Marian G. Williams

Why are geographic information systems hard to use

Geographic Information System (GIS) software evolved out of the fields of geography, cartography, and database management. As a result, off-the-shelf GIS software requires the user to have or to acquire considerable knowledge of these fields. Navigation through the interfaces of most off-the-shelf GIS software is difficult because they support a system architecture view, rather than a view of the user’s work. These problems are compounded for users with little computing experience. In many workplaces, a single technical user becomes the local GIS expert, and acts as a surrogate for other users who have neither the expertise to use the software nor the resources to acquire that expertise. In this paper, we summarize our analysis of what makes GIS so hard to use, and describe our research directions toward designing effective GIS software for non-specialist users.

A study of end-user programming for geographic information systems

This paper presents au empirical study of a programming by demonstration language for a geographic information system (GIS). The long-term goal of the project is to enable non-technical end users to exercise the capabilities of a GIS without having to learn the technical concepts that are embedded in most traditional GIS interfaces (Traynor & Williams, 1995). The programming by demonstration language is an extension of the Pursuit language introduced by Modugno for file management in the Macintosh Finder (Modugno, Corbett & Myers, 1996). The extensions permit the display of textual information in tables and of cartographic information on a map. The purpose of the preliminary study reported here was to determine whether programmers could read, edit, and create programs in the programming by demonstration language. Subjects’ performance on the program comprehension tasks and the editing of simple programs was error free. Errors in the editing of more complex programs and in the program creation tasks indicate that some of the language constructs may need to be redesigned. Subjects’ opinions of the programming by demonstration language were generally positive, as indicated by post-test questionnaires. We conclude that programming by demonstration is a promising approach for a GIS interface.

None of the above: what's really essential in HCI education?

As we look to the future of HCI education, it is clear that, despite major HCI curriculum initiatives [1, 2], there is little consensus in the CHI community about what the content of HCI education should include or about how and by whom that content should be delivered. This panel gives voice to both prevailing and minority opinions on the subject.

Comparison of visual and textual languages via task modeling

In order for comparative studies of programming languages to be meaningful, differences between the languages need to be carefully studied and well understood. Languages that appear to differ only in syntax (for example, visual vs. textual syntax) may in fact differ greatly in usability. Such differences can confound comparative studies unless they are controlled for. In this paper, we examine the usefulness of fine-grained task modeling for studying the usability of programming languages. We focus on program entry, and demonstrate how to create models of program entry tasks for both visual and textual languages. We also demonstrate how to derive performance time estimates from the models using keystroke-level analysis. A by-product of the model building is a collection of functional-level models that can serve as building blocks for modeling higher-level visual programming tasks. We then report on a comparative study of languages with the same semantics but different syntax (visual and textual). Model-based time predictions of program entry tasks were compared to observed times from an empirical study. The time estimates for the visual condition greatly overestimated the observed times. The primary source of the overestimates appeared to be the time estimate for pointing with the mouse. We then look at three different approaches to improving program entry models. We report on a separate study to calibrate the mouse-pointing time estimate, and demonstrate improved correlation between predicted and observed times with the new estimate. We also apply task modeling to program editing activities, in order to model error recovery behavior during program entry. Finally, we discuss language-specific customization of the keystroke-level operator for mental preparation. We conclude that task modeling is a useful technique for studying differences in the usability of programming languages at the keystroke level.

Translation in participatory design: lessons from a workshop

The authors held a workshop called “Translation in Participatory Design” at the Conference on Participatory Design (PDC ‘92). The goal of the workshop was to elucidate the notion of translation in participatory design. We intended to focus on the special role that can be played by software designers who are also experts in the field for which they are developing software. Our major claim was that some design tasks can be completed successfully or expediently only by a software designer who has worked in the user’s field. In the course of the workshop, a more complex and detailed account of the translator role was developed, with attention to how, why, and by whom this role is taken on during design.

End users and GIS: a demonstration is worth a thousand words

Publisher Summary Geographic information systems (GISs) are in wide use by city planners, landscape architects, natural resource managers, and other specialists who have the expertise or the trained staff to use them. Many non-specialists also like to be able to use GIS. However, GIS software is not accessible to them, because, in its current incarnation, it requires knowledge of geography, cartography, and database systems. Despite an enormous pool of potential non-specialist users, GIS is not at this time a mainstream, mass marketed application. This chapter presents a programming-by-demonstration (PBD) approach to geographic information systems (GISs). The aim of this approach is to enable non-specialist users to avail themselves of the software without having to resort to the help of expert users. The chapter outlines the problem faced by non-specialist users with GIS software. It then summarizes the findings of a study highlighting why GIS software is hard for non-specialist users to use. Finally, the chapter explains the PBD approach for GIS and explains how this component may be integrated into a GIS.Publisher Summary Geographic information systems (GISs) are in wide use by city planners, landscape architects, natural resource managers, and other specialists who have the expertise or the trained staff to use them. Many non-specialists also like to be able to use GIS. However, GIS software is not accessible to them, because, in its current incarnation, it requires knowledge of geography, cartography, and database systems. Despite an enormous pool of potential non-specialist users, GIS is not at this time a mainstream, mass marketed application. This chapter presents a programming-by-demonstration (PBD) approach to geographic information systems (GISs). The aim of this approach is to enable non-specialist users to avail themselves of the software without having to resort to the help of expert users. The chapter outlines the problem faced by non-specialist users with GIS software. It then summarizes the findings of a study highlighting why GIS software is hard for non-specialist users to use. Finally, the chapter explains the PBD approach for GIS and explains how this component may be integrated into a GIS.

Appropriateness of graphical program representations for training applications

Recent controversy about the ease of constructing and reading graphical program representationsis of interest to us because of our work on graphical programming applications for training. We apply cognitive complexity analysis to graphical and textual programs, and confm the empirical findings of other researchers. We also apply cognitive complexity analysis to graphical programs from our own work. The analysis suggests that, when optimized for a speciilc task, both textual and graphical programs can carry the same information with similar cognitive complexity. The selection of graphical and textual representations for comparison in real-world training applications remains problematic.

A study of program entry time predictions for application-specific visual and textual languages

Creating and editing a computer program involves creative design work, but also involves the mechanical work of entering the code. Thus, program entry time needs to be taken into account in comparative studies of program creation and editing tasks using textual and graphical languages. We present a study of program entry time for application-specific graphical and textual languages with equivalent functionality. First, typical program entry tasks were modeled, and time predictions were calculated from the models. Then a small empirical study was performed to check the validity of the models. There was a high positive correlation (r=.927, p c .OOS) between observed execution times and predicted times. In addition, there was a significant difference (p < .OS) between the execution times for the graphical and textual conditions for each task, and the difference was always in the direction predicted by the models. Finally, the prediction model was fine-tuned to produce even greater correlation with observed results. This study suggests that our upcoming study of learning outcomes in time-limited training situations, which will use the graphical and textual languages reported on here, does not have a systematic bias against either language in the effort required for program entry. It also provides evidence for the usefulness of keystroke level modeling for comparison of program entry tasks and suggests that related kinds of models may be useful for comparing the performance of other kinds of programming tasks.

End Users and GIS

Publisher Summary Geographic information systems (GISs) are in wide use by city planners, landscape architects, natural resource managers, and other specialists who have the expertise or the trained staff to use them. Many non-specialists also like to be able to use GIS. However, GIS software is not accessible to them, because, in its current incarnation, it requires knowledge of geography, cartography, and database systems. Despite an enormous pool of potential non-specialist users, GIS is not at this time a mainstream, mass marketed application. This chapter presents a programming-by-demonstration (PBD) approach to geographic information systems (GISs). The aim of this approach is to enable non-specialist users to avail themselves of the software without having to resort to the help of expert users. The chapter outlines the problem faced by non-specialist users with GIS software. It then summarizes the findings of a study highlighting why GIS software is hard for non-specialist users to use. Finally, the chapter explains the PBD approach for GIS and explains how this component may be integrated into a GIS.Publisher Summary Geographic information systems (GISs) are in wide use by city planners, landscape architects, natural resource managers, and other specialists who have the expertise or the trained staff to use them. Many non-specialists also like to be able to use GIS. However, GIS software is not accessible to them, because, in its current incarnation, it requires knowledge of geography, cartography, and database systems. Despite an enormous pool of potential non-specialist users, GIS is not at this time a mainstream, mass marketed application. This chapter presents a programming-by-demonstration (PBD) approach to geographic information systems (GISs). The aim of this approach is to enable non-specialist users to avail themselves of the software without having to resort to the help of expert users. The chapter outlines the problem faced by non-specialist users with GIS software. It then summarizes the findings of a study highlighting why GIS software is hard for non-specialist users to use. Finally, the chapter explains the PBD approach for GIS and explains how this component may be integrated into a GIS.

Famous CHI educators tell all

CHI educators (in academia and industry) find some CHI concepts hard to teach. This panel provides an opportunity for them to learn from the experiences of experts. We will collect questions to find out what CHI educators think it is hard to teach and what CHI students have found it hard to learn from their instructors’ presentations. Then we will ask our panel of experts to talk about why the concepts are hard to teach and to describe the successful strategies and techniques they have found for teaching them.