Gitte Lindgaard

B.Sc (Hons), M.Sc., PhD (Monash), R.N. (Switzerland)

Professor, NSERC/Cognos Chair in User-Centred Product Design

Director Human Oriented Technology Lab (HOTLab)

About Me

Students

Publications

Research Interests:

Modeling the Business Value of Human Computer Interaction

Human Judgement and Decision Making

HCI in the Design Process :

Task Analysis and Task Context

User Interface Design

Elements of Pleasure, User Satisfaction and Usability

ABOUT ME

Long ago I was a Dane living in Switzerland. I am now an Australian living in Canada. My parents wanted me to study medicine, so what better reason to do something else? I became a registered nurse. Very early in the training program, the chief surgeon at our hospital took the whole class into the operating theatre to show us a kidney dish with a lump of meat with a big hole. He was obviously thrilled by what turned out to be a perforated stomach, but I realized there and then that my interest was not in sick or malfunctioning organs. I wanted to know what happens to people when they are seriously ill, when they are scared in the extreme, devoid of their usual social props, lying shirt-clad in a hospital bed, and being more or less dependent on others for attending to even the most basic human needs. I wanted to see and learn about human relationships when a member of a family is very sick or even dying. I had no idea that this was psychology, and that psychology could be studied without first undergoing several years of intense nursing training, culminating in professional certification that I basically did not want.

Eventually, the penny dropped, and I found my way into University after carefully selecting what looked like the toughest psychology course around. Why the toughest? I don’t know. I thought I wanted to be a clinician, but the course set me off in different direction, namely human judgment , thinking, and decision making. I remember vividly when, as a five-year old kid, I had done something that upset my mother enough to exclaim: “Think, child!”. My response: “How do you think, mum? earned me a hefty clip on the ear, which took me completely by surprise because I was really asking what it was inside my head that made me think and do the wrong thing when that was not what I wanted. How and why did I arrive at a wrong decision that then got me into trouble?

I have never been able quite to let go of this interest in human decision making. In my M.Sc. research, I investigated how diagnosticians synthesize a patient’s signs and symptoms into a fully fledged diagnosis. The judgmental biases I learned about in that work scared me, but it was not until I took ill a few years ago that I decided seriously to pursue this line of work again. In my PhD research I asked how and when computer users consult help files, what information they need, and how this should be presented to be useful. Coming straight from University into human factors in telecommunications, I thought the world was made of statistically significant differences. Well, holy smoke – that was a mistake! Instead I began to learn how the same data can be presented in many different ways to ‘speak’ to different audiences. The engineers wanted answers to highly specific questions, not complex reasoning about how these answers had been derived; management wanted dollar statements. Operations staff wanted arguments with which to pacify unions, system users wanted better systems, marketing wanted slogans, and sales staff wanted endless features. My Human Factors group was supposed to do research, but as time went on and competition became a reality in the telecommunications arena, we increasingly became in-house consultants with no time ever to read the literature or perform experiments. Yet, I still wanted to understand how people make decisions, so when the opportunity to return to research arose in the form of an industry-sponsored Research Chair here at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada, I just had to take it. In my third career, I am now in the fortunate position of being able to devote myself to pursuing what I like most, together with a great bunch of students and colleagues, in a supportive environment. The only snag is that my family is half a globe away; that reality is very painful and by far most difficult lesson I have had to learn so far in human relationships.

Top of page

STUDENTS

PhD: Judy Brown

Cathy Dudek

Irvine Johnston

Sheila Narasimhan

Maria Rasouli

Devjani Sen

Bruce Tsuji

MA: Shamima Khan

Karen Philp

International:

PhD: Chris Pilgrim, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia (co-supervision with Ying Leung, Hong Kong)

PhD: Kon Mouzakis, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia (co-supervision with Ying Leung, Hong Kong)

Top of page

PUBLICATIONS

Books authored:

Lindgaard, G. (1994). Usability testing and system evaluation: A guide for designing useful computer systems, Chapman & Hall, London.

Books edited

Howard, S., Hammond, J. & Lindgaard, G. (Eds.) (1997). Human-Computer Interaction INTERACT'97, IFIP TC13 International Conference on Human-Computer Interaction, 14-18th July, Sydney, Australia

Chapters in books

Lindgaard, G. & Triggs, T.J. (1990). Can artificial intelligence outperform real people?: The potential of computerised decision aids in medical diagnosis, in W. Karwowski, A. Genaidy & S.S. Asfour (Eds.), Computer-Aided Design: Applications in Ergonomics and Safety, Taylor & Francis, .

Roberts, S., Parush, A. & Lindgaard, G. (2006). Cognitive Theories and Tools to Support Navigation of Electronic Spaces, in T.R.F. Taylor (Ed.), Cybercartography: Theory and Practice, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Ch. 10.

Trbovich, P., Lindgaard, G. & Dillon, D. (2006). The role of multimodal interfaces in spatially-based applications, in T.R.F. Taylor (Ed.), Cybercartography: Theory and Practice, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Ch. 11.

Lindgaard, G., Brown, & A, Bronsther, A. (2006). Interface design challenges in virtual space, in T.R.F. Taylor (Ed.), Cybercartography: Theory Practice, Elsevier, Amsterdam, Ch. 9.

Pulsifer, P.L., Parush, A., Lindgaard, G. & Taylor, D.R.F. (2006). The development of the cybercartographic atlas of Antarctica. In. Taylor, D. R. F. (ed), Cybercartography: Theory and Practice. Elsevier, Amsterdam, Ch. 20.

Papers in refereed journals

Diaper, D. & Lindgaard, G. (2006). West meets east: Adapting Activity Theory for HCI & CSCW applications?, to appear in Interacting with Computers.

Chattrichart, J. & Lindgaard, G. (2006). A new ‘figure of merit’ of the UEM effectiveness metric, submitted to International Journal of Human Computer Studies, June 2006.

Brown, J., Strickland, L. & Lindgaard, G. (2006). Activity theory as a psychology for Human Computer Interaction, submitted to Interacting with Computers, 16 May 06.

Lindgaard, G. (2006). Notions of thoroughness, efficiency, and validity: Are they valid in HCI practice?, to appear in The International Journal of Industrial Ergonomics.

Lindgaard, G., Fernandes, G., Dudek, C. & Brown, J. (2006). Attention web designers: You have 50 milliseconds to make a good first impression!, Behaviour & Information Technology. 25, 115-126.

Lindgaard, G., Dillon, R.F., Trbovich, P, White, R., Fernandes, G., Lundahl, S. & Pinnamaneni, A. (2006). User Needs Analysis and requirements engineering: Theory and practice, Interacting with Computers, 18 (1), 47-70.

Lindgaard, G. (2005). Human judgment, decision theory, and technology: Applications of Bayes’ Theorem, History and philosophy of psychology Bulletin. 17 (2), 29-39.

Lauriault, T. & Lindgaard, G. (2006). New and promising territory? Exploring the use of olfaction in cybercartography, Cartographica, 41(1 Spring), 73-91.

Lindgaard, G. & Narasimhan, S. (2005). The robustness of feature usage patterns, to appear in Behaviour & Information Technology.

Lindgaard, G, (2004). .Adventurers versus nit-pickers on affective computing, Interacting with Computers, 16 (4), 723-728.

Lindgaard, G. (2004). Making the business our business: One path to value-added HCI, Interactions, 11(3), 12-17.

Lindgaard, G. & Whitfield, A. (2004). Integrating aesthetics within an evolutionary and psychological framework, Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science, 5 (1), 73-90.

Lindgaard, G. & Dudek, C. (2003). What is this evasive beast we call user satisfaction?, Interacting with Computers, 15 (3), 429-452.

Lindgaard, G. & Caple, D. (2001). A case study in iterative keyboard design using Participatory Design techniques, Applied Ergonomics, 32, 71-80.

Lindgaard, G. (1995). Human Performance in fault diagnosis: Can expert systems help, Interacting with Computers, 7 (3), 254-272.

Lindgaard, G. (1992). Evaluating user interfaces in context: The ecological value of time-and- motion studies, Applied Ergonomics, 23, (2),105-114.

Lindgaard, G., Bednall, E. & Chessari, J. (1991). Improving User Performance, IEEE JSA C (Journal of Selected Areas in Communications) special issue on Human Factors, 9, (4), 506-517.

Lindgaard, G., & Clark, D.W. (1988). Matching telecommunications to people, Telecommunications Journal of Australia, 38, (2), 12-16.

Lindgaard, G., & Perry, L. (1988). Making life easier for computer novices: Some factors determining initial performance, Ergonomics, 31, (5), 803-816.

Lindgaard, G., & Perry, L. (1988). Towards a solution of vocabulary problems in computing: A measure of goodness of fit, Ergonomics, 31, (5), 785-801.

Lindgaard, G., Chessari, J., & lhsen, E. (1987). What makes pictorial information comprehensible to the user?, Australian Telecommunications Research, 21, (2), 17-29.

Lindgaard, G. (1985). Human factors in telecommunications research, Australian Journal of Educational Technology, 1, (2), 3-7.

Papers in refereed conference proceedings

Philp, K., Narasimhan, S., Gauthier, M., Khan, S., Rasouli, M., Dunn, G., Lindgaard, G. & Parush, A. (2006). Applying UCD in cyber-cartography: The emergence of user interface concepts and designs, to appear in Proceedings GeoTech Event 2005, 18-21 June, Ottawa.

Sen, D. & Lindgaard, G. (2006). Around the world through homepages: What attracts and persuades foreign students?, to appear in Proceedings 114^th. Annual APA convention, New Orleans, LA, 10-12 August.

Sen, D. & Lindgaard, G. (2006). If information has really evolved, why do our hearts rule our heads?, to appear in Proceedings 114^th. Annual APA convention, New Orleans, LA, 10-12 August.

Parush, A. Ferres, L. Rasouli, M. & Lindgaard, G. (2006). Impact of external representation and task on graph comprehension. To appear in Proceedings 28^th Annual Conference of the Cognitive Science Society, July 26-29, Vancouver, Canada.

Neal, L., Lindgaard, G., Oakley, K., Hansen, D. & Kogan, S. (2006). Online Health Communities, SIG presented at CHI’06.

Ferres. L., Parush, A., Li, Z., Oppacher, Y. & Lindgaard, G. (2006). Representing and querying line graphs in natural language: the iGraph system, to appear in Proceedings Smart Graphics, 2006, July 23-25, Vancouver.

Ferres, L., Parush, A. & Lindgaard, G. (2006). Helping people with visual impairments gain access to graphical information through natural language: The iGraph system, Proceedings 10^th International Conference on Computers Helping People with Special Needs, ICCHP-2006.

**Bennett, G., Lindgaard, G., Tsuji, B., Connelly, K.H., Siek, K.A., & Khan, S. (2006). Reality testing: HCI challenges in non-traditional environments, Workshop presented at CHI’06, Montreal.

Lindgaard, G., Ferres, L., Parush, A., Tsuji, B. & Rasouli, M. (2005). Inclusive design: How multi-sensory user interfaces might work, IFIP TC13 Workshop, Human Computer Interaction, Namur, Belgium.

Brehaut, J., O’Connor, A. Tugwell, P., Lindgaard, G., Santesso, N., Lott, A., Saarimaki, A., Cranney, A. & Graham, I. (2005). Measuring the usability and usefulness of online patient decision aids: A demonstration of methods.

Lindgaard, G. Khan, S. & Tsuji, B. Ecological validity and behavioural measures in the usability testing of new applications: A reality usability workshop, to appear in Proceedings HCI 2005, Edinburgh, Scotland, September 2005.

Tsuji, B., Lindgaard, G., & Parush, A. (2005). Landmarks for navigators who are visually impaired. Proceedings International Cartography Conference, a Coruña Spain, July 9-16 2005

Lindgaard, G. (2005). Cognitive errors in medical diagnosis: Designing a useful decision support system, to appear in Proceedings HCI International, Las Vegas, July.

Tsuji, B., Lindgaard, G. & Parush, A. (2005).Landmarks for navigators who are visually impaired, Proceedings International Cartographic Society (ICS)

Lindgaard, G. (2005). Notions of thoroughness, efficiency, and validity: Are they valid in HCI? To appear in Proceedings 4^th International Cyberspace Conference on Ergonomics, Cyberg 05, Rhodes University, Cape Town, South Africa

Pilgrim C. J., Lindgaard G., & Leung Y. K., 2005. A Framework for Human-Web Interaction, Proceedings of the CHISIG Annual Conference on Human-Computer Interaction (OZCHI 2004), Ergonomics Society of Australia, Wollongong.

Tsuji, B., Biddle, R. & Lindgaard,G. (2004). Making signs talk: A device to assist people who are visually impaired, OCE-CITO innovators Showcase, Toronto, Ontario, Canada, November, 2004.

Rasouli, M., Philp, K., Khan, S., Dunn, G. Lindgaard, G. & Parush, A. (2004). The application of a user-centred design in the development of two web-based educational cybercartographic atlases, GAGONT (The Ontario Division of Canadian Association of Geographers) Conference, Waterloo, Ontario, Canada.

Tsuji, B., Hagen, L., Herdman, C., Lefevre, J., & Lindgaard, G. (2004). Two steps into a cybercartographic landscape. Paper presented at the Canadian Association of Geographers of Ontario, October 29-30, Waterloo, ON.

Dormann, C. & Lindgaard, G. (2004). Developing innovative systems: creative ideation. In Proceedings of the Symposium on Interaction: Systems, Practice and Theory, Sydney, Australia, 2004. Creativity& Cognition Studio Press

Lindgaard, G. (2004). Is the notion of validity valid in HCI practice? Proceedings WWCS2004 (Work with Computer Systems), Kuala Lumpur, June 29-July 3.

Lindgaard, G. (2004). New wine in old bottles? Coming to grips with multimedia, multimodal user interfaces, to appear in Proceedings WWCS2004 (Work with Computer Systems), Kuala Lumpur, June 29-July 3.

Quinn, J. Carker, J., Rohlfs, S. & Lindgaard, G. (2004). Information architecture for a Government website, in Proceedings WWCS2004 (Work with Computer Systems), Kuala Lumpur, June 29-July 3.

Roberts, S., Parush, A. & Lindgaard, G. (2004). Navigating through virtual space, to appear in Proceedings WWCS2004 (Work with Computer Systems), Kuala Lumpur, June 29-July 3.

Pilgrim, C., Lindgaard, G. & Leung, Y. (2004). Supplemental tools for web site navigation – user expectations versus current practice, Proceedings of the 18th British HCI Annual Conference (HCI 2004), Leeds, UK.

PilgrimC. J., Lindgaard G., & Leung Y. K., 2004. An Investigation into Factors Influencing User Selection of WWW Sitemaps, Proceedings of the 6^h Asia Pacific Conference on Computer Human Interaction (APCHI 2004), Rotorua, N.Z. Computer Human Interaction, Lecture Notes in Computer Science, Vol. 3101, Springer.

Lindgaard, G., Chatrattichart, J., Rauch, T. & Brodie, J. (2004). Towards increasing the reliability of expert reviews, to appear in Proceedings UPA 2004.

Pilgrim, C., Lindgaard, G. & Leung, Y.K. (2004). An investigation into factors influencing user selection of WWW sitemaps, to appear in Proceedings APCHI’04 (Asia Pacific CHI).

Faregh, N. & Lindgaard, G. (2003). Evaluation of a prognostic decision support system in a neonatal intensive care unit, Proceedings JDN’03, Vancouver BC, November.

Lindgaard, G. (2003). The misapplication of engineering models to business decisions, INTERACT’03, Zurich, Switzerland, IOS Press, Amsterdam, 367- 374.

Lindgaard, G. (2003). From start to finish: How to build an effective usability and accessibility project plan, Proceedings Web site usability and accessibility for Government.

Steiger, P. Lindgaard, G., Felix, D. & Millard, N. (2003). The business case of HCI, Proceedings INTERACT’03, IOS Press, Amsterdam, 1049-1050.

Fernandes, G., Lindgaard, G., Dillon, R. & Wood, J. (2003). Judging the appeal of web sites, Proceedings 4^th World Congress on the Management of Electronic Commerce, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, 15 -17 January.

Lindgaard, G. & Madore, S. (2003). The impact of interactive technology on worker efficiency: A job assessment, Proceedings 4^th World Congress on the Management of Electronic Commerce, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, 15-17 January.

Lindgaard, G. (2002). Deconstructing silos: The business value of usability in the 21^st Century, invited keynote presentation, to appear in Proceedings 17^th. IFIP (International Federation for Information Processing) World Computer Congress, Montreal, August 25-30.

Lindgaard, G. & Dudek, C. (2002). High appeal versus high usability: Implications for user satisfaction, HF2002 Human Factors Conference, Melbourne, Australia, November 25-27.

Lindgaard, G. & Dudek, C. (2002). User satisfaction, aesthetics and usability: Beyond reductionism, Proceedings 17^th. IFIP (International Federation for Information Processing) World Computer Congress, Montreal, August 25-30.

Lindgaard, G. & Millard, N. (2002). The business value of HCI: How can we do better?, Proceedings 20^th. Conference on Human Factors in computing systems, CHI’02, 928-929.

Lindgaard, G. & Narasimhan, S. (2002). The importance of User Roles in feature bundling decisions in wireless handheld devices: Strategic User Needs Analysis (SUNA), 17^th. IFIP (International Federation for Information Processing) World Computer Congress, Montreal, August 25-30.

Dudek, C. & Lindgaard, G. (2002). Measuring user satisfaction on the web: stories people tell, to appear in Proceedings Design and Emotion 2002, Loughborough, UK.

Pilgrim, C.J., Leung, Y.K. & Lindgaard, G. (2002). An Exploratory Study of WWW Browsing Strategies, Proceedings of the 5^h Asia Pacific Conference on Computer Human Interaction (APCHI 2002), Beijing, China.

Lindgaard, G. (2001). From the ashes of disaster into a human factors boom: The legacy of large databases, Proceedings HCI International, New Orleans, August 5-10.

Lindgaard, G. & Dudek, C. (2001). Is a great experience merely satisfying, and does appeal equate high subjective usability? Proceedings International Conference on Affective Human Factors Design, Singapore, June 27-29.

Lindgaard, G. & Whitfield, A. (2001). Usability, Aesthetics, and the User Experience: A Theoretical Proposal, Proceedings International Conference on Affective Human Factors Design, Singapore, June 27-29.

Lindgaard, G. (1999). Does emotional appeal determine the usability of web sites, CYBERG ’99, Western Australia.

Lindgaard, G. (1998). Designing CSCW tools to support cooperative research, Proceedings OZCHI ’98, Adelaide.

Lindgaard, G. (1998). Beware of human potholes – Alias: If only we had known, Proceedings MIS Annual Conference, March, Adelaide.

Lindgaard, G. (1996). Slicing elephants: successful implementation of a human factors programme, Proceedings APCHI '96 (Asia Pacific Computer Human Interaction Conference), Singapore, June 1996.

Nielsen, J., Lindgaard, G., Dirckinck-Holmfeld, L., Vendelo, M. Danielsen, 0. & Georgsen, M. (1997). User Requirements capture for a multimedia CSCW system, Proceedings INTERACT'97, Sydney.

Lindgaard, G. (1995). Cementing human factors into product design: Moving beyond policies, Proc. 15th. International Symposium on Human Factors in Telecommunications, Melbourne, 361-371.

Lindgaard, G. (1994). Human performance in fault diagnosis: Can expert systems help?, Proceedings OZCHI'94.

Lindgaard, G. (1993). Widening the usability horizon beyond HCI: A navel-gazing path to improved customer services, Proceedings IHFT93 International Symposium Human Factors in Telecommunications, Darmstadt, Germany, May 11-14.

Lindgaard, G. (1993). Some important factors for successful technology transfer, Proceedings IFIP Working Conference on Diffusion, Transfer & Implementation of Information Technology, Seven Springs Mountain Resort, Oct. 10-13.

Lindgaard, G.(1992). Getting HCI on the agenda: What's the message, Proceedings OZCHI'92, Annual CHISIG Conference, Gold Coast, November.

Howard, S. Kaplan, I. & Lindgaard, G. (1992). HCI in Australia., Proceedings CHI92, 1Oth. Annual Conference, Human Factors in Computing Systems, Monterey, California, May 3-7, 573-575.

Lindgaard, G. (1990). Getting your Help System Right: A Recipe for Optimising the System Design/Implementation Phase, Proceedings 13th. International Symposium HFT'90 Human Factors in Telecommunications, Turin, Italy, pp. 7-16.

Lindgaard, G. (1990). HCI through the microscope: Revealing forests or trees?, Proceedings CHISIG Second Annual Conference, Melbourne.

Lindgaard, G. (1989). Defining what helps: An iterative approach to systems design Proceedings 25th. Annual Conference Ergonomics Society of Australia, Canberra, November 27-29.

Lindgaard, G. (1988). Matching telecommunications to people: Human factors in telecommunications, Proceedings ANZAAS Centenary Congress, University of Sydney.

Lindgaard, G. (1988). The real issues in ergonomics in the office, Proceedings Conference National Office Automation, ACS, Melbourne.

Lindgaard, G. (1988). Cognitive ergonomics: Facts and fiction, Proceedings of the Australian Computer Conference, ACC88.

Lindgaard, G. (1988). Should systems designers need to bother with the notion of mental models?, Proceedings of the International Ergonomics Association 10th. Congress, Sydney, Vol. 2, 630-632.

Lindgaard, G. (1988). Strategic planing for the implementation of office automation: A case study, Proceedings of the Australian Computer Society, Victorian Branch Conference. Also published in the Australian computer Society Victorian Bulletin, June 1988, 15-19.

Lindgaard, G., & Chessari, J. (1988). Why users get stuck: Exploration of the nature of beginners' problems with interactive computers, Proceedings of the International Ergonomics Association 10th. International Congress, Vol. 2, 681-683.

Chessari, J., & Lindgaard, G. (1988). Providing meaningful pictorial information for users of technological equipment, Proceedings of the International Ergonomics Association 10th. International Congress, Vol. 2, 560-562.

Lindgaard, G. & Ihsen, E. (1987). More pictures, fewer words in technological instructions? Proceedings ]4th.Experimental Psychology Conference, University of New England, Armidale, New South Wales.

Lindgaard, G. (1986). Cognitive processes in interactive computing: A multi-disciplinary approach to practical and theoretical understanding, Proceedings Australian Psychological Society, 21st. Annual Conference, James Cook University, Townsville, Queensland.

Lindgaard, G. (1986). Performance in interactive computing: Metaphors versus the real thing, Proceedings 13^th Experimental Psychology Conference, Monash University, Erskine House, Lorne, Victoria:

Lindgaard, G. (1985). The role of vocabulary in simple interactive computing tasks, Proceedings 12^th Experimental Psychology Conference, University of Newcastle, New South Wales.

Lindgaard, G., & Perry, L. (1985). Exploration of the learning process for new users of a simple message handling system, Proceedings of the 11^th International Symposium on Human Factors in Telecommunications, Sevigne, France.

Perry, L., & Lindgaard, G. (1985). What's in a name? Preferences and performance with different sets of vocabulary for message handling system, Proceedings of the I lth. International Symposium on Human Factors in Telecommunications, Sevigne, France.

Lindgaard, G., & Triggs, T. (1984). The use of diagnostic information by nurses in different symptom contexts, I, Proceedings 11^th Experimental Psychology Conference, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria.

Lindgaard, G., & Triggs, T. (1984). The use of diagnostic information by nurses in different symptomcontexts, II, Proceedings 11^th Experimental Psychology Conference, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria.

** Names ordered alphabetically rather than by weight of contribution

Technical reports:

Khan, S. & Lindgaard, G. (2005). Evaluation of OptiDEX: Usability and usefulness issues, Technical Report, Hivva Technologies (restricted)

Khan, S. & Lindgaard, G. (2005). Results of contextual inquiry for vending machine operator employees, Technical report, Hivva Technologies (restricted)

Khan, S. & Lindgaard, G. (2005). OptiDEX Usability and Usefulness Issues, Technical report prepared for Hivva Technologies

Lindgaard, G. (2004). The use of non-speech sounds in interactive computing, Manuscript prepared for NortelNetworks.

Khan, S. & Lindgaard, G. (2004). Evaluation of Hivva’s OptiPanel Keypad Designs, Technical report prepared for Hivva Technologies

Khan, S., Rasouli, M. Parush, A. & Lindgaard, G. (2004). Requirements specification for cybercartography and the New Economy project, Technical report, Human Oriented Technology Lab (HOTLab).

Lindgaard, G., Tsuji, B. & Khan, S. (2004). Interactive TV: A review of human factors issues, Nortel Networks, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, restricted.

Lindgaard, G. & Khan, S. (2004). Heuristic evaluation of mobile payment services. Technical Report HCIGLO13800F03030223.

Lindgaard, G. & Khan, S. (2004).Vending machine operator observation and interview results, Technical report, Hivva Technologies (restricted).

Lindgaard, G. & Khan, S. (2004). Ventrex driver observation and interview results for Hivva Technology, HOTLab Technical report HCIGLSK01609S03040903.

Khan, S. & Lindgaard, G. (2004). Results of contextual inquiry for vending machine operator drivers, Technical report HCIGLSKO16909S03040903.

Khan, S. & Lindgaard, G. (2004). Evaluation of OptiPanel Keypad designs, Technical report, Hivva Technologies (restricted).

Lindgaard, G., Khan, S. & Tsuji, B. (2004). Telco-based video delivery: A review of relevant literature, HOTLab Technical report HCIGLSKBT05TVD01050527

Lindgaard, G., Khan, S. & Tsuji, B. (2004). Channel switching delays in digital TV systems, HOTLabTechnical Report HCIGLSKBT03DTV01050527

Lindgaard, G., Khan, S. & Tsuji, B. (2004). Initial call setup delays in push-to-talk over cellular (poC), HOTLab Technical Report HCIGLSKBT02POC02050527

Lindgaard, G., Khan, S. & Tsuji, B. (2004). HOTLab observations of the Telus Mike-Direct Connect (PoC) Service, HOTLab Technical Report HCIGLSKBT01POC01050527

Lindgaard, G., Khan, S. & Tsuji, B. (2004). Push-to-talk over Cellular: A review of relevant literature, HOTLab Technical Report HCIGLSKBT04POC03050527

Lindgaard, G. (2003). An heuristic evaluation of the Carleton library web site, Technical report prepared for the Carleton Library, August.

Lindgaard, G. (2003). Important lessons learned 2000-2003, Technical report prepared for Cognos Incorporated, August.

Lindgaard, G. (2003). Important lessons learned, Technical report prepared for Nortel Networks, July.

Dudek, C., Trbovich, P., Faregh, N. & Lindgaard, G. (2003). What do I need to graduate? A usability evaluation of the Carleton Univesity Undergraduate Calendar, HOTLab Technical Report 2501/I-03.

Lindgaard, G. & Dudek, C. (2001). Client interface design project, report to CCS, Carleton University, 218 pp.

Lindgaard, G. Leung, Y. & Fabre, J. (2000). On sharing resources and donating books: What are we doing wrong? Is this the bull-in-a-china-shop syndrome?, SIGCHI Bulletin, 21-23.

Lindgaard, G. (2000). Interface design and prototype evaluation of a new Hazard Perception Test: Final Report, Contract Report RC91076 (ARRB Transport Research Ltd. Vermont South, Victoria, Australia.

Lindgaard, G. & Catchpole, J (2000). Usability trial of new interface and instructions for the Hazard Perception Test, Report RC91076/3 ARRB Transport Research Ltd. Vermont South, Victoria, Australia.

Lindgaard, G. (1999). Usability evaluation of Årslev Kommune’s Web site, Report AA-0120/99, Aarslev

Lindgaard, G. (1998). JIS Operational Review 1998, Technical Report JISS-01498.V1&2

Danielsen, 0. Nielsen, J. Lindgaard, G. & Direkinck-Holmfeld, L. (1998). Dialogue Design: Theoretical Considerations in the Manicoral (Multimedia And Network In Cooperative Research And Learning) Project, Report RE 1007, Deliverable 03.3 WP 02 & 08, European Union Commission, Bruxelles, Telematics Frame IV Research Projects

Direkinck-Holmfeld, L., Danielsen, 0., Christiansen, N., Georgsen, M., Lindgaard, G. & Nielsen, J. (1998). Dialogue Design: Methodological Considerations in the Manicoral (Multimedia And Network In Cooperative Research And Learning) project, Report RE 1006, Deliverable 05.6, WP 03 & 05, European Union Commission, Bruxelles, Telematics Frame IV Research Projects

Lindgaard, G. (1997). Manicoral: Initial User Requirements Specifications, Deliverable 033, WP 03, European Union Commission, Bruxelles, Telematies Frame IV Research Projects

Lindgaard, G. (1997). A Survey of Telstra’s Secure Mail System, TRL/RLR 2318.1997

Lindgaard, G. & Borup Harning, M. (1997). Heuristic Evaluation of MERCI, Report RE 1003, Deliverable 03. 1 1, WP 03, European Union Commission, Bruxelles, Telematics Frame IV Research Projects

Lindgaard, G. & Borup Harning, M. (1997). Heuristic Evaluation of DCV Tools for AFRICAR, Report RE 1001, Deliverable 03.13, WP 03, European Union Commission, Bruxelles, Telematics Frame IV Research Projects

Lindgaard, G. (1995). User Needs Analysis in Alkathene: Preparing for the introduction of automated manufacturing process computers, ICI Engineering, Technical Report ICI-01195. April.

Lindgaard, G. (1995). Analysing customer services for Link Telecommunications: An initial field study, Technical Report LT-0040695.II

Lindgaard, G., Havloujian, J., Chessari, J. & Bednall, E.S. (1993) The Human Factors Kit, Telstra Technical Report No.93/112

Lindgaard, G. (1992). TRNS future CLASS services: Towards a logical access code taxonomy, Telecom Research Laboratories Report No. 8208.

Lindgaard, G. & Ferguson, J. (1992). Value for money?: The wonderful world of versatile PABX systems, Telecom Research Laboratories Report NO. 8209.

Lindgaard, G. (1990). DCRIS and customer services: Problems and suggested solutions, Telecom Research Laboratories Branch Paper No. 21 1.

Lindgaard, G. & Milburn, I. (1990). Ergonomic DCRIS review, Summary and Overview, Telecom Research Laboratories Branch Paper No. CSS 202.

Lindgaard, G. & Milburn, I. (1990). Ergonomic DCRIS review, Part 1: Psychosocial aspects of DCRIS operators' jobs, Telecom Research Laboratories Branch Paper No. CSS 203.

Milburn, I. & Lindgaard, G. (1990). Ergonomic DCRIS review, Part 2: Selection and training of DCRIS operators, Telecom Research Laboratories Branch Paper No. 204.

Lindgaard, G. (1989). DCRIS: An ergonomic review, Part 4: The cognitive environment of DCRIS operators, Telecom Research Laboratories Branch Paper no. 206.

Lindgaard, G. (1988). DCRIS and some of its problems: A pilot study, Telecom Research Laboratories, Branch Paper no. CSS0160.

Lindgaard, G. (1988). What's on the menu - or better, what should be on the menu?: A literature review and guidelines on menu design, Telecom Research Laboratories, Branch Paper No. CSS0142.

Lindgaard, G. (1986). Cognitive processes in interactive computing: A multi-disciplinary approach to practical and theoretical understanding, Telecom Research Laboratories, Branch Paper No. CSS0108.

Lindgaard, G., Papasava, M., & Chessari, J. (1986). Comments on INTET, Telecom Research Laboratories, Branch Paper No. CSS0106.

Lindgaard, G., & Perry, L. (1985). Words, words, words. What role do they play in interactive message handling? Telecom Research Laboratories, Branch Paper No. CSS0079.

Lindgaard, G., & Perry, L. (1985). Do words really matter? Preferences and performance with an electronic message handling system, Part II, Telecom Australia Research Laboratories Report No. 7826.

Perry, L., Lindgaard, G., & Wilshire, C. (1985). Do words really matter? Preferences and performance with an electronic message handling system, Part 1. Telecom Australia Research Laboratories Report No. 7825.

Lindgaard, G. (1984). Some notes on interactive dialogue, Telecom Research Laboratories, Branch Paper No. CSS0055.

Published Professional Tests

Standards Association of Australia (SAA), Test for legibility of characters on a screen. Adopted as a standard August 1988

Abstracts and/or papers read

2006, Ferres, L. & Lindgaard, G. Users going mobile: A natural language interface approach, presented at the Wireless Industry Congress (WIC) 2006, June 11-13, Ottawa.

2006, The power of first impressions, presented to the Sage Kiwanis Club, Ottawa, 18 January.

2006, The impact of technology on physical, mental, social, and spiritual well-being, Opening Keynote address, Ergonomics Society of Taiwan, I-Shou University, Kaohsiung, Taiwan, 4 March

2006, The power of first impressions, presented at the Taiwan Design Center, Taipei, Taiwan, 3 March

2006, The power of first impressions, presented at the National Taiwan University of Science and Technology, Taipei, 2 March

2006, The power of first impressions, presented at Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, 17 February

2004, Khan, S. & Lindgaard, G. Adapting a user-centred approach to designing mobile technology, Presented at OCE-CITO Innovators showcase, 24 November.

2004, Tsuji, B., Biddle, R. & Lindgaard, G. Making signs talk, Presented at OCE-CITO Innovators showcase, 24 November.

2004, Strategic User Needs Analysis: A method for predicting the uptake of mobile applications, South African CHI, Port Elizabeth, 3 March.

2003, Reflections Australia, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia

2003, Aesthetic appeal versus usability: Implications for user satisfaction, Swinburne University of Technology, Melbourne, Australia

2003, Human Factors in the usability life cycle, Lab 3000 – Innovation in digital design, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia

2003, Designing for the customer and the bottom line, RMIT University, Melbourne, Australia, July

2003, Human Decision Making, invited presentation, Ottawa Hospital, June

2003, Deconstructing silos: costs and benefits of HCI, invited keynote presentation, CIPS, Regina.

2002, CIPS (Canadian Information Processing Society), HCI and Software Engineering: Uncomfortable bedfellows?, Ottawa.

2002, User satisfaction. What? How? Cascon panel presentation, IBM Conference, Toronto

2002, The state of HCI research in Canada, Cascon panel presentation, IBM Conference, Toronto

Narasimhan, S. & Lindgaard, G. (2002). Strategic User Needs Analysis Based on User Roles, MICON annual Mitel Conference, August

2001, Feature bundling in wireless technologies: Introducing Strategic User Needs Analysis (SUNA), Micon 2001 Workshop, August.

2001, Learning together in cyberworld, Innovation, Technology, Teaching Conference, Seneca College, York University, June

2001, Automating an advanced manufacturing plant: How the experts got it wrong, Materials & Manufacturing Ontario (MMO), May

2000, Designing communication services for people: Making sense between the lines, Micon 2000 Workshop, August

2000, What the user’s eye tells the user’s brain, CITO Tech Talk, Toronto, Canada

1999, People, IT and the bottom line, FITT (Females in IT & Telecommunications) Annual Meeting, Sydney, November

1999, Increasing company profit through usability, CHISIG Industry Breakfast Series, Melbourne, September

1998, Beware of the human potholes. Alias: If only we had known, MIS Magazine Annual Conference, "Mindshare ", Adelaide, March

1997, Usability: Does it really affect the bottom line? Dansk Dataforening (Danish Computer Society), special address, Copenhagen, November

1997, Manicoral: Initial User Requirements Specifications, Presentation to the EU Commission 3.5 WP 3.2-5. 1, Bruxelles, Belgium

1996, Brave new cyberworld: A better place for all? The Ron Cumming Memorial Presentation, Proc ESA '96, Ergonomics Society of Australia Conference, September

1995, The role of Human Factors Research in Telecommunications Services for Australia, Invited Presentation, Proceedings APS and Department of Psychology, Monash University Silver Jubilee Celebration, Monash University

1994, Wow - 568 smart features on your PABX: What really determines the uptake of technology? Proceedings HFT93 International Symposium Human Factors in Telecommunications, Darmstadt, Germany, May 11-14

1993, Understanding human communication: Psychology in software design and evaluation, Invited Paper, in K.M. McConkey, H. Wilton, A.J. Barnier & A. Bannett (Eds) Australian Psychology: Selected applications and initiatives, Australian Psychological Society Publications. Appears also In Proceedings Macquarie University Seminar Psychologists get clever, or 101 ways to sell psychology to Australia, Sydney, April

1992, Smart systems for smart people: Australia's key to the IT future, Proceedings Computing the Clever Country?, Annual Australian Computing in Education Conference ACEC '92, Melbourne, July 5-8

1992, Building Human Factors into the bottom line, Proceedings Enhancing Usability in Human-Computer Interaction: Profit from usable design AIC Confence, Sydney, August

1991, Usefulness: The ecological value of usability, Proceedings OZCHI '91, 3rd. Annual Conference of CHISIG, Sydney, November 26-29.

1991, Type Alt-A/Shift:$*ESC% to Exit Future: Technology and its impact on society, Invited Presentation, Proceedings Computing in Education Group of Victoria, July

1991, Usability evaluation in interactive computer systems, Invited Presentation, Proceedings OZTECH'91, Canberra, July

1991, Adapting your tools to fit he task: The HCI business case. Proceedings Ergonomics Society of Australia 27th. Annual Conference, Coolum, Queensland, 1-4 December

1991, Usability methods, Proceedings Conference A review and appraisal of ergonomic methods in Australia, LaTrobe University, October 21-23

Others

Lindgaard, G. (2006). Aesthetics, usability, first impressions: How may they be linked?, HOT Topics, June

Lindgaard, G. (2005). Are the notions of thoroughness, efficiency, and validity valid in HCI practice?, HOT Topics, June

Lindgaard, G. (2004). Surveillance, technology and the invasion of privacy: Some (scary) thoughts, Simplicity, 6 (2), 8-14).

Lindgaard, G. & Dudek, C. (2004). The tricky relationship between user satisfaction, aesthetics, actual and perceived usability, Simplicity, CHISIG, February.

Lindgaard, G., (2004). Are the notions of thoroughness, efficiency, and validity valid in HCI practice? HOT Topics, May.

Lindgaard, G., (2003). Cost-benefit analysis: What can HCI contribute? HOT Topics, February.

Lindgaard, G. (2003). Deconstructing silos: Costs and benefits of HCI, CIPS Annual Conference, Regina, Alt.

Lindgaard, G. (2002). The state of HCI research in Canada, Cascon IBM Conference, Toronto

Lindgaard, G. (2002). Some thoughts on surveillance, technology and the invasion of privacy, HOT Topics, July.

Lindgaard, G. (2002). CIPS (Canadian Information Processing Society), HCI and software engineering: Uncomfortable bedfellows? CIPT Annual Conference, Ottawa.

Narasimhan, S. & Lindgaard, G. (2002). Strategic User Needs Analysis Based on User Roles, MICON annual Mitel Conference, August

Lindgaard, G. (2001). Feature bundling in wireless technologies: Introducing Strategic User Needs Analysis (SUNA), Micon annual Mitel Conference, August

Lindgaard, G. (2002). User satisfaction. What? How? Cascon IBM Conference, Toronto

Lindgaard, G. (2001). Learning together in cyberworld, Innovation, Technology, Teaching Conference, Seneca College, York University, June

Lindgaard, G. (2001). Automating an advanced manufacturing plant: How the experts got it wrong, Materials & Manufacturing Ontario (MMO) HCI tutorial, May

Lindgaard, G. (2000). Designing communication services for people: Making sense between the lines, Micon 2000 Workshop, August

Lindgaard, G. (2000), What the user’s eye tells the user’s brain, CITO Tech Talk, Toronto, Canada

Lindgaard, G. Leung, Y. & Fabre, J. (2000). On sharing resources and donating books: What are we doing wrong? Is this the bull-in-a-china-shop syndrome?, SIGCHI Bulletin, 21-23.

Lindgaard, G. (1992). Exploring HCI into the'90s: CIRSIG Australia 1990 Conference Report, SIGCHI Bulletin, 24 (1), 50-55.

Lindgaard, G. (1989). Pioneering HCI down under: A mixture of perseverance and fun, invited article, SIGCHI Bulletin, 21, (4), April, 65-70.

Top of page

RESEARCH INTERESTS

· Modeling the Business Value of HCI

My attention was drawn to the business value of HCI when I was trying to convince the top management in my former employer, a national telecommunications carrier, that one of our mission-critical systems urgently needed a complete revamp. A colleague, Ian Milburn, and I had performed a thorough ergonomic review of the system from the point of view of its customer services operators, the main primary users. None of our findings that we thought provided ample evidence supporting the need for the redesign that we so much wanted to initiate impressed management. So, for example, a staff turnover rate of 120% in three months (for a job that takes six months for anyone to come up to full speed), several suicide attempts, nervous breakdowns, and long-term stress leave among the operators failed to evoke any action or even serious interest. Showing management the unnecessary complexity of the screens and transactions, and the negative impact of this on operator-customer interactions as well as on the damage to the organisation’s image brought tears to their eyes with laughter, but they still did not take ownership of the problems. Finally, in my sheer frustration at our inability to get the point across, I re-calculated the data Ian and I had carefully collected over a nine-month period into dollars, simply converting much of the data into costs to the organisation. End result: this system alone cost us $30 million per year in straight costs, which naturally were completely supported by our data. The figure did not include any of the occasional losses due to absenteeism and long–term health care of sick operators, huge as they were at the time, but only those costs incurred directly by inefficiencies in the system as a whole. The instant effect that this dollar value had completely knocked me back. Our CEO was horrified, and his horror translated into immediate action!

One question lingering on in my mind is - how could it have taken me eight years to realise that I must practise what I preach: speak the users’ language! Top managers are only interested in data to the extent that these substantiate your bold claims and plans for remedy. These users’ language is ‘dollars made or dollars saved’. In a service industry, dollars are based on some aspect of time, so presto! In a Government Department or a not-for-profit organisation, the motivator may be expressed as ‘leaving staff time to pursue more interesting, rewarding, and constructive tasks instead of spending their entire working day dealing with trivia. Some of this repetitive trivia can either be automated or turned around so as to empower clients to obtain the information they need or the service they require elsewhere, for example, on the web site.

The field has moved on since the book, “Cost-justifying usability”, edited by Bias and Mayhew was published in 1994. At that time, our main concern was to justify the cost of performing usability tests in terms of the predicted benefits of identifying usability problems early in the development process. One major problem with such calculations is that they yield only one of four possible outcomes: fixing problems that have been identified (hits). Problems found but not fixed are ignored (type II errors), as is the cost of fixing problems that would have turned out not to be problematic (type I errors), and the sheer failure of finding problems that remain unfixed (misses). Another problem is that the seriousness rather than the number of usability problems determine the level of usability in a system.

Our research now concentrates on identifying weaknesses through actual case studies and modeling a variety of situations in which HCI can add value to a business or any other type of organisation.

Relevant publications:

Lindgaard, G. & Millard, N. (2002). The business value of HCI: How can we do better?, Proceedings 20^th. Conference on Human Factors in computing systems, CHI’02, 928-929.

Lindgaard, G. (1996). Slicing elephants: successful implementation of a human factors programme, Proceedings APCHI '96 (Asia Pacific Computer Human Interaction Conference), Singapore, June 1996.

Lindgaard, G. (1995). Cementing human factors into product design: Moving beyond policies, Proc. 15th. International Symposium on Human Factors in Telecommunications, Melbourne, 361-371.

Lindgaard, G. (1991). Adapting your tools to fit the task: The HCI business case. Proceedings Ergonomics Society of Australia 27th. Annual Conference, Coolum, Queensland, 1-4 December

Moore, S. (2002). The business value of mining support call data, unpublished Honours Thesis, Human Oriented Technology Lab (HOTLab), Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada.

Top of page

· Human judgment and decision making

How do experts put together data from different sources to arrive at a diagnosis, a prediction, or any other type of judgment? We like to believe that our decisions are based on a careful analysis and rational weighting of multiple cues culminating in a very objective and considered decision. We also believe that the more data at our fingertips, the better, more informed our decisions will be. That perception may be true, but much of the evidence presented in the human judgment and decision making literature suggests that we are often swayed by emotion, systematic judgmental biases, primacy or recency effects. That is, the notion of ‘rational [hu]man’ may be an exaggeration or even wrong. When judges compete against decision models based on large samples of their own expert judgments, their models have been found to outperform the judges themselves, suggesting that at least some judgments may be represented by these simple linear models. Yet, expert systems have not yet taken over the world, as the founders of Artificial Intelligence believed they would some fifty years ago. So-called ‘knowledge elicitation’ tools still have a hard time pinning down what experts do, which cues they use, and we are at a loss when seeking to define ‘expertise’. So, what is it that humans do when weighing up evidence, when combining data, attending to some and ignoring other items, in their head? When is it/is it not advisable to replace or substitute human experts with decision models? When and how should humans and models work together, in parallel, or asynchronously? What are the aspects of judgments and decision processes that could fruitfully be modeled, and where do models fall down?

In this part of my research, my students and I aim to understand how prognostic and diagnostic decisions are made. This applied research focuses on medicine and business decisions where data that differ in level of diagnosticity are typically available from several sources.

Relevant publications:

Lindgaard, G. (1995). Human Performance in fault diagnosis: Can expert systems help, Interacting with Computers, 7 (3), 254-272, (selected papers from the 1994 OZCI-H conference). Also in (1994).

Proceedings OZCHI94, Melbourne, 28 Nov. - 1 Dec.

Lindgaard, G. (1985). Weighting of individuating information elements and base rate in a nursing decisionmaking task involving non-diagnostic case information", Masters Thesis, Department of Psychology Monash University, Clayton

Lindgaard, G., & Triggs, T. (1984). The use of diagnostic information by nurses in different symptomcontexts, 11, Proceedings 11^th Experimental Psychology Conference, Deakin University, Geelong, Victoria.

Top of page

· HCI in the design process

The human judgment and decision making literature provides ample evidence of a wide-spread human tendency of jumping to conclusions when faced with uncertainty and a complex problem such as diagnosing faults or predicting future performance or situations. Rather than spending much of the problem solving time to formulate, re-formulate, and understand the problem, we tend to spend the bulk of this time massaging a pre-conceived solution into fitting the problem. Consequently, and not surprisingly, ‘solutions’ are often suboptimal at best, and totally unworkable at worst, requiring us to go back to the beginning. I suspect that this same tendency is to blame for the observation that 80% of software problems become apparent only after the software has been released, and that of this, 80% are due to a poorly performed, or a non-existent User Needs Analysis. However, user interface design and development are based on human decisions throughout, so our research focuses on several aspects of this process that we believe are crucial for improving the design process.

My current interests cover several aspects of the design process:

Task analysis and task context

User interface design

Elements of pleasure, user satisfaction and usability

Task analysis and task context

Task Analysis is central to the contributions HCI can make to Requirements Engineering. Several task analysis methods have been proposed in the Human Factors, Software Engineering and HCI literature, but there is no agreement on how to proceed, what exactly task analysis should cover and deliver. Nor is it clear what additional context information should accompany task analyses, or how analysis outcomes should be presented to maximize their utility. There is no empirical evidence to assist the user interface designer selecting from the wide array of task analysis methods. The methods range from a focus on goals and plans as in Hierarchical Task Analysis, sequential task steps, definition of user roles, Use Case Maps (UCM), the roles design team members play in design, or task activity diagrams as in Unified Modeling Language (UML). The relative resource requirements associated with applying each are unclear. One major weakness of all task analysis methods is that they describe tasks as these are currently performed. There are no methods supporting the creative leap from mapping current tasks to projecting future tasks.

Tasks cannot be considered in isolation but must also include the context in which tasks are performed. Techniques designed to provide a more complete picture of task contexts include stakeholder- and usability context analyses, desktop analyses, work models/cultural models, representation of different design views, and Activity Theory. Each of these has its own merits, but it is unclear which technique best fits a given design situation, or whether new approaches are called for. Since the tasks analyzed usually comprise only a subset of tasks to be supported by a system, it is unlikely that they represent all the user interface features. It is therefore easy for a project team to overlook features, especially when task scenarios based on task analyses are the primary guides to interface design.

With respect to obtaining and applying information about user tasks and task contexts, interface design teams face three major problems. They must (1) select the most appropriate TA method, (2) find viable and cost-effective techniques to understand the context in which tasks will be performed, and (3) design user interfaces to meet future tasks abstracted from current tasks. My students and I want to understand how each of these decisions is made and how we might be able to provide tools to support these decision processes.

Recent publications:

Lindgaard, G., Bauer, B. & Ozkan, N. (2002). User requirements for innovations in mobile technologies ), to appear in Proceedings 17^th. IFIP (International Federation for Information Processing) World Computer Congress, Montreal, August 25-30.

Narasimhan, S. & Lindgaard, G. (2002). The importance of User Roles in feature bundling decisions in wireless handheld devices: Strategic User Needs Analysis (SUNA), to appear in Proceedings 17^th. IFIP (International Federation for Information Processing) World Computer Congress, Montreal, August 25-30.

Lindgaard, G. & Narasimhan, S. (2001). Feature bundling in wireless technologies: Introducing Strategic User Needs Analysis (SUNA), Micon 2001 Workshop, August

Narasimhan, S. (2001). A User Needs Assessment for personal digital assistants, unpublished Honours Thesis, Human Oriented Technology Lab (HOTLab), Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada

Top of page

User interface design

Software Engineering texts appear to assume that project teams contrast and compare many possible design solutions before deciding on one. However, observations of development projects are beginning to show that project teams decide on one solution very quickly without considering others. This tendency to jump to conclusions, or to ‘satisfice’, is just as we would expect from studying other areas of expertise reported in the human judgment and decision making literature. Even specialists tend to look for ‘good enough’ evidence rather than for optimal evidence. One tricky issue is thus to assess when the reluctance to produce multiple possible solutions may be attributed to inadequate exploration of the problem space and when it may be an expression of creative problem solving. My interest in user interface design is to learn how we can help a design team understand the design space well enough to explore design possibilities and make enlightened decisions rather than jump to immediate design decisions without understanding the design space, limitation and possibilities.

The creative leap that changes requirements into design has not been elucidated yet, but it is a point at which software problems are often introduced. Understanding this creative leap is central to my interest in this research. Another issue concerns the way design decisions are negotiated and made. For example, how is expertise from different disciplines weighted and applied? What combination of skills leads to the best design results? What size project team is optimal for designing different types of user interfaces? Will a large design team deliver more usable, elegant and well-considered results faster if it is divided into smaller groups during design? If it is divided into smaller groups, should these all design the same part of the user interface and then compare and evaluate all designs in plenary sessions? Or should they design different parts and then assemble the pieces at the end of the design process? Are facilitated Participatory Design (PD) sessions likely to result in better design decisions than sessions without facilitation? What support is needed to maximize output in terms of interface production speed and resulting interface quality? Together with my team of colleagues and students I aim to develop tools supporting interface decision processes and guidelines for interface design team size, composition, and for deciding when to adopt a PD approach.

Recent publications:

Seeking, D. (2001), Learning what goes on behind closed doors: An investigation of communication patterns and nonverbal communication in group design projects, unpublished Honours Thesis, Human Oriented Technology Lab (HOTLab), Department of Psychology, Carleton University, Ottawa, Canada

Top of page

Elements of pleasure, user satisfaction, and usability

HCI researchers and practitioners have traditionally turned their attention to finding ways to improve user effectiveness and efficiency, forgetting that ‘user satisfaction’ is one important element of usability. In a work environment in which computer use is mandatory, one may expect judgments of ‘satisfaction’ to be based on the degree to which the system enhances productivity. But what drives people to spend many hours playing around on the Internet, visiting news groups, gambling, or gift shopping in their leisure time? Presumably, the ‘satisfaction’ criterion is not the same in the two contexts? And how does ‘satisfaction’ relate to usability? How are actual and perceived usability related, and where does satisfaction fit into this equation? Some authors claim that what is beautiful is [perceived to be] usable, but results in my lab suggest that this relationship is much more complex. Indeed, our findings suggest that ‘satisfaction’ is a multi-dimensional construct that comprises several elements including aesthetics, expectations, emotion, and likeability as well as usability. People seem to be taken in by a very pretty web site, for example, but they are not thereby misled to believe that beauty makes up for poor usability.

Why bother with these concepts, their origin, components, and the relationships between different concepts? Well, we know that the first impression is very powerful and that it is physiological and emotion-based. What I see, hear, taste, smell, or touch first is judged by what my body tells me to feel rather than what my brain tells me to think. The immediacy with which I decide whether I like or dislike the stimulus and the effect it has on my body is compelling – every time. We also know from the judgment and decision making literature, from attribution theory, and social psychology, that negative first impressions, once formed, take more work to change than impressions that start off as positive or even neutral. In an e-commerce context, this means that users will click onto the next site if they do not like what first hits their eyes, ears, or both. But even in a highly complex safety-critical situation, I believe that a system that ‘feels right’ and does not ‘grate’ on one or more sensory systems, will free up some of the human operator’s internal resources to concentrate on the cognitive aspects of the task at hand. By contrast, a system that in some, possibly intangible, way ‘irritates’ the operator, will force her to spend scarce resources dealing with this irritation.

This part of my research therefore concentrates on trying to disentangle the complex relationships between usability, perceived and actual, user satisfaction, and trust. I want to understand what features impact on all of these, and how these should be blended to yield a pleasant interactive experience.

Recent publications:

Lindgaard, G. & Dudek, C. (2002). What is this evasive beast we call user satisfaction?, Interacting with Computers, in press.

Lindgaard, G. & Dudek, C. (2002). High appeal versus high usability: Implications for user satisfaction, submitted to HF2002 Human Factors Conference, Melbourne, Australia, November 25-27.

Lindgaard, G. & Dudek, C. (2002). User satisfaction, aesthetics and usability: Beyond reductionism, to appear in Proceedings 17^th. IFIP (International Federation for Information Processing) World Computer Congress, Montreal, August 25-30.

Dudek, C. & Lindgaard, G. (2002). Measuring user satisfaction on the web: stories people tell, to appear in Proceedings Design and Emotion 2002, Loughborough, UK.

Lindgaard, G. & Whitfield, A. (2001). Integrating aesthetics within an evolutionary and psychological framework, invited paper submitted to Theoretical Issues in Ergonomics Science

Lindgaard, G. (1999). Does emotional appeal determine the usability of web sites, CYBERG ’99, Western Australia.

Top of page