Inf2709 final presentationelizabethmonsalve
description
Transcript of Inf2709 final presentationelizabethmonsalve
![Page 1: Inf2709 final presentationelizabethmonsalve](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051817/5482a846b47959190d8b486b/html5/thumbnails/1.jpg)
Elizabeth Suescún Monsalve
![Page 2: Inf2709 final presentationelizabethmonsalve](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051817/5482a846b47959190d8b486b/html5/thumbnails/2.jpg)
7/4/11 @LES/PUC-Rio 2
Summary
Introduction Limitations of the Notations Using a CDs to Evaluate i* Notational
System Using Empirical Evaluation to GOMS Extending i* to Support HCI Concepts Conclusions
![Page 3: Inf2709 final presentationelizabethmonsalve](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051817/5482a846b47959190d8b486b/html5/thumbnails/3.jpg)
Introduction
Task Analysis: is an approach that involves different techniques addresses to describe interaction between users and environment in a systemic way.
Framework i*: is a goal-oriented language and RE notation.
7/4/11 @LES/PUC-Rio 3
![Page 4: Inf2709 final presentationelizabethmonsalve](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051817/5482a846b47959190d8b486b/html5/thumbnails/4.jpg)
Introduction
GOMS: Model is based on the mechanism of human reasoning
to solve problems; Represents activities (physical and mental) that involves
work.
Goals “user desires” Operations basic units of perception, motor or
cognitive; Methods Possibilities to reach operations.
7/4/11 @LES/PUC-Rio 4
![Page 5: Inf2709 final presentationelizabethmonsalve](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051817/5482a846b47959190d8b486b/html5/thumbnails/5.jpg)
Introduction
Hierarchical Task Analysis (HTA): Approach top-down which consider goals of
high-level and actions to reach goal. Goal is a desired state; Tasks describe how to reach this goal; Operations are lower-level units to describe
behavior; Plans which specify the conditions to perform
tasks or sub-tasks.
7/4/11 @LES/PUC-Rio 5
![Page 6: Inf2709 final presentationelizabethmonsalve](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051817/5482a846b47959190d8b486b/html5/thumbnails/6.jpg)
Example decomposition of task
7/4/11 @LES/PUC-Rio 6
![Page 7: Inf2709 final presentationelizabethmonsalve](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051817/5482a846b47959190d8b486b/html5/thumbnails/7.jpg)
Typical example of GOMS notations GOAL: CLOSE-WINDOW . [select GOAL: USE-MENU-METHOD . MOVE-MOUSE-TO-FILE-MENU . PULL-DOWN-FILE-MENU . CLICK-OVER-CLOSE-OPTION GOAL: USE-CTRL-W-METHOD . PRESS-CONTROL-W-KEYS] For a particular user: Rule 1: Select USE-MENU-METHOD unless another rule applies Rule 2: If the application is GAME, select CTRL-W-METHOD If there is more than one alternative, we could suggest series of conditions and
rules to take the best options (Method): METHODS: IF (EXPERT-USER)USE-KEYBOARD-METHOD ELSE USE-MOUSE-METHOD We could decompose the goals in subgoals: GOAL: EDIT-DOCUMENT GOAL: OPEN-DOCUMENT
7/4/11 @LES/PUC-Rio 7
![Page 8: Inf2709 final presentationelizabethmonsalve](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051817/5482a846b47959190d8b486b/html5/thumbnails/8.jpg)
Limitations of the Notations
Limitations on the Concepts: Design does not satisfy requirements (both) The option the user should chose (both) What tasks should be execute (both) What sequence should be followed in order to execute
some task (i*) How to finish some task execution (i*) Constraints are not represented (GOMS) Only considers error-free behavior (GOMS) The kind of user and his or her unpredictability are
disregard (GOMS)
7/4/11 @LES/PUC-Rio 8
![Page 9: Inf2709 final presentationelizabethmonsalve](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051817/5482a846b47959190d8b486b/html5/thumbnails/9.jpg)
Limitations of the Notations
Limitations on the Process the information related to system and user is
quite ad hoc. (Both) methodologies do not allow conflicts to be
identified between design decisions and requirements. (Both)
does not have some kind of traceability to support the development of a design that satisfies requirements (Both)
7/4/11 @LES/PUC-Rio 9
![Page 10: Inf2709 final presentationelizabethmonsalve](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051817/5482a846b47959190d8b486b/html5/thumbnails/10.jpg)
Limitations of the i* Graphical Notations
a) semiotic clarity; b) symbols overload (homographs); c) perceptual discriminability; d) complexity management; e) perceptual directness.
7/4/11 @LES/PUC-Rio 10
![Page 11: Inf2709 final presentationelizabethmonsalve](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051817/5482a846b47959190d8b486b/html5/thumbnails/11.jpg)
Using a CDs Questionnaire to Evaluate i*
Cognitive Dimensions Questionnaire:
Goals: Evaluate the usability of information based-on
artifacts and notations; It is proposed as a user-centered discussion
tool in order to make quick but useful evaluations.
7/4/11 @LES/PUC-Rio 11
![Page 12: Inf2709 final presentationelizabethmonsalve](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051817/5482a846b47959190d8b486b/html5/thumbnails/12.jpg)
Considerations about Evaluation of i*
CDs: Generated good concepts; Captured important aspects of i* framework
and its notational system; Allowed general users to make judgments and
reach agreement among themselves about i* framework .
7/4/11 @LES/PUC-Rio 12
![Page 13: Inf2709 final presentationelizabethmonsalve](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051817/5482a846b47959190d8b486b/html5/thumbnails/13.jpg)
Empirical Evaluation to GOMS
7/4/11 @LES/PUC-Rio 13
![Page 14: Inf2709 final presentationelizabethmonsalve](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051817/5482a846b47959190d8b486b/html5/thumbnails/14.jpg)
HTA Notations
7/4/11 @LES/PUC-Rio 14
Notation
Example
![Page 15: Inf2709 final presentationelizabethmonsalve](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051817/5482a846b47959190d8b486b/html5/thumbnails/15.jpg)
Extending i* to Support HCI Concepts
7/4/11 @LES/PUC-Rio 15
![Page 16: Inf2709 final presentationelizabethmonsalve](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051817/5482a846b47959190d8b486b/html5/thumbnails/16.jpg)
Conclusions
The main contribution of this work has been to introduce framework i* as an alternative to help process in HCI;
The improvements propose in this are intended to improve the communication between different users;
7/4/11 @LES/PUC-Rio 16
![Page 17: Inf2709 final presentationelizabethmonsalve](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051817/5482a846b47959190d8b486b/html5/thumbnails/17.jpg)
Conclusion
In order to be more meaningful and useful, task analysis should be developed through and interdisciplinary collaborative effort, involving the various viewpoint of ER and HCI.
7/4/11 @LES/PUC-Rio 17
![Page 18: Inf2709 final presentationelizabethmonsalve](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051817/5482a846b47959190d8b486b/html5/thumbnails/18.jpg)
Future works
We propose to use Cognitive Dimensions Questionnaire to evaluate GOMS;
It is necessary to extend the empirical evaluation to identify strengths and weaknesses of GOMS;
It is required to make experiments using the modifications proposes in i* notations;
It necessary to make new analysis of i* notations but it should be focused on visual representation aspects, which the CDs framework had excluded.
7/4/11 @LES/PUC-Rio 18
![Page 19: Inf2709 final presentationelizabethmonsalve](https://reader034.fdocuments.in/reader034/viewer/2022051817/5482a846b47959190d8b486b/html5/thumbnails/19.jpg)
Thanks
7/4/11 @LES/PUC-Rio 19