evaluation technique is standadized, in that it measures the significant dynamics associated with using several different text editors of varying complexity and hardware implementation. They further claim that their measurement techniques is objective, through, and easy to use. This methodology is intended for use by text editor designers, word processing center managers, and other nonpsychologists who need to evaluate text editors, but who have limited time and equipment. It is this writer's opinion that, while the authors' methodology is objective and thorough, the requirements for trained personnel to (1) teach novice users, (2) perform accuate data collection, and (3) interpret the results of the study believe the authors' claim that the measurement techniques described in this paper would be human factors engineers and industrial psychologists, precisely the opposite audience for which the paper was intended.
Access critical reviews of Computing literature here
Become a reviewer for Computing Reviews.
Comments