Teresa L. Roberts
ABSTRACT
This 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 perform edit tasks by experts.
—Errors made by experts.
—Learning of basic edit tasks by novices.
—Functionality over all possible edit tasks.
The methodology is objective and thorough, yet easy to use. The criterion of objectivity implies that the evaluation scheme not be biased in favor of any particular editor's conceptual model—its way of representing text and operations on the text. In addition, data is gathered by observing people who are equally familiar with each system. Thoroughness implies that several different aspects of editor usage be considered. Ease-of-use means that methodology is usable by editor designers, managers of word processing centers, or other non-psychologists who need this kind of information, but have limited time and equipment resources.
In this paper, we explain the methodology first, then give some interesting empirical results from applying it to several editors.
- 1.Card, S. K., Moran, T. P., and Newell A. The Keystroke-Level Model for user performance time with interactive systems. Communications of the ACM, 1980, 23, 396-410. Google Scholar
Digital Library
- 2.Roberts, T. L. Evaluation of Computer Text Editors. Ph.D. dissertation, Department of Computer Science, Stanford University, 1980. Available as Report AAD 80-11699 from University Microfilms, Ann Arbor, Michigan. Google ScholarDigital Library
- 3.Augmentation Research Center. NLS-8 Command Summary. Menlo Park, California: Stanford Research Institute, May 1975.Google Scholar
- 4.Augmentation Research Center. NLS-8 Glossary. Menlo Park, California: Stanford Research Institute, July 1975.Google Scholar
- 5.Bolt, Beranek, and Newman, Inc. TENEX Text Editor and Corrector (Manual DEC10-NGZEB-D). Cambridge, Massachusetts: Author, 1973.Google Scholar
- 6.Garcia, Karla. Xerox Document System Reference Manual. Palo Alto, California: Xerox Office Products Division, 1980.Google Scholar
- 7.Palo Alto Research Center. Alto User's Handbook. Palo Alto, California: Xerox PARC, September 1979.Google Scholar
- 8.Stallman, R. M. EMACS Manual for ITS Users. MIT, AI Lab Memo 554, 1980.Google Scholar
- 9.Stanford Center for Information Processing. Wylbur/370 The Stanford Timesharing System Reference Manual, 3rd ed. Stanford, California: Stanford University, November 1975.Google Scholar
- 10.Wang Laboratories, Inc. Wang Word Processor Operator's Guide, 3rd release. Lowell, Mass., 1978.Google Scholar
Index Terms
- Evaluation of text editors
Recommendations
The evaluation of text editors: methodology and empirical results.
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 ...
How do people really use text editors?
Keystroke statistics were collected on editing systems while people performed their normal work. Knowledge workers used an experimental editor, and secretaries used a word processor. Results show a consistent picture of free use patterns in both ...
Comments