Документ взят из кэша поисковой машины. Адрес
оригинального документа
: http://www.stsci.edu/~rdouglas/publications/thesis/section2_5_4.html
Дата изменения: Tue May 13 19:35:11 1997 Дата индексирования: Sat Dec 22 19:13:32 2007 Кодировка: Поисковые слова: reflection nebula |
~ ~ The following section covers some of the work in Human-Computer
Interaction and User Interface development that was the basis for this thesis.
The first book to mention is [Shneiderman 1992]. This reference provides a
comprehensive view of the issues that should be considered in designing a
computer's user interface to be user friendly. It includes concerns about
information overload and positioning of data. Shneiderman also expresses a
need to simplify input methods, using a menu or mouse where possible. This
book acts as a basis of knowledge about user interfaces that was used in
making later decisions.
[Lemke & Fischer 1990], [Fischer et al 1989], and [Fischer et al 1990] all describe similar work on
developing programs to critique designs. In [Lemke & Fischer 1990], the
design being critiqued is that of a User Interface. This is interesting
because of the program's encoded knowledge, but also because of the design of
human-computer interaction for their system. Lemke &Fischer list some of
the features they require of a distributed problem solving tool, used for
designing this software. Among these are some ideas which help make the
system more user friendly:
Fischer et al [1989] discusses two systems, CRACK and VIEWPOINTS. CRACK has critics which analyze the design of a kitchen layout. These critics explain why certain decisions may be bad, and why others are good decisions. The text for the critics is all pre-written. VIEWPOINTS is a hypertext system which gives arguments and alternative viewpoints, and is attached to graphics views. However, VIEWPOINTS is not yet automated to find relevant information based on which critic is activated. The goal of Fischer et al is to tie the two systems together by using VIEWPOINTS as the explanation facility for CRACK.
In [Fischer et al 1990], several uses of critic systems are discussed, including supporting learning by offering criticism of solutions and/or methods of problem-solving; providing design environments which communicate with users in their domain language; and developing cooperative problem-solving systems which combine the talents of humans and computers to come up with the best solutions.
Fischer et al then discuss work on the JANUS system, a combination of the above two: CRACK and VIEWPOINTS. They list several steps in the critiquing process:
Silverman &Mezher discuss the use of critics in a Design Support Environment, which they define as a three-layered model of the design task and tools used: the knowledge based collaboration and synthesis layer, the visualization and analysis layer, and the information layer. The design process passes down these layers to generate the design, then passes back up through them to test the design. By generating an example critic, they were able to get some feedback as to how a critic could be properly used in a CAD system. The comments they received were that the critic should supply more before-task tutoring; the system should use graphics coloring to guide the users choices; praise information should be omitted; and there should be some prototype analogy module offered. Silverman &Mezher developed three distinct strategies for critiquing. Critics should follow one of these strategies:
They developed two principles based on their research. Principle 1 is ``The
critic builder should draw from a library of active Influencer, Debiaser, and
Director strategies.'' Principle 2 is ``To promote effective criticism, there
must be a mutual, two-way exchange of ideas. The critic must be flexible and
adaptive.''
These ideas were useful in developing agents which would interact with
the user in the SNEAKERS system.
Another system, AskJef [Barber et al 1992] helps software engineers design interfaces
by providing design examples, guidelines, errors, and stories. Much of the
system is graphical, with examples showing what to avoid or to try. It uses
text, graphics, animation, and voice to present the user with relevant
information when presented with a specification of an interface design problem.