Добавил:
Upload Опубликованный материал нарушает ваши авторские права? Сообщите нам.
Вуз: Предмет: Файл:

The Essential Guide to UI Design

.pdf
Скачиваний:
2332
Добавлен:
21.02.2016
Размер:
11.78 Mб
Скачать

830References

Straub, K. (2005). “The answer you’re searching for...is “Browse”.” UI Design Newsletter. January.

Straub, K., and Valdes (2005). In Straub, K. UI Design Newsletter. January.

Straub, K. (2006). “When getting the job done isn’t enough...How insight into users process makes interactions actions more satisfying.” UI Design Newsletter. March.

Streveler, D.J. and Wasserman, A.I. (1984). “Quantitative measures of the spatial properties of screen designs.” INTERACT ‘95. Human-Computer Interaction. England.

Stromoski, R. (1993). “Fighting the futz factor.” Information Week. February 15: 55. Suhm, B., Myers, B., and Waibel, A. (1999). “Model-Based and Evaluation of

Multimodal Interactive Error Correction.” CHI 99 Conference Proceedings, 584–591. Suhm, B., Bers, J., McCarthy, D., Freeeman, B., Getty, D., Godfrey, K. and Peterson, P.

(2002) “A Comparative Study of Speech in the Call Center: Natural Language Call Routing vs. Touch-tone Menus.” ACM SIGCHI, Minneapolis, MN.

Sukaviriya, P. and Moran, L. (1990). “User interfaces for Asia.” In Designing User Interfaces for International Use, J. Nielsen (ed.). New York: Elsevier.

Sun Microsystems, Inc. (1990). OPEN LOOK Graphical User Interface Application Style Guidelines. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Sun Microsystems, Inc. (1998), www.sun.com/sunonnet/.

Tan, D. S., Czerwinski, M, and Robertson, G. (2003). “Women go with the (optical) flow.”CHI 2003 Proceedings of the Conference on Human factors in Computer Systems.

New York, ACM Press, 209-215.

Tan, W., Liu, D., Bishu, R. R., Muralidhar, A. and Meyer, J. (2001). “Design improvements through user testing.” Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th Annual Meeting, 1181-1185.

Taylor, D. (1992). Global Software. New York: Springer Verlag.

Teevan, A., Alvarado, C., Ackerman, M. and Karger, D. (2004). “The perfect Search Engine is not enough: A Study of Orienteering Behavior in Direct Search.”

Proceedings of ACH CHI 2004, 415-422.

Thacker, P. (1987). “Tabular displays: A human factors study.” CSTG Bulletin. 14: (1)13. Thecounter.com. (2001) www.thecounter.com/stats/.

Thovtrup, H., and Nielsen, J. (1991). “Assessing the usability of a user interface standard.” Proceedings: CHI 91. 335–342.

Tindall-Ford, S., Chandler, P., and Sweller, J. (1997). “When two sensory modes are better than one,” Journal of Experimental Psychology; Applied, 3 (4)257–287.

Tinker, M. A. and Patterson, D. G. (1929). “Studies of typographical factors influencing speed of reading: Length of line.” The Journal of Applied Psychology, 13 (3), 205-219.

Tinker, M.A. (1955). “Prolonged reading tasks in visual research.” Journal of Applied Psychology, 39: 444–446.

Tripathi, P.D. (1992). “English: ‘The Chosen Tongue,’” English Today. 8 (4)3–11.

Tufte, E.R. (1983). The Visual Display of Quantitative Information. Cheshire, CT: Graphics Press.

Tullis, T. S., (1981). “An evaluation of alphanumeric, graphic, and color information displays.” Human Factors 23: 541–550.

Tullis, T. S., (1983). “Predicting the usability of alphanumeric displays.” Ph.D. diss., Rice University.

Tullis, T. S., (1993). “Is user interface design just common sense?” Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction. 9–14.

References 831

Tullis, T. S., and Kodimer, M.L. (1992). “A comparison of direct-manipulation, selection, and data-entry techniques for reordering fields in a table.” Proceedings of the Human Factors Society 36th Annual Meeting, Santa Monica, CA: Human Factors Society.

Tullis, T. S., Boynton, J. L. and Hersh, H. (1995). “Readability of fonts in the windows environment.” CHI’95 Conference Proceedings-Extended Abstracts, 127-128.

Tullis, T. S., and Pons, A. (1997). “Designating required vs. optional input fields” [Extended Abstracts]. Proceedings of CHI’97, 259-260.

Tullis, T. S., Fleischman, S., McNulty, M., Cianchette, C. and Bergel, M. (2002). “An Empirical Comparison of Lab and Remote Usability Testing of Web Sites.” Usability Professionals Association Conference, Orlando, Florida.

Tullis, T. S. and Stetson, J. N. (2004). “A comparison of questionnaires for assessing website usability.” Usability Professional Association Conference, Minneapolis, MN.

Tullis, T. S. and Wood, L. (2004). “How Many Users Are Enough for a Card-Sorting Study?” Usability Professional Association Conference, Minneapolis, MN.

Tyldesley, D. A.(1988). “Employing usability engineering in the development of office projects.” Computer Journal, 31 (5), 431-436.

Uceta, F.A., Dixon, M.A., and Resnick. M.L. (1998). “Adding Interactivity to Paper Prototypes,” Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting, 506–511.

Usability.gov/guidelines.

useit.com, “Severity Ratings for Usability Problems,” ttp://www.useit.com/papers/ heuristic/severityrating.html.

User Interface Engineering. (2001) http://world.std.com/~uieweb/tips.htm.

Van Schaik, P., and Ling, J. (2003). “Using online surveys to measure three key constructs of the quality of human-computer interaction in Web sites: Psychometric properties and implications.” International Journal of Human-Computer Studies, 59 (5), 545-567.

Vaughan, M. W. (1998). “Testing the boundaries of two user-centered design principles: Metaphors and memory load.” International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction, 10 (4), 343-360.

Verplank, B. (1988). “Designing graphical user interfaces.” Proceedings: CHI 88. May 15. Virzi, R. A. (1992). “Refining the test phase of usability evaluation: How many subjects

is enough?” Human Factors, 34, 457-468.

Virzi, R. A., Karis, D. and Sokolv, J. L. (1996). ‘Usability problem identification using both lowand high-fidelity prototypes.” Proceedings of CHI 1996, 236-243.

Vitz, P.C. (1966). “Preference for different amounts of visual complexity.” Behavioral Science, 2: 105–114.

Wainer, H. (1997). Visual revelations: Graphical tales of fate and deception from Napoleon Bonaparte to Ross Perot. New York, Springer-Verlag.

Walker, M., Takayama, L. and Landay, J. A. (2002). “High fidelity or low-fidelity, paper or computer? Choosing attributes when testing Web prototypes.” Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 46th Annual Meeting, 661-665.

Walker, M.A. (1989). “Natural language in a desktop environment.” In Designing and Using Human-Computer Interfaces and Knowledge Based Systems, G. Salvendy and M.J. Smith (eds.). Amsterdam: Elsevier Science Publishers.

832References

Watts-Perotti, J. and Woods, D. D. (1999). “How experienced users avoid getting lost in large display networks.” International Journal of Human-Computer Interaction. 11 (4), 269-299.

Weber, A. (1881). “Ueber die Augenuntersuchungen in der hoheren schulen zu Darmstadt.” Abtheilung fur Gusunheitspflege, Marz. [See Tinker and Patterson, 1929].

Weinberg, B. D. (2002). “Don’t keep your Internet customers waiting too long at the (virtual) front door.” Journal of Interactive Marketing, 14 (1), 30-39.

Weinschenk, S. (1995). “Storyboarding the information process.” Session Proceedings, BFMA The 26th International Symposium on Forms and Information Systems. May 7–11, St. Louis, MO.

Weinschenk, S. (2006). UI Design Newsletter. January.

Weiss, R, Knowlton, D. and Morrison, G. R. (2002). “Principles for using animation in computer-based instruction: Theoretical heuristics for effective design.” Computers in Human Behavior, 18, 465-477.

Weiss, S. (2002). Handheld Usability. Chichester, John Wiley & Sons.

White, J.V. (1990). Color for the Electronic Age. New York: Watson-Guptill Publications. Whitelock, D. (1998). “Matching measure for measure? A route through the formative testing of multimedia science software.” In Oliver, M. (Ed.). Innovation in the

Evaluation Technology, London, University of North London.

Whiteside, J., Jones, S., Levy, P.S., and Wixon, D. (1985). “User performance with command, menu, and iconic interfaces.” Proceedings CHI 85.

Whiteside, J., Bennett, J. and Holtzblatt, K. (1988). “Usability engineering. Our experience and evolution.” In Helander, M. (Ed.), Handbook of Human-Computer Interaction, 791-817, Amsterdam: North-Holland.

Wichansky, A.M. (1986). “Legibility and user acceptance of monochrome display phospher colors.” Proceedings: International Scientific Conference: Work with Display Units. May 12–15, Stockholm, Sweden.

Wiedenbeck, S. (1999). “The use of icons and labels in an end-user application program: an empirical study of learning and retention.” Behavior and Information Technology. 18 (2).

Wikipedia.org (2006), History of the Internet. in.wikipedia.org.

Williams, J.R. (1998). “Guidelines for the Use of Multimedia in Instruction.”

Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 42nd Annual Meeting, 1447–1451.

Winograd, T. (1995). “From programming environments to environments for designing.” Communications of the ACM. 38: (10)65–74.

Wopking, M., Pastoor, S., and Beldie, I.O. (1985). “Design of user guidance in videotex systems.” Proceedings of the 11th International Symposium on Human Factors in Telecommunications. Boston: Information Gatekeepers.

World Wide Web Consortium. (2001). www.w3.org.

Wright, P. (1991). “Designing and evaluating documentation for I.T. users.” In Human Factors for Informatics Usability, B. Shackel and S.J. Richardson (eds.). Cambridge U.K.: Cambridge University Press.

Wright, P., Lickorish, A., and Milroy, R. (1994). “Remember while mousing: The cognitive cost of mouse clicks.” SIGCHI Bulletin, 26: (1)41–45.

References 833

Wright, R. B. and Converse, S. A. (1992). “Method bias and concurrent protocol in software usability testing.” Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 34th Annual Meeting, 1285-1289.

Wu, J. and Yuan, Y. (2003). “Improving searching and reading performance: the effect of highlighting and text color coding.” Information Management, 40, 617-637.

Xia, L. (2002). “Affect as information: the role of affect in consumer online behavior.”

Advances in Consumer Research. 29, 93-99.

Youngman, M. and Schraff, L. (1998). “Text width and margin width influences on readability of GUIs.” http//hubel.sfasu.edu/research/textmargin.html.

Yu, B. and Roh, S., (2002). “The Effect of Menu design on Information Seeking Performance and User’s Attitudes on the World Wide Web.” Journal of the American Society for Information Science and Technology, 5 (11), 923-933.

Zahn, C.T. (1971). “Graph-theoretical methods for detecting and describing gestalt clusters.” IEEE Transactions on Computers, X-20. 68–86.

Zakon.org (2006). Hobbs Internet Timeline. www.zakon.org.

Zaphiris, P. and Mtei, L. (1998). “Depth versus breadth in the arrangement of Web links.” http://otal.umd.edu/SHORE/bs04/.

Zaphiris, P. (2001). “Age Differences and the Depth-Breadth Tradeoff in Hierarchical Online Information Systems.” In C. Stephanidis (Ed.), Universal Access in HCI. Mahwah, NJ, Lawrence Erlbaum.

Zaphiris, P., Ghiawadwala, M. and Mughai (2005). “Age-centered research-based Web design guidelines.” CHI 2005 Proceedings.

Zavod, M. J. and Fulop, A. C. (2001). “Choosing input field formats for use by sales personnel.” Proceedings of the Human Factors and Ergonomics Society 45th Annual Meeting, 667-671.

Zhan, P., Bishu, R.R., and Riley, M.W. (1993). “Screen layout and semantic structure in iconic menu design.” Proceedings of the Fifth International Conference on HumanComputer Interaction.

Zheng, J., Veinott, E., Bos, N. D., Olson, J. S. and Olson, G. M. (2002). “Trust without touch: Jumpstarting long-distance trust with initial social activities.” CHI 2002 Extended Abstracts, 141-146.

Ziefle, M. (1998). “Effects of display resolution on visual performance.” Human Factors, 40 (4) 555–568.

Index

A

abbreviations, 566, 625, 629 accelerators, keyboard, 335–337, 435 accessibility issues

accessibility design, 636–647 color use, 714 documentation, 649–650 types of disabilities, 636

usability for lower-literacy people, 647–648

usability for senior citizens, 648–649 as user interface design principle, 45,

236–237 acronyms, 566, 625, 629

action:object approach, 27 actions, 26, 117

actions bars, 393 adaptive menus, 326 aesthetics

components, 46, 141–149, 728–729 simplicity versus complexity, 56–57,

149–153

as user interface design principle, 45 affordance, 53, 349

age of users and related issues, 87, 96–99, 648–649

alignment and/or justification borders, 159

captions/data fields, 191–201, 218 for screen composition, 738–745 text, 579

alignment points, 57, 152–153 Altus system, 7

Amiga 100, 8

anchor links, 355, 360

annoyance on part of users, 74, 76 ANSI (American National Standards

Institute), 49, 123

anthropomorphic interaction style, 15, 16 anxiety reduction, 20

AOL (America OnLine), 9

appeal, visual, 46. See also aesthetics Apple computers, 8, 9, 651

Apple Human Interface Guidelines for the Macintosh, 122

application design, 40–43 application experience, 86, 90 application windows, 400 application-oriented systems, 27

ARPANET (Advanced Research Projects Agency Network), 8

associative links, 355

835

836 Index A–C

attitude and motivation, 87, 95 attributes of objects, 26 audition, 665–666, 681–686 auditory commands, 14 auditory feedback, 18

auto skip, 212–213

automated evaluation methods, 795, 805 availability, 46

axes statistical graphics, 268

B

background images, 598, 674 background tasks, 27

backgrounds, 160, 177, 709, 714–718, 719 balance of screen elements, 77, 142–143,

745–748

balloon tips, 414, 537–539 ballot boxes, 478

bandwidth considerations. See download speed (bandwidth considerations)

bar charts, 277–280 barrier minimization, 54 Berners-Lee, Tim, 8 beveled edges, 167 blinking, 164, 601 bolding/boldface, 164, 174 bookmarks, 355

borders

grouping with, 158–160, 730, 732–736 as window frames, 390–391, 392

boredom on part of users, 75 breadcrumbs and breadcrumb trails, 342,

354 brightness, 163 browsers

browsing and searching, 245–258 compatibility and performance consid-

erations, 288–290 content area, 419–420 frames, 420–421, 756 navigation, 28 popular, 419

pop-up windows, 421

standard toolbar actions, 419 user technology profiles, 292 variability, 34

bulletin boards, 110

business function understanding business definition and requirements

analysis

domain definition, 112

environment considerations, 112–113 information collection techniques,

104–111

possible problems, 113 requirements collection guidelines,

111–112

design standards or style guides, 120–125

determining basic functions, 114–120 system training and documentation

needs, 126

button activation, 457, 460 buttons. See controls

C

caption bars (title bars), 391 captions and labels. See also titles

check boxes, 484–486 command buttons, 447–448

control/data field differentiation, 190–191

control/data field justification, 191–201 data fields, 189–190

general guidelines, 186–188 icons, 664

images, 672 importance, 186–187 links, 588

list boxes, 497–498, 508 palettes, 491–492 radio buttons, 474–476 screen data, 186–201

size considerations for translations, 630–631

slider boxes, 519

Index C 837

statistical graphics, 272–273 text boxes, 464–466

Web links, 587–589

card sorting for Web sites, 107–108 cascade indicators, 333

cascading menus, 375–377, 381 cascading windows, 398, 404–407 category scales, 269

check boxes, 478–488, 547, 549, 551 Chinese language, 626

clarity, 46, 167, 655

classic experiments, 790–791 clickability cues, 358–359 clickable links, 342

clicking, 24–25, 432 client areas, 395 clipboard, 28

close buttons, 393 closure, 76, 156

clutter, visual, 23, 57, 729 cognitive processing

deterioration with age, 98 disabilities, 636, 641 performance load, 85 style, 87, 96

cognitive walk-throughs, 786–788 collections of objects, 26

colons, 188 colors

considerations of cultures, disabilities, and accessibility, 634, 639, 697–698, 713–714

definitions, 692–694

for focus and emphasis, 164–165 general guidelines for using, 695–696,

702–710, 723–725

grayscale and monochromatic, 704, 711–713

human vision considerations, 701–702 icons, 658

for images and symbols, 633 palettes, defaults, and customization,

286, 290, 710–711

possible problems, 691–692, 696–700

results of research, 700–701 for statistical graphics, 718–721 for textual graphics, 714–718

three-dimensional appearance, 167 for Web pages, 721–723

column headings, 215, 534–535 columnar data presentation, 191 combo boxes, 512–514, 550, 551 command areas, 395

command bars, 394 command buttons description, 446

general guidelines, 447–457 within message boxes, 412 within property sheets, 410 for triggering actions, 357 writing text for, 574–576

command language systems, 20 command line interaction style, 14, 15 commands, 26

Commodore, 8

comparison studies, 543–547 comparison tools, 240 compatibility, 47

competitor analysis, 110 completion aids, 206–208 complexity of design

icons, 656

limitations of human comprehension, 22

menu formats, 320

as overwhelming and confusing, 56 proliferation of elements and tech-

niques, 21

versus simplicity, 45, 56–57, 149–153 composed views, 27

composites of objects, 26 CompuServe, 9 computer literacy, 88

conceptual models, 115–120 concrete thinking, 20

concurrent performance of functions, 27–28

configurability, 47–48

838 Index C

confusion on part of user, 74, 76 connected menus, 311, 313 connection speed, 289 consistency

caption wording, 188 color use, 713

explaining inconsistencies, 118 fonts, 176–177

functional and aesthetic, 133–134 general guidelines, 729

GUI versus Web page design, 33, 35 icon design, 663, 664

image use, 672 menu formats, 315

as principle of user interface design, 44, 48–49

problem of inconsistencies, 74 technique and terminology, 22

constraints upon objects, 26 container objects, 25, 26

content area, browsers, 419–420. See also ordering of data and content

contents views, 27 context

as advantage of graphical systems, 20 GUI versus Web page design, 32, 34 icons, 656

as perceptual characteristic, 77 presenting information, 118

context sensitivity, 58 contextual help, 613–617

continuity as perceptual characteristic, 77 continuous devices, 424

contractions or short forms of words, 566 control as user interface principle, 20,

49–50

control navigation, 748 control panels, 18 controls

attributes, 185 captioning, 187 choosing

based on task, 548–552 buttons versus menus, 551–552

comparison studies, 543–547 entry versus selection, 542–543 examples good and bad, 552–561 selection criteria, 547–548

combination entry/selection combo boxes, 512–514, 550, 551 drop-down/pop-up combo boxes,

514–517, 549, 550

spin boxes, 509–512, 547, 549, 551 custom, 531

definition and properties, 443 dependent, 737–738 examples good and bad, 541 importance, 444

navigating, 748 operable

buttons, 445–447 command buttons, 447–448 toolbar buttons, 446, 447 toolbars, 446, 447, 458–461

other operable date-pickers, 524–525 scroll bars, 526–531 sliders, 517–521, 547 tabs, 521–524

tree views, 525–526 placement guidelines, 728 presentation

balloon tips, 537–539 column headings, 534–535 group boxes, 533–534 progress indicators, 539–540 sample boxes, 540

scrolling tickers, 542 static text fields, 530–533 tooltips, 446

ToolTips, 458, 535–537 principles for use, 444 selection

check boxes, 478–488, 547, 549, 551 comparison studies, 543–547 drop-down/pop-up list boxes,

503–509, 549, 550

list boxes, 493–503, 550, 551

Index C–D 839

list view controls, 503 palettes, 488–493, 550

radio buttons, 468–477, 546, 547, 549 text entry/read-only

comparison studies, 543–547 text boxes, 461–468, 547

conversation style, 40 cookies, 36

cooperative multitasking, 27 critical messages, 572 cultural considerations

color connotations, 698–700 internationalization, 627–628

native language and culture, 86, 91–92 studies of, 627

cursor, 212–213, 337–338 curve graphs, 273–275 customer support lines, 110 customization

color palettes, 710–711 controls, 531

design standards or style guides, 124–125

personalization and tailorability, 47–48 toolbars, 460

D

DARPA (Defense Advanced Projects Research Agency), 8

data fields, 189–190, 466–468 data objects, 25

data output/presentation advantages of windows for, 386–388 general guidelines, 214–219, 227–229 GUI versus Web page design, 30, 31 statistical graphics, 263–267

date-pickers, 524–525 defaults

check boxes, 481 color palettes, 710–711

command buttons, 455–456 list boxes, 508

menus, 339

providing, 57 radio buttons, 471

Delphi, 9

density of information presentation, 181–183, 266

dependent controls, 737–738

depth or three-dimensional appearance, 77, 165–166, 167, 709–710

depth versus breadth of menus, 318–320 desktop, 17, 25

developer-user links, 111 device objects, 25

devices, GUI versus Web page design, 30, 31

diagrams, 678–681

dialog boxes, 403, 407–408, 418 dialog units (DLUs), 402 direct devices, 424

direct manipulation interaction style, 15, 17–19

directness, 50

disabilities, 87, 100. See also accessibility issues

discrete devices, 424

discretionary or mandatory use of computers, 92–93

display fields, 461

display screens, 4, 5–6, 10–12. See also screens

display/read-only screens, 225–229 distance of provider, Web page versus

application design, 40 distinctiveness, 161–162, 188 dithering, 694–695

documentation. See also writing text and messages

accessibility issues, 649–650 description, 126

reference help, 619–620 typical problems with, 607–608 user interaction with, 608

domain definition, 112 double-clicking of mouse, 432 double-dragging of mouse, 432

Соседние файлы в предмете [НЕСОРТИРОВАННОЕ]