|
|||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||
ABSTRACT
Current work in the field of usability tends to focus on snapshots of use as the basis for evaluating designs. However, giving due consideration to the fact that everyday use of technology involves a process of evolution, we set out to investigate how the design of the technology may be used to support this. Based on a long-term empirical study of television use in the homes of two families, we illustrate how use continuously develops in a complex interplay between the users' expectations---as they are formed and triggered by the design---and the needs and context of use per se. We analyze the empirical data from the perspective of activity theory. This framework serves to highlight how use develops, and it supports our analysis and discussion about how design, the users' backgrounds, previous experience, and needs, and the specific context of use supports or hinders the development of use. Moreover, we discuss how the characteristics of the home settings, in which the televisions studied were situated, represent a challenge to usability work. The concluding discussion leads to a set of hypotheses relevant to designers and researchers who wish to tackle some of the aspects of usability of particular importance to development in the use of home technology.
REFERENCES
Note: OCR errors may be found in this Reference List extracted from the full text article. ACM has opted to expose the complete List rather than only correct and linked references. 2 Bardram, J. E. 1997. Plans as situated action: An activity theory approach to workflow systems. In The Proceedings of the Fifth European Conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work, J. A. Hughes, W. Prinz, T. Rodden, and K. Schmidt, Eds. Kluwer Academic Publishers, Boston, MA, 17--32. 3 Bardram, J. E. and Pedersen, M. B. 1994. Fra Interface til Interaktion [From Interface to Interaction] Masters Thesis, University of Aarhus. 5 Bertelsen, O. W. 1998. Elements of a Theory of Design Artifacts: a Contribution to Critical Systems Development Research. Ph.D. thesis (DAIMI PB-531), Aarhus University, Aarhus, Denmark. 7 Matilda Blyth, Social perspectives: our own devices, interactions, v.6 n.6, p.42-45, Nov.-Dec. 1999 13 Engeström, Y. 1987. Learning by Expanding. Orienta-Konsultit, Helsinki, Finland. 14 Engeström, Y. 1990. When is a tool? Multiple meanings of artifacts in human activity. In Learning, Working and Imagining, Orienta-Konsultit, Helsinki, Finland, 171--195. 15 Gibson, J. J. 1986. The Ecological Approach to Visual Perception. Lawrence Erlbaum, Hillsdale. 17 Hammond, S. A. 1996. The Thin Book of Appreciative Inquiry. Kodiak Consulting, Plano, Texas, Texas. 18 Kaptelinin, V. 1996. Activity theory: implications for human computer interaction. In Context and Conciuousness, B. Nardi, Ed. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 45--68. 20 Morten Kyng , Lars Mathiassen, Computers and design in context, MIT Press, Cambridge, MA, 1997 22 Norman, D. A. 1988. The Psychology of Everyday Things, Basic Books, New York, NY. 23 Nardi, B., ed. 1996. Context and Conciousness. MIT Press, Cambridge, MA. 27 van Rijn, F. and Williams R., Eds. 1988. Concerning Home Telematics. North-Holland, Amsterdam, The Netherlands. 28 Wartofsky, M. W. 1979. Perception, representation and the forms of action: towards an historical epistomology. In Models, D. Reidel, Dordrecht, The Netherlands, 1979. 188--210. 29 Wiedenbeck, S. 1999. Empirical studies of human interfaces---the use of icons and labels in an end user application program: an empirical study of learning and retention. Behav. Informat. Tech. 18, 2, 68--82.
CITINGS 2
INDEX TERMS
Primary Classification:
Additional Classification:
General Terms:
Keywords:
Peer to Peer - Readers of this Article have also read:
|