Software Engineering And Human Computer Interaction

Activity theory is a way of describing and characterizing the structure of human - tivity of all kinds. First introduced by Russian psychologists Rubinshtein, Leontiev, and Vigotsky in the early part of the last century, activity theory has more recently gained increasing attention among interaction designers and others in the hum- computer interaction and usability communities (see, for example, Gay and H- brooke, 2004). Interest was given a signi?cant boost when Donald Norman suggested activity-theory and activity-centered design as antidotes to some of the putative ills of “human-centered design” (Norman, 2005). Norman, who has been credited with coining the phrase “user-centered design,” suggested that too much attention focused on human users may be harmful, that to design better tools designers need to focus not so much on users as on the activities in which users are engaged and the tasks they seek to perform within those activities. Although many researchers and practitioners claim to have used or been in?uenced by activity theory in their work (see, for example, Nardi, 1996), it is often dif?cult to trace precisely where or how the results have actually been shaped by activity theory. Inmanycases, evendetailedcasestudiesreportresultsthatseemonlydistantlyrelated, if at all, to the use of activity theory. Contributing to the lack of precise and traceable impact is that activity theory, - spite its name, is not truly a formal and proper theory.

Human-CenteredSoftwareEngineering: BridgingHCI,UsabilityandSoftwareEngineering From its beginning in the 1980’s, the ?eld of human-computer interaction (HCI) has beende?nedasamultidisciplinaryarena. BythisImeanthattherehas beenanexplicit recognition that distinct skills and perspectives are required to make the whole effort of designing usable computer systems work well. Thus people with backgrounds in Computer Science (CS) and Software Engineering (SE) joined with people with ba- grounds in various behavioral science disciplines (e. g. , cognitive and social psych- ogy, anthropology)inaneffortwhereallperspectiveswereseenasessentialtocreating usable systems. But while the ?eld of HCI brings individuals with many background disciplines together to discuss a common goal - the development of useful, usable, satisfying systems - the form of the collaboration remains unclear. Are we striving to coordinate the varied activities in system development, or are we seeking a richer collaborative framework? In coordination, Usability and SE skills can remain quite distinct and while the activities of each group might be critical to the success of a project, we need only insure that critical results are provided at appropriate points in the development cycle. Communication by one group to the other during an activity might be seen as only minimally necessary. In collaboration, there is a sense that each group can learn something about its own methods and processes through a close pa- nership with the other. Communication during the process of gathering information from target users of a system by usability professionals would not be seen as so- thing that gets in the way of the essential work of software engineering professionals.

The papers collected here are those selected for presentation at the Eighth IFIP Conference on Engineering for Human-Computer Interaction (EHCI 2001) held in Toronto, Canada in May 2001. The conference is organized by the International Federation of Information Processing (IFIP) Working Group 2.7 (13.4) for Interface User Engineering, Rick Kazman being the conference chair, Nicholas Graham and Philippe Palanque being the chairs of the program committee. The conference was co-located with ICSE 2001 and co-sponsored by ACM. The aim of the IFIP working group is to investigate the nature, concepts, and construction of user interfaces for software systems. The group's scope is: • to develop user interfaces based on knowledge of system and user behavior; • to develop frameworks for reasoning about interactive systems; and • to develop engineering models for user interfaces. Every three years, the working group holds a working conference. The Seventh one was held September 14-18 1998 in Heraklion, Greece. This year, we innovated by organizing a regular conference held over three days.

This volume presents the thoroughly revised proceedings of the ICSE '94 Workshop on Joint Research Issues in Software Engineering and Human-Computer Interaction, held in Sorrento, Italy in May 1994. In harmony with the main objectives of the Workshop, this book essentially contributes to establishing a sound common platform for exchange and cooperation among researchers and design professionals from the SE and HCI communities. The book includes survey papers by leading experts as well as focused submitted papers. Among the topics covered are design, processes, user interface technology and SE environments, platform independence, prototyping, interactive behaviour, CSCW, and others.

How recent research in cognitive science offers new ways to understand the interaction of people and computers and develops a new literacy for well-informed, sensitive software design. The evolution of the concept of mind in cognitive science over the past 25 years creates new ways to think about the interaction of people and computers. New ideas about embodiment, metaphor as a fundamental cognitive process, and conceptual integration--a blending of older concepts that gives rise to new, emergent properties--have become increasingly important in software engineering (SE) and human-computer interaction (HCI). If once computing was based on algorithms, mathematical theories, and formal notations, now the use of stories, metaphors, and blends can contribute to well-informed, sensitive software design. In Designing with Blends, Manuel Imaz and David Benyon show how these new metaphors and concepts of mind allow us to discover new aspects of HCI-SE. After 60 years, digital technology has come of age, but software design has not kept pace with technological sophistication; people struggle to understand and use their computers, cameras, phones, and other devices. Imaz and Benyon argue that the dominance of digital media in our lives demands changes in HCI-SE based on advances in cognitive science. The idea of embodied cognition, they contend, can change the way we approach design by emphasizing the figurative nature of interaction. Imaz and Benyon offer both theoretical grounding and practical examples that illustrate the advantages of applying cognitive concepts to software design. A new view of cognition, they argue, will develop a cognitive literacy in software and interaction design that helps designers understand the opportunities of digital technology and provides people with a more satisfying interactive experience.

Activity theory is a way of describing and characterizing the structure of human - tivity of all kinds. First introduced by Russian psychologists Rubinshtein, Leontiev, and Vigotsky in the early part of the last century, activity theory has more recently gained increasing attention among interaction designers and others in the hum- computer interaction and usability communities (see, for example, Gay and H- brooke, 2004). Interest was given a signi?cant boost when Donald Norman suggested activity-theory and activity-centered design as antidotes to some of the putative ills of “human-centered design” (Norman, 2005). Norman, who has been credited with coining the phrase “user-centered design,” suggested that too much attention focused on human users may be harmful, that to design better tools designers need to focus not so much on users as on the activities in which users are engaged and the tasks they seek to perform within those activities. Although many researchers and practitioners claim to have used or been in?uenced by activity theory in their work (see, for example, Nardi, 1996), it is often dif?cult to trace precisely where or how the results have actually been shaped by activity theory. Inmanycases, evendetailedcasestudiesreportresultsthatseemonlydistantlyrelated, if at all, to the use of activity theory. Contributing to the lack of precise and traceable impact is that activity theory, - spite its name, is not truly a formal and proper theory.

As its name suggests, the EHCI-DSVIS conference has been a special event, merging two different, although overlapping, research communities: EHCI (Engineering for Human-Computer Interaction) is a conference organized by the IFIP 2.7/13.4 working group, started in 1974 and held every three years since 1989. The group’s activity is the scientific investigation of the relationships among the human factors in computing and software engineering. DSVIS (Design, Specification and Verification of Interactive Systems) is an annual conference started in 1994, and dedicated to the use of formal methods for the design of interactive systems. Of course these two research domains have a lot in common, and are informed by each other’s results. The year 2004 was a good opportunity to bring closer these two research communities for an event, the 11th edition of DSVIS and the 9th edition of EHCI. EHCI-DSVIS was set up as a working conference bringing together researchers and practitioners interested in strengthening the scientific foundations of user interface design, specification and verification, and in examining the relationships between software engineering and human-computer interaction. The call for papers attracted a lot of attention, and we received a record number of submissions: out of the 65 submissions, 23 full papers were accepted, which gives an acceptance rate of approximately 34%. Three short papers were also included. The contributions were categorized in 8 chapters: Chapter 1 (Usability and Software Architecture) contains three contributions which advance the state of the art in usability approaches for modern software engineering.

"This book explores the implementation of organizational and end user computing initiatives and provides foundational research to further the understanding of this discipline and its related fields"--Provided by publisher.