Wendy E. Mackay

Triggers and barriers to customizing software

One of the properties of a user interface is that it both guides and constrains the patterns of interaction between the user and the software application. Application software is increasingly designed to be “customizable” by the end user, providing specific mechanisms by which users may specify individual preferences about the software and how they will interact with it over multiple sessions. Users may thus encode and preserve their preferred patterns of use. These customizations, together with choices about which applications to use, make up the unique “softswue environment” for each individual. While it is theoretically possible for each user to carefully evaluate and optimize each possible customization option, this study suggests that most people do not. In facfi since time spent customizing is time spent not working, many people do not take advantage of the customization features at all. I studied the customization behaviorof51 users of a Unix software environment, over a period of four months. This paper describes the process by which users decide to customize and examines the factors that irdluence when and how users make those decisions. These findings have implications for both the design of software and the integration of new software into an organization.

Virtual video editing in interactive multimedia applications

Drawing examples from four interrelated sets of multimedia tools and applications under development at MIT, the authors examine the role of digitized video in the areas of entertainment, learning, research, and communication.

Patterns of sharing customizable software

The act of customizing software is generally viewed as a solitary activity that allows users to express individual preferences. In this study, users at two different research sites, working with two different kinds of customizable software, were found to actively share their customization files with each other. This sharing allowed the members of each organization to establish and perpetuate informally-defined norms of behavior.nA small percentage of people within the organization were responsible for most of the sharing. One group of these were highly-skilled software engineers, who were usually the first to try new software. They used customization as a way to experiment with and learn about the software and made their files available to others through various broadcast mechanisms. This group did not try to determine whether their customizations were useful to other users. The second group were less skilled technically but much more interested in interpreting the needs of their colleagues and creating customization files tailored to those needs. They acted as translators between the highly technical group and the rest of the organization.nThe spontaneous sharing of customization files within an organization has implications for both organizations and for software designers. Managers should 1) recognize and support the role of translators, 2) recognize that not all sharing is beneficial, and 3) provide opportunities for the exchange of customization files and innovations among members of the organization. Software designers should 1) provide tools that allow users to evaluate the effectiveness of their customizations through reflective software, 2) provide well-tested examples of customization files with the first release of the software, 3) explicitly support sharing of customizations, and 4) provide tools to support the activities of translators.

More than just a communication system: diversity in the use of electronic mail

This paper describes a series of interviews that focus on the ways that professional office workers use electronic mail to manage their daily work. A number of implications for the design of flexible mail systems are discussed.nTwo principal claims are made. First, electronic mail is more than just a communication system. In addition to supporting information management, it provides a mechanism for supporting a variety of time management and task management activities. Some people are prioritizers, concentrating on the problem of managing incoming messages. Others are archivers, concentrating on how to archive information for subsequent use. Similarly, some people use mail to delegate tasks, while others perform tasks delegated to them by others electronically.nThe second claim is that use of electronic mail is strikingly diverse, although not infinitely so. Individuals vary in their preferences, both in their general willingness to manage their work electronically and in their specific preferences along the dimensions described above. This diversity implies that ones own experiences with electronic mail are unlikely to provide sufficient understanding of others uses of mail. Mail designers should thus seek flexible primitives that capture the important dimensions and provide flexibility for a wide range of users.

Diversity in the use of electronic mail: a preliminary inquiry

This paper describes a series of interviews that examine the ways that professional office workers use electronic mail to manage their daily work. The purpose is to generate hypotheses for future research. A number of implications for the design of flexible mail systems are discussed.nTwo principal claims are made. First, the use of electronic mail is strikingly diverse, although not infinitely so. Individuals vary both in objective measures of mail use and in preferred strategies for managing work electronically. Feelings of control are similarly diverse and are related to the size of the users inbox, numbers of folders, and subscriptions to distribution lists. This diversity implies that ones own experiences with electronic mail are unlikely to provide sufficient understanding of others uses of mail. Mail designers should thus seek flexible primitives that capture the important dimensions of use and provide flexibility for a wide range of users.nThe second claim is that electronic mail is more than just a communication system. Users archive messages for subject retrieval, prioritize messages to sequence work activities, and delegate tasks via mail. A taxonomy of work management is proposed in which mail is used for information management, time management, and task management activities. Directions for future research are suggested.

How do experienced information lens users use rules

The Information Lens provides electronic mail users with the ability to write rules that automatically sort, select, and filter their messages. This paper describes preliminary results from an eighteen-month investigation of the use of this system at a corporate test site. We report the experiences of 13 voluntary users who have each had at least three months experience with the most recent version of the system. We found that:People without significant computer experience are able to create and use rules effectively.nUseful rules can be created based on the fields present in all messages (e.g., searching for distribution lists or ones own name in the address fields or for character strings in the subject field), even without any special message templates.nPeople use rules both to prioritize messages before reading them and to sort messages into folders for storage after reading them.nPeople use delete rules primarily to filter out messages from low-priority distribution lists, not to delete personal messages to themselves.n

INTRODUCTION TO THE SPECIAL ISSUE ON VIDEO AS A RESEARCH AND DESIGN TOOL

It is our pleasure to present the following collection of papers about the use of video as a tool for research and design. As costs drop and both video and computers become more prevalent, people are finding new uses for video to support their work. Yet most video work in the CHI community has been done in isolation. Video users have not had a forum in which to present, share, or learn from each others work. No books are available nor are there courses that teach about the effective use of video in human-computer interaction research or design.

Ethical issues in the use of video: is it time to establish guidelines?

Vi&o is a powerful medium: it can make a point or convince people in ways that other media cannot. Somehow, video seems “real”. Yet, perhaps it is too powerful. Just as statements taken out of context can be very damaging, so can video clips misconstrue events or violate the privacy of the subjects involved. As researchers and designers increasingly use video to obtaict information about how people interact with technology, it becomes important to examine the ethical issues involved in the creation and presentation of video. Should there be constraints on recordirtg information? How do we obtain “informed consent”? Under what conditions should video be presente4 and to which audiences? This session provides a forum for discussion: the goal is to identify ethical issues in the use of video, learn horn invited guests about existing practice in other fields and learn horn audience members about the issues that have arisen in their own work. After the discussion, the members of the audience will attempt to determine whether or not the human-computer interaction community needs to develop its own set of guidelines for the ethical use of video.

Tools for supporting cooperative work near and far: highlights from the CSCW conference

The second conference on Computer Supported Cooperative Work has provided focus on use of computers for supporting workers that are at various levels of geographic dispersion. The participants in this panel reported case studies at that conference on group work (1) in face-to-face meetings, (2) in the same building, and (3) distributed across a number of sites. Each panelist therefore brings insight about the communication needs of their research subjects and both the value and limitations of particular technologies for supporting the communication that ties the members of the groups together as geographic distance varies.nEach of the panelists will address the following two questions:What are the preferred types of communication (visual, written, spoken) for people working together at particular geographic distances?nWhat are the benefits and shortcomings of available technologies (video, electronic-mail, telephone/voice mail) for supporting these types of communication?n