skip to main content
10.1145/800049.801771acmconferencesArticle/Chapter ViewAbstractPublication PageschiConference Proceedingsconference-collections
Article
Free Access

An ease of use evaluation of an integrated document processing system

Published:15 March 1982Publication History

ABSTRACT

Designers of systems intended to be easy to use have many guidelines available to them in the literature. Most of these recommendations are based on the intuition and experiences of particular designers with particular systems. Very few of them have been evaluated experimentally, so one must be cautious not to attribute more authority to these guidelines than they deserve [6].

This paper summarizes the results of an experimental evaluation of the Etude text processing system [8]. Section 2 provides a brief overview of Etude. Section 3 describes the development of suitable ease of use criteria. Section 4 presents the experimental protocol. Section 5 discusses the results of the evaluation. A complete description of the experiment can be found in [7].

References

  1. 1.Bennett, J. L. The user interface in interactive systems. In Annual Review of Information Science and Technology, Vol. 7, C. A. Cuadra, Ed., American Society for Information Science, Washington, 1972, pp. 159-196.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.Beyer, W. H. (Ed.). The CRC Handbook of Tables for Probability and Statistics. The Chemical Rubber Co., Cleveland, 1966. Confidence intervals for medians in Table VII. 3 on p. 266.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.Buros, O. K. (Ed.). The Eighth Mental Measurements Yearbook, Vol. 1. The Gryphon Press, Highland Park, N.J., 1978. Entry No. 683, pp. 1088-1096, contains STAI bibliography.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.Consistent System: Elementary Statistical Analysis. First edition, Renaissance Computing, Inc., 675 Massachusetts Avenue, Cambridge, Mass. 02139, 1980.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.Gebhardt, F. and Stellmacher, I. Design criteria for documentation retrieval languages. J. American Society for Information Science 29 (1978), 191-199.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  6. 6.Good, M. Etude and the folklore of user interface design. SIGPLAN Notices 16 (June 1981), 34-43. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  7. 7.Good, M. An ease of use evaluation of an integrated editor and formatter. Tech. Rep. TR-266, MIT Lab. for Computer Science, Nov., 1981. Revised version of MIT M.S. thesis. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  8. 8.Hammer, M. et al. Etude: an integrated document processing system. 1981 Office Automation Conference Digest, AFIPS, March, 1981, pp. 209-219.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.Hansen, J. B. Effects of feedback, learner control, and cognitive abilities on state anxiety and performance in a computer-assisted instruction task. J. Educational Psychology 66 (1974), 247-254.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  10. 10.Heise, D. R. The semantic differential and attitude research. In Attitude Measurement, G. F. Summers, Ed., Rand McNally, Chicago, 1970, pp. 235-253.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.IIson, R. An integrated approach to formatted document production. Tech. Rep. TR-253, MIT Lab. for Computer Science, Aug., 1980. MIT M.S. thesis. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  12. 12.Lucas, R. W. A study of patients' attitudes to computer interrogation. Internat. J. Man-Machine Studies 9 (1977), 69-86.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  13. 13.Miller, R. B. Human ease of use criteria and their tradeoffs. Tech. Rep. TR 00.2185, IBM Poughkeepsie Laboratory, April 12, 1971.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.Niamir, B. A virtual terminal interface for text processing applications. Memo OAM-011, MIT Lab. for Computer Science, Office Automation Group, Dec., 1979.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.Osgood, C. E., Suci, G. J. and Tannenbaum, P. H. The Measurement of Meaning. University of Illinois Press, 1957.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.Roberts, T. L. Evaluation of computer text editors. Report SSL-79-9, Xerox PARC, Nov., 1979. Stanford Ph.D. dissertation. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  17. 17.Snider, J. G. and Osgood, C. E. (Eds.). Semantic Differential Technique. Aldine Publishing Co., Chicago, 1969.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.Spielberger, C. D. Anxiety as an emotional state. In Anxiety: Current Trends in Theory and Research, Vol. 1, C. D. Spielberger, Ed., Academic Press, New York, 1972, pp. 23-49.Google ScholarGoogle ScholarCross RefCross Ref
  19. 19.Spielberger, C. D., Gorsuch, R. L. and Lushene, R. E. Manual for the State-Trait Anxiety Inventory. Consulting Psychologists Press, 577 College Ave., Palo Alto, Calif. 94306, 1970.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.Walther, G. H. The on-line user-computer interface: the effects of interface flexibility, experience, and terminal-type on user-satisfaction and performance. Ph.D. Th., U. Texas at Austin, Aug., 1973. NTIS No. AD-777 314. Google ScholarGoogle ScholarDigital LibraryDigital Library
  21. 21.Ward, S. A. and Terman, C. J. An approach to personal computing. Digest of Papers, Compcon '80, IEEE, Feb., 1980, pp. 460-465.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.Wilcoxon, F. and Wilcox, R. A. Some Rapid Approximate Statistical Procedures. American Cyanamid Co., Pearl River, N.Y., 1964.Google ScholarGoogle Scholar

Index Terms

  1. An ease of use evaluation of an integrated document processing system

    Recommendations

    Comments

    Login options

    Check if you have access through your login credentials or your institution to get full access on this article.

    Sign in
    • Published in

      cover image ACM Conferences
      CHI '82: Proceedings of the 1982 Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems
      March 1982
      399 pages
      ISBN:9781450373890
      DOI:10.1145/800049

      Copyright © 1982 ACM

      Permission to make digital or hard copies of all or part of this work for personal or classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation on the first page. Copyrights for components of this work owned by others than ACM must be honored. Abstracting with credit is permitted. To copy otherwise, or republish, to post on servers or to redistribute to lists, requires prior specific permission and/or a fee. Request permissions from [email protected]

      Publisher

      Association for Computing Machinery

      New York, NY, United States

      Publication History

      • Published: 15 March 1982

      Permissions

      Request permissions about this article.

      Request Permissions

      Check for updates

      Qualifiers

      • Article

      Acceptance Rates

      CHI '82 Paper Acceptance Rate75of165submissions,45%Overall Acceptance Rate6,199of26,314submissions,24%

    PDF Format

    View or Download as a PDF file.

    PDF

    eReader

    View online with eReader.

    eReader